how bad was basketball back in the 60s??

[Nowitness]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=102&v=_yrZLMLo5PQ

he was one of the best players of the era and he can barely dribble without looking at the floor :biggums:

he runs the court in an 8.5 and defenders cant even keep up with him :biggums:

[aj1987]

One thing I'll tell you about West, the guy could shoot. I really don't respect the '60's players much, but West arguably has the GOAT IQ and shooting touch.

[CavaliersFTW]

You try to shit on the 60's and proceed to show Jerry West? Holy shit you're delusional. Jerry West is a top 3 shooting guard EVER and I don't mean in resume I mean in ability to play the game. MJ, Kobe, West. And at their peaks?, that's in no particular order.

This thread is embarrassing.

[Bless Mathews]

You try to shit on the 60's and proceed to show Jerry West? Holy shit you're delusional. Jerry West is a top 3 shooting guard EVER and I don't mean in resume I mean in ability to play the game. MJ, Kobe, West. And at their peaks?, that's in no particular order.

This thread is embarrassing.


You are a clown.

Straight up.

You've poasted some whoppers on here, but that one takes the cake.

Jerry west couldn't make today's elite high school teams.

[CavaliersFTW]

You are a clown.

Straight up.

You've poasted some whoppers on here, but that one takes the cake.

Jerry west couldn't make today's elite high school teams.
No shit, he's 77 years old.

[TripleA]

You are a clown.

Straight up.

You've poasted some whoppers on here, but that one takes the cake.

Jerry west couldn't make today's elite high school teams.

How can you actually say that this guy averaged 20 points per game in 73-74.
Larry bird's and Magic's rookie season was 79-80. A lot can change in 6 years right. :hammerhead:

[Duffy Pratt]

Ball handling completely changed when they stopped calling carries. Dribbling without carrying is completely different, and more difficult, than what people get away with today.

As for speed, one of those slowpokes you say couldn't defend was a track star who ran the 400m in 49.6 seconds and did the high jump. He would probably be the fastest big man in the league today. Another of those slowpokes was a three sport athlete who had been drafted by the Cleveland Browns as a wide receiver. And if you really think the athletes are so much faster now, then perhaps you can explain why they run so much less, and the game has slowed down so much. If anything, players in earlier eras were more built for speed, and the game has focused more and more over time on raw strength instead.

[Bless Mathews]

How can you actually say that this guy averaged 20 points per game in 73-74.
Larry bird's and Magic's rookie season was 79-80. A lot can change in 6 years right. :hammerhead:


Hell yea it can.

Athletic niggahs replaced salesman more and more.

[Papaya Petee]

You try to shit on the 60's and proceed to show Jerry West? Holy shit you're delusional. Jerry West is a top 3 shooting guard EVER and I don't mean in resume I mean in ability to play the game. MJ, Kobe, West. And at their peaks?, that's in no particular order.

This thread is embarrassing.
Lol in ability to play the game MJ Kobe and Wade would make West quit halfway through the game.

[Gileraracer]

60s was weak as ****. See Wilt. He could do whatever he want.

[Marchesk]

Jerry West shot 47.4% in a fast paced era.

This era:

Kobe: 45.1%
Melo: 45.5%
Westbrook: 43.2%
Harden: 44.4%
Curry: 47.1%

Jerry West's last season in 73/74 at age 35, averaged 2.6 steals and 0.7 blocks.

Jordan at 34:
1.5 steals, 0.5 blocks

Wade at 33:
1.2 steals, 0.3 blocks

Kobe at 35:
1.3 steals, 0.2 blocks

Lebron at 30:
1.6 steals, 0.7 blocks

West in 9 finals: 30.5 ppg

Other than Jordan, name another player who averaged 30+ over multiple finals.

GTFO

[SouBeachTalents]

Jerry West shot 47.4% in a fast paced era.

This era:

Kobe: 45.1%
Melo: 45.5%
Westbrook: 43.2%
Harden: 44.4%
Curry: 47.1%

Jerry West's last season in 73/74 at age 35, averaged 2.6 steals and 0.7 blocks.

Jordan at 34:
1.5 steals, 0.5 blocks

Wade at 33:
1.2 steals, 0.3 blocks

Kobe at 35:
1.3 steals, 0.2 blocks

Lebron at 30:
1.6 steals, 0.7 blocks

West in 9 finals: 30.5 ppg

Other than Jordan, name another player who averaged 30+ over multiple finals.

GTFO

Shaq? Although it wouldn't surprise me if his '06 output dropped his Finals average below 30

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

You try to shit on the 60's and proceed to show Jerry West? Holy shit you're delusional. Jerry West is a top 3 shooting guard EVER and I don't mean in resume I mean in ability to play the game. MJ, Kobe, West. And at their peaks?, that's in no particular order.

This thread is embarrassing.

In terms of peaks, wade has a shout. (Though I rank his peak very close to lobes, arguably higher on certain days).

[Marchesk]

Shaq? Although it wouldn't surprise me if his '06 output dropped his Finals average below 30

Yeah, Shaq. We can count him. Was on the way down in 06. Five strong finals before then should be good enough.

[Naero]

One thing I'll tell you about West, the guy could shoot. I really don't respect the '60's players much, but West arguably has the GOAT IQ and shooting touch.

He had long-range prowess from what highlights I've seen from him

[Naero]

Jerry west couldn't make today's elite high school teams.

Funny how people are hasty to downplay his potential in today's game without even trying to contextualize how well he would've modernized himself in today's culture.

He played during an era where basketball wasn't even popularized during his childhood, and it therefore took a while for it to be embraced as popularly as Baseball (at the time). He was playing while the entire basketball culture was raw and under-evolved, and the same players of today would likely be subjected to the same shortcomings of that era that are denigrated by today's fans.

If he grew up as contemporaries to modern-era players, he'd have acclimated himself to more advanced training methods, techniques, methodology and nutrients; as such, he'd be more skilled, in better athletically shape, and he would manage to make use of his high-IQ headwork in today's culture too.

How would he have played today? Only speculation can paint the picture on that; but as it pertains to past players, you can only logically appraise them on how well they managed to transcend their own era, and historians respect it regardless of how they'd supposedly fare today.

Based on my eye-test of his basketball IQ and range, I'd imagine a modernized Jerry West would be akin to Steve Nash of today

[dhsilv]

[QUOTE=Naero]He had long-range prowess from what highlights I've seen from him

[iamgine]

Jerry West shot 47.4% in a fast paced era.

This era:

Kobe: 45.1%
Melo: 45.5%
Westbrook: 43.2%
Harden: 44.4%
Curry: 47.1%

Jerry West's last season in 73/74 at age 35, averaged 2.6 steals and 0.7 blocks.

Jordan at 34:
1.5 steals, 0.5 blocks

Wade at 33:
1.2 steals, 0.3 blocks

Kobe at 35:
1.3 steals, 0.2 blocks

Lebron at 30:
1.6 steals, 0.7 blocks

West in 9 finals: 30.5 ppg

Other than Jordan, name another player who averaged 30+ over multiple finals.

GTFO
One could argue that the only reason he got 47.4% (other than he was indeed a sharp shooter) was because defense was bad relative to today. Surely even Mo Williams would average godly numbers if he plays against college level defenses.

[aj1987]

Jerry West shot 47.4% in a fast paced era.

This era:

Kobe: 45.1%
Melo: 45.5%
Westbrook: 43.2%
Harden: 44.4%
Curry: 47.1%

Jerry West's last season in 73/74 at age 35, averaged 2.6 steals and 0.7 blocks.

Jordan at 34:
1.5 steals, 0.5 blocks

Wade at 33:
1.2 steals, 0.3 blocks

Kobe at 35:
1.3 steals, 0.2 blocks

Lebron at 30:
1.6 steals, 0.7 blocks

West in 9 finals: 30.5 ppg

Other than Jordan, name another player who averaged 30+ over multiple finals.

GTFO
Wizards MJ would've averaged 30/7/8 on 50%+ in that era and Achillesbe would average 27/5/5 on 50%+

[dhsilv]

One could argue that the only reason he got 47.4% (other than he was indeed a sharp shooter) was because defense was bad relative to today. Surely even Mo Williams would average godly numbers if he plays against college level defenses.

The league shot terribly so he was even better above the average guy. Now I'd argue it's because after about 15-20 guys most would struggle to make a D1 roster today, but still it's an impressive shooting percentage.

Now...they play defense in college! 60's NBA....I'm not sure they'd even heard of the term yet. Hell the nba barely understood it in the 80's, but the 60's it was a joke. Defense was what happened when you got tired shooting uncontested jumpers.

[bizil]

I know one thing... Big O, West, Wilt, Baylor, Russ, and Big O would be GREAT PLAYERS in ANY ERA! If anything, they were so ahead of their time that it TAKES players from later eras to measure up. Things are supposed to evolve and get better as time goes on. BUT that doesn't mean the best from the earlier eras wouldn't be great players.

[BoutPractice]

It was bad enough that John Havlicek made it all the way from 1962 to 1978 without suffering any suspect drop in production.

Now, John Havlicek is an all-time great. But he wasn't considered the greatest player in the world in the 1960s, far from it - Wilt, Russell, Oscar, West, Baylor were all ahead of him.

There was nothing overly flashy about his game either. He's not out there dribbling between his legs or posterizing defenders - just playing great all-around basketball. If you went by videos alone, ignorant fans could easily say that someone like Havlicek could only make a team in the 1960s.

Yet we know for a fact that his game did translate, and that he was still very solid as late as 1978, averaging 16, 4 and 4 despite being 37 with a ton of mileage.

By 1978 the ABA and NBA had both separated and merged. Julius Erving, Moses Malone, David Thompson, George Gervin, George McGinnis, Adrian Dantley, Bernard King, were all in the league. Larry would get drafted that summer, Magic the next one. The three point shot was soon to be added. Yet old Hondo sure looked like he still belonged... In fact I just found out he even made the all-star game that year! (though as an injury replacement)

What Havlicek had was physical longevity. What he didn't have was some kind of superpower that made his game so different from his peers that it translated better to "modern" basketball.

[Marchesk]

Yet we know for a fact that his game did translate, and that he was still very solid as late as 1978, averaging 16, 4 and 4 despite being 37 with a ton of mileage.

Didn't you know that the modern era began the year Magic was drafted? That's why guys like Kareem, Dr J and Moses all saw big dropoffs starting that season, and didn't even sniff an MVP in the early 80s.

:coleman: :whatever: :kobe:

[BoutPractice]

What's so funny about all this is, I can't even begin to imagine what people would say about Larry Bird had he played in the 1960s.

He's just lucky enough to have played in full colour against Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen...

Same goes for Tim Duncan today. Put him in the 1960s, and you can bet today's fans would call him a stiff who wouldn't stand a chance against the likes of DeAndre Jordan...

A lot of opinions about eras are based on perception more than anything else.
But there is a lot, and I mean a lot, of actual evidence that good players don't suddenly become terrible because we've entered some arbitrary new "era".

By the way, there's a YouTube video of Havlicek's very last game (29, 8 and 4 statline... the actual game starts around the 6 min mark):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vekb4RhplI

[MiseryCityTexas]

One thing I'll tell you about West, the guy could shoot. I really don't respect the '60's players much, but West arguably has the GOAT IQ and shooting touch.

West had sick handles like a black dude though and could score over much bigger defenders. You guys in this thread are a bunch of idiots.

[MiseryCityTexas]

It was bad enough that John Havlicek made it all the way from 1962 to 1978 without suffering any suspect drop in production.

Now, John Havlicek is an all-time great. But he wasn't considered the greatest player in the world in the 1960s, far from it - Wilt, Russell, Oscar, West, Baylor were all ahead of him.

There was nothing overly flashy about his game either. He's not out there dribbling between his legs or posterizing defenders - just playing great all-around basketball. If you went by videos alone, ignorant fans could easily say that someone like Havlicek could only make a team in the 1960s.

Yet we know for a fact that his game did translate, and that he was still very solid as late as 1978, averaging 16, 4 and 4 despite being 37 with a ton of mileage.


By 1978 the ABA and NBA had both separated and merged. Julius Erving, Moses Malone, David Thompson, George Gervin, George McGinnis, Adrian Dantley, Bernard King, were all in the league. Larry would get drafted that summer, Magic the next one. The three point shot was soon to be added. Yet old Hondo sure looked like he still belonged... In fact I just found out he even made the all-star game that year! (though as an injury replacement)

What Havlicek had was physical longevity. What he didn't have was some kind of superpower that made his game so different from his peers that it translated better to "modern" basketball.

John Havlicek used to knock down reverse layups regulary in the early to mid 60s.

[BoutPractice]

Yeah, but it's not the sort of thing that gets contemporary fans excited. They want to see streetball moves... that's how they determine how good someone would be in the NBA, it seems (even though, ironically, most streetball players don't make the league because they're not good enough playing competitive basketball, which should normally be a clue).

At some point it's like arguing with those who think that 9/11 didn't happen, or that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim... no matter how strong your arguments, no matter how strong your evidence, you won't make them change their minds.

[Psileas]

Yeah, but it's not the sort of thing that gets contemporary fans excited. They want to see streetball moves... that's how they determine how good someone would be in the NBA, it seems (even though, ironically, most streetball players don't make the league because they're not good enough playing competitive basketball, which should normally be a clue).

At some point it's like arguing with those who think that 9/11 didn't happen, or that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim... no matter how strong your arguments, no matter how strong your evidence, you won't make them change their minds.

People like the op are like Flat Earthers to be honest.

To answer the question (not that it matters, people's with the op's puny mental level questions should be viewed as rhetorical), the 60's were "bad" enough to lead to an explosion of the popularity of the NBA, instead of a collapse, despite the media not being anywhere near as versatile as in later decades (no internet, no ESPN, etc) and "bad" enough to have had star players of that era be idolized by players that this troll probably idolizes.

[90sgoat]

Hornacek put up 20ppg in the 90s on a rather similar game to West, except West was vastly superior.

West would put up prime Kobe numbers in this era, tailor made for his game with all the spacing. 28-6-6-3-1 kin of numbers and would in MVP contention every season.

Look at the man's shot, great technique, this is called the eye test you box score watchers. Everyone who has played can tell West would be amazing in any era.

[feyki]

60s was weak as ****. See Wilt. He could do whatever he want.

But he got 1 ring with 2 hof :D .

Wilt played 130 poss in a game and he is 50 points averaged per game. Kobe played 93 poss in a game and he is 35 points averaged per game . If Kobe played 130 poss , he is averaged 49 points per game.

Does Kobe whatever he want at 2006 ?

[sdot_thadon]

It's a struggle to properly place an era without some things being understood going in.

1. The 60's were a worse era in the evolutionary sense. Yeah guys dribbled far differently, it's because the rules were called way tighter and didn't allow the majority of the flash you see today.

2. Which brings us to point number 2, despite the rules being called so tightly the guys created a huge chunk of the moves we see today. (Im pretty sure cavsftw has plenty of that documented) There's a huge chasm between being the guy who created a move and being the one who studied it from said creator, directly or indirectly.

3. Defenses were less elaborate as today's, also an evolutionary deal.

4. Pace was much faster and was a completely different style of ball from almost every other era. Seems like every other decade the game recreates it self and new styles are ushered in or revived from a precious era.

That said I think the common player from the 60's was terrible in relation to today's game but I feel superstars are all close, regardless of era. The guys in the 60's maybe put up gaudy numbers because they were gods in relation to the average 60's player. Meanwhile in more recent eras guys stand out less and less because overall league quality has gone up with further popularity and evolution of the sport. Just my theory.

[brownmamba00]

I love the Logo but was he really better than say a prime DWade? I don't think so.

[tmacattack33]

The game was not at full capacity back then, literally. Blacks were not fully integrated into the league until the early 70's.

And I'm not black and don't really care about race on a day to day basis, but if a sports league lacks the race that does it best, then by definition it is not at its maximum level.

[Derka]

People who never watched 60s players shitting on 60s players because of YouTube highlights :facepalm

[feyki]

I love the Logo but was he really better than say a prime DWade? I don't think so.
Adjusted numbers (pace,efg%,trb%,ast%) ;

2006-2011 Wade(playoffs) - 32.5 pts , 5.7 rib , 5.8 ast


1964-1969 West ( playoffs) - 34.5 pts , 4 rib , 5.5 ast .

[CavaliersFTW]

It was bad enough that John Havlicek made it all the way from 1962 to 1978 without suffering any suspect drop in production.

Now, John Havlicek is an all-time great. But he wasn't considered the greatest player in the world in the 1960s, far from it - Wilt, Russell, Oscar, West, Baylor were all ahead of him.

There was nothing overly flashy about his game either. He's not out there dribbling between his legs or posterizing defenders - just playing great all-around basketball. If you went by videos alone, ignorant fans could easily say that someone like Havlicek could only make a team in the 1960s.

Yet we know for a fact that his game did translate, and that he was still very solid as late as 1978, averaging 16, 4 and 4 despite being 37 with a ton of mileage.

By 1978 the ABA and NBA had both separated and merged. Julius Erving, Moses Malone, David Thompson, George Gervin, George McGinnis, Adrian Dantley, Bernard King, were all in the league. Larry would get drafted that summer, Magic the next one. The three point shot was soon to be added. Yet old Hondo sure looked like he still belonged... In fact I just found out he even made the all-star game that year! (though as an injury replacement)

What Havlicek had was physical longevity. What he didn't have was some kind of superpower that made his game so different from his peers that it translated better to "modern" basketball.
Yep, John Havlicek played against Robert Parish. As did..
















...wait for it
























Kobe Bryant

[CavaliersFTW]

It's a struggle to properly place an era without some things being understood going in.

1. The 60's were a worse era in the evolutionary sense. Yeah guys dribbled far differently, it's because the rules were called way tighter and didn't allow the majority of the flash you see today.

2. Which brings us to point number 2, despite the rules being called so tightly the guys created a huge chunk of the moves we see today. (Im pretty sure cavsftw has plenty of that documented) There's a huge chasm between being the guy who created a move and being the one who studied it from said creator, directly or indirectly.

3. Defenses were less elaborate as today's, also an evolutionary deal.

4. Pace was much faster and was a completely different style of ball from almost every other era. Seems like every other decade the game recreates it self and new styles are ushered in or revived from a precious era.

That said I think the common player from the 60's was terrible in relation to today's game but I feel superstars are all close, regardless of era. The guys in the 60's maybe put up gaudy numbers because they were gods in relation to the average 60's player. Meanwhile in more recent eras guys stand out less and less because overall league quality has gone up with further popularity and evolution of the sport. Just my theory.
Who's clearly better Mathew Dellavedova or Howard Komives?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io8jN53qx7Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8KowkGMiBw

I don't see this difference in common players that you're speaking of.

[j3lademaster]

People who never watched 60s players shitting on 60s players because of YouTube highlights :facepalmthere are literally like 2 people here who've seen 60's players live....

[iamgine]

There are videos of 60's full games.

For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA8l1Jr7jwc

Finals game 6 so it represents the two best teams on a crucial game.


I don't know, it's clear to me it's at a lower level compared to today. I'm not saying the stars won't still be stars if they grew up today, just that the overall talent and level of basketball was lower.

[swagga]

There are videos of 60's full games.

For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA8l1Jr7jwc

Finals game 6 so it represents the two best teams on a crucial game.


I don't know, it's clear to me it's at a lower level compared to today. I'm not saying the stars won't still be stars if they grew up today, just that the overall talent and level of basketball was lower.

I see better defense at my ymca league. At least people put a hand up tbh.

fck cuckftl btw, just a white bill simmons tbh, hyping up shit just to get channel views :facepalm

[swagga]

also lol at the comments

I hate the myths of the early 60's. One of the biggest myths is the physical play and hard fouls and hard to get FT's ..... There is almost ZERO contact and the fouls were called twice as easily as today, and the league is rigged today! That's how easy the 60's fouls were called!

I lol everytime I watch this shit. Especially when people say Russell is GOAT or top 3 or whatever.

LOL there is a lot of skinny krackers in the nba in the 60s ????? this is a joke

Game back then was played exclusively bellow rim - only ones could play or star today were Russel-Baylor-West-Havlicek. The rest almost mirror women's game today, especially Cousy's little girly set shot. Apparently had no jump shot? Amazing how much things change in half-century!

These guys look like the 40 and over league at the YMCA.

some random dude rex waller REALLY taking a shit on wilt

There were only about 110 players in the NBA in 1963. I'm saying that, on average, 2 or 3 guys per team could still play in today's NBA. There is nothing disrespectful about that. But you want to elevate the 60s because you are a Wilt Chamberlain fan. You need the players in the 60s to be good because that makes Chamberlain look good. I actually liked Chamberlain as a person. To me he was just a big kid. I sort of felt an affinity toward him. I can't imagine what it feels like to be gawked and stared upon. But because he was looked upon as super-human, he appeared to try to live his life as though he was super-human. When he couldn't be super-human legitimately, he would create the illusion that he was. He challenged Muhammad Ali to a boxing matching, while knowing full well that Ali would eat him alive. When Ali excepted the challenge, Chamberlain quickly backed off, thus saving an embarrassment of the highest order. However, the seed had already been sown. He had talked a good game. He got ignorant people believing that he could beat Ali. The 20, 000 women was typical Wilt pumping his super-human personal. So, if Wilt started at the age of 15, from then up to the age of 55 (when the book was published) he would have had 40 years to sleep with 20,000 women, or 500 different women a year--easy math. That works out to roughly 1.4 women a day. When the truth is: Wilt was rarely seen in the company of women. So rare, that there have been rumblings that Wilt was gay. Google: Wilt Chamberlain gay, you will be surprise what pops up. The myth that Wilt was doubled and tripled teamed is a big one. This is one of Wilt's favorite lines. Every time he was interviewed, he would go on and on about how he was double and tripled teamed. He said it so much that most folks believed, including you, that he really was doubled and tripled teamed all the time. But go look at the videos. There is no effort be two or more players to restrict Chamberlain's movements. He was played heads-up by whichever center was guarding him. Of course, if he got in the lane and another defender was there, that defender would swipe at the ball, the same way they would do for any other offensive threat. But those aren't double-teams. What MJ experienced were double-teams. What Shaq, Magic, Barkley, Kareem, Durant and Lebron would sometimes experience, were double teams. Wilt went up against unsophisticated defense. Send me to a Youtube video where Wilt is trapped or double on the post. Now, Lets discuss Wilts fade-away (again). As a rookie, Wilt shot just 46%. That's an atrocious number for a guy of Wilt's height and athleticism. The reason why Wilt's FG% was so low, was because he took way too many low percentage fade-away bank shots. The shots were actually counter-productive. They looked good when they went in (check out Wilts' fade-away highlite video) but the percentage was something like 25%. However, Wilt wanted to prove to us that he was more than just a very tall guy dunking on slow stiffs. His teams never won anything with him taking those shots. Personally I could never understand why would a 7'3" Wilt need to fade away on his shots. Who could block them? I also noticed that he usually used a bank shot because his hand-eye coordination was terrible when shooting (see free-throws). After awhile Wilt's coaches asked him to curtail the fade-aways and to concentrate on playing more like Russell. If Wilt fade-away was so successful why would his coaches ask him to stop using it. No one ever asked Kareem to stop the skyhook or Bird to stop shooting 3s. Ironically the year Wilt reduced the usage of the fade-away was the year he finally won the championship. Wilt played the Russell type of game better than Russell. And his teams were more successful when he did. As for Chamberlain scoring 30 points on Kareem multiple times... Chamberlain NEVER scored 30 points on Kareem, while Kareem routinely scored 30 points on Wilt (averaging 31.8 versus Wilt's 16.3 for their careers). Kareem even torched Wilt for 50 points in a game. (To check this info out, go to basketball-reference.com, click on head to head, and then key in the players you want to compare). Wilt had Kareem beat in rebounding, passing, and defense, but as a scorer Kareem was far and away the better player. Lastly, this notion that Wilt could be considered the game's greatest player is laughable. There are three things that keep Wilt from being considered: (1) he was horrible in the clutch. His horrendous free-throw shooting cost his teams a ton of playoff wins. He was so bad in the clutch that he would run from the ball. Wilt's scoring decrease by 8 points in the playoffs, the greatest decrease of any player in NBA history. He knew he would get fouled and he knew he sucked from the foul line. (2) Wilt didn't know HOW to win. In fact, I don't think Wilt went into game thinking "win". I think he went into games thinking "numbers". Wilt's best overall playoff performance was against the New York Knicks in 1972. He had better numbers in previous playoffs, but he didn't play better. One thing though: Willis Reed was hurt in 1972. The next year, with Reed back in the lineup, an aging Wilt played poorly, and the Knicks went on to beat the Lakers for the championship. (3) Wilt's number are extremely elevated. Wilt greatness is really all about numbers: 100 points, 4000 points, 50ppg, 2000 rebounds. You can't amass those numbers now because the game is played more deliberate. There were 40% more shot attempts in the early 60s, 45% more rebound opportunities, 40% more free-throws. As the game evolved, Wilt's game was less impressive. Watch some games on Youtube. Wilt doesn't look dominant. His stats are acquired by the sheer volume of shots...as were Oscar's and Baylor's. What would Shaq had done if the lane was narrow, no double-teams and slow-stiffs guarding him. I would cut Chamberlain a little more slack if he won with all of those stats. But he didn't. He lost. He didn't win until he played like Russell. And don't say that Russell had better personal around him, Wilt actually played with more Hall of Famers than Russell. I got Wilt rated 9th on my all-time list, behind MJ, Magic, Kareem, LeBron, Bird, Shaq, Kobe and Olajuwon. So after all I've done to discredit some of the folklore I still have him in my top ten. It is not that I don't like Wilt, it is that some of you guys really, really overrated him.

[swagga]

just shut down this beta thread already :oldlol:

[CavaliersFTW]

*cites YouTube comments as support*

just shut down this beta thread already :oldlol:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-P0c_oNOSUtM/UQy_9vq_bFI/AAAAAAAAEV4/XCotyawFywI/s400-Ic42/weak%252520era.gif

There's the physicality difference. :hammerhead:

[GimmeThat]

I don't know, but I think the actual ball is still the same size and weighs about the same as now.

I suppose the materials may had improved at some point and what not.


but in general, I think 'basketball' has been relatively the same.

[swagga]

*cites YouTube comments as support*

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-P0c_oNOSUtM/UQy_9vq_bFI/AAAAAAAAEV4/XCotyawFywI/s400-Ic42/weak%252520era.gif

There's the physicality difference. :hammerhead:

so not only did they not play physical basketball (box out, defense, etc) but also resorted to cheap shots out of frustration ... true pros :roll:

[senelcoolidge]

Many of today's players would have a hard time adjusting to the 60's fast pace and physicality. On top of that the rules were held..more strictly enforced. I think a great player from the 60's that's not a big man would have a easier time adjusting to today's looser rules.

[Dbrog]

What's so funny about all this is, I can't even begin to imagine what people would say about Larry Bird had he played in the 1960s.

He's just lucky enough to have played in full colour against Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen...

Same goes for Tim Duncan today. Put him in the 1960s, and you can bet today's fans would call him a stiff who wouldn't stand a chance against the likes of DeAndre Jordan...

A lot of opinions about eras are based on perception more than anything else.
But there is a lot, and I mean a lot, of actual evidence that good players don't suddenly become terrible because we've entered some arbitrary new "era".

By the way, there's a YouTube video of Havlicek's very last game (29, 8 and 4 statline... the actual game starts around the 6 min mark):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vekb4RhplI

:applause: :rockon: :bowdown:

/Thread!

[bizil]

It was bad enough that John Havlicek made it all the way from 1962 to 1978 without suffering any suspect drop in production.

Now, John Havlicek is an all-time great. But he wasn't considered the greatest player in the world in the 1960s, far from it - Wilt, Russell, Oscar, West, Baylor were all ahead of him.

There was nothing overly flashy about his game either. He's not out there dribbling between his legs or posterizing defenders - just playing great all-around basketball. If you went by videos alone, ignorant fans could easily say that someone like Havlicek could only make a team in the 1960s.

Yet we know for a fact that his game did translate, and that he was still very solid as late as 1978, averaging 16, 4 and 4 despite being 37 with a ton of mileage.

By 1978 the ABA and NBA had both separated and merged. Julius Erving, Moses Malone, David Thompson, George Gervin, George McGinnis, Adrian Dantley, Bernard King, were all in the league. Larry would get drafted that summer, Magic the next one. The three point shot was soon to be added. Yet old Hondo sure looked like he still belonged... In fact I just found out he even made the all-star game that year! (though as an injury replacement)

What Havlicek had was physical longevity. What he didn't have was some kind of superpower that made his game so different from his peers that it translated better to "modern" basketball.

Well said!! With guys like Hondo, its EASY TO TELL that he would be a great player in ANY ERA! He had three things going for him in PARTICULAR:

- He redefined the SF position. Before him, u didn't really see an SF who was a great scorer, great defender, great rebounder for a SF, and great passer all in one.

Hondo was ahead of his time WHICH means it takes players from other eras to compare to what he laid out. When u think about it, it wasn't until the Pippens, GHIlls, and Brons came around that u saw SF's similar to what Hondo brought to the table.

- Size and athletic ability wise at 6'5, he could move from SF to SG if he had to. His game was EPIC in versatility as I pointed out earlier. I think Hondo and the Big O may have been the first guys capable of playing PG, SG, and SF all very well. They may not have explored it, but I think those three guys were the first in that regard.

- Hondo was a great player for a LONG ASS TIME!! Which means u get to run into guys much younger from the new generation. Typically guys like Hondo would be in their backend prime to out of prime years. But they STILL do well against the younger great players. And OFTEN times are still among the best players in the world. Which means that a PEAK Hondo would be SUPERIOR to most of those guys if they played in the same era!

So in my opinion, redefining your position, being able to adapt size and athletic ability wise, and having great longevity means you can be great in ANY ERA! If u have two or all three of those elements, u can be great in any era.

[CavaliersFTW]

Well said!! With guys like Hondo, its EASY TO TELL that he would be a great player in ANY ERA! He had three things going for him in PARTICULAR:

- He redefined the SF position. Before him, u didn't really see an SF who was a great scorer, great defender, great rebounder for a SF, and great passer all in one.

Hondo was ahead of his time WHICH means it takes players from other eras to compare to what he laid out. When u think about it, it wasn't until the Pippens, GHIlls, and Brons came around that u saw SF's similar to what Hondo brought to the table.

- Size and athletic ability wise at 6'5, he could move from SF to SG if he had to. His game was EPIC in versatility as I pointed out earlier. I think Hondo and the Big O may have been the first guys capable of playing PG, SG, and SF all very well. They may not have explored it, but I think those three guys were the first in that regard.

- Hondo was a great player for a LONG ASS TIME!! Which means u get to run into guys much younger from the new generation. Typically guys like Hondo would be in their backend prime to out of prime years. But they STILL do well against the young guys. And OFTEN times are still among the best players in the world.

So in my opinion, redefining your position, being able to adapt size and athletic ability wise, and having great longevity means you can be great in ANY ERA! If u have two or all three of those elements, u can be great in any era.
Elgin Baylor

And before you even ask, yes, Elgin's defense was legitimate. Satch Sanders actually mentioned Elgin's ability to play 'very tough defense' when calling Elgin the best player and best all-around player he's ever seen play the game of basketball this past month or two when he was invited to speak and talk about his career and what he's seen in the game at the Hall of Fame.

https://youtu.be/cXofPsdFm2w?t=38m48s

[sd3035]

To be honest those dudes were so weak and slow, it looked like they were playing with a medicine ball

[bizil]

Elgin Baylor

And before you even ask, yes, Elgin's defense was legitimate. Satch Sanders actually mentioned Elgin's ability to play 'very tough defense' when calling Elgin the best player and best all-around player he's ever seen play the game of basketball this past month or two when he was invited to speak and talk about his career and what he's seen in the game at the Hall of Fame.

https://youtu.be/cXofPsdFm2w?t=38m48s

Then why doesn't Elgin's name come up when it comes to great defense on a wide scale? I'm not saying that Elgin wasn't a very good defender. BUT Hondo was the template of players like Lebron, Grant Hill, and Pippen.

Baylor was more of the template that guys like Hawkins and Dr. J followed. Hondo has more of a reputation as a great defender than Baylor had. I DO THINK Baylor was the better player though. I give Baylor the edge scoring and rebounding. I give Hondo the edge in terms of passing and defense.

My point earlier was that Hondo was the template for the point forward kind of player we see today. As versatile as Elgin was, he wasn't a guy who could PLAY AND DEFEND PG, SG, and SF. He was more of a guy who could play SF, PF, and some maybe SG. He was a CREATIVE PASSER, but I don't think he was a point forward kind of player.

[CavaliersFTW]

Then why doesn't Elgin's name come up when it comes to great defense on a wide scale? I'm not saying that Elgin wasn't a very good defender. BUT Hondo was the template of players like Lebron, Grant Hill, and Pippen.

Baylor was more of the template that guys like Hawkins and Dr. J followed. Hondo has more of a reputation as a great defender than Baylor had. I DO THINK Baylor was the better player though. I give Baylor the edge scoring and rebounding. I give Hondo the edge in terms of passing and defense.

My point earlier was that Hondo was the template for the point forward kind of player we see today. As versatile as Elgin was, he wasn't a guy who could PLAY AND DEFEND PG, SG, and SF. He was more of a guy who could play SF, PF, and some maybe SG. He was a CREATIVE PASSER, but I don't think he was a point forward kind of player.
Again, that would be Elgin.

And I'd bet money even Havlicek would agree. Elgin could, and did do everything. You say how come nobody mentions his defense, well Satch Sanders a top 3 defensive forward of the 1960's (along with DeBusschere and Gus Johnson) just DID mention Baylor's defense. And in the few games I've got of Elgin I did always notice he plays great defense and wondered myself why I didn't hear more about it. And my guess is that people were just in such awe of his offensive ability it was easy to over look. Elgin's not talked about for the same reason most any forgotten players don't get talked about. They just get forgotten. It's easy for Havlicek to get brought up due to the Celtics championship success and the constant replay of "Havlicek stole the ball" highlight. It keeps his name in the hat. Elgin had many defining or clutch moments himself such as 61 points in the NBA Finals but none that secured a championship.

John Havlicek was certainly a do-it-all player in his own right. But Elgin could and did do everything too and most of the things he did, he was actually superior at doing them compared to John Havlicek.

Look at his defense in this game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4RwNcwBSP0

[bizil]

Again, that would be Elgin.

And I'd bet money even Havlicek would agree. Elgin could, and did do everything. You say how come nobody mentions his defense, well Satch Sanders a top 3 defensive forward of the 1960's (along with DeBusschere and Gus Johnson) just DID mention Baylor's defense. And in the few games I've got of Elgin I did always notice he plays great defense and wondered myself why I didn't hear more about it. And my guess is that people were just in such awe of his offensive ability it was easy to over look. Elgin's not talked about for the same reason most any forgotten players don't get talked about. They just get forgotten. It's easy for Havlicek to get brought up due to the Celtics championship success and the constant replay of "Havlicek stole the ball" highlight. It keeps his name in the hat. Elgin had many defining or clutch moments himself such as 61 points in the NBA Finals but none that secured a championship.

John Havlicek was certainly a do-it-all player in his own right. But Elgin could and did do everything too and most of the things he did, he was actually superior at doing them compared to John Havlicek.

Look at his defense in this game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4RwNcwBSP0

No doubt that Elgin revolutionized the forward position. I never denied that at all. But Elgin was strictly a frontcourt player. Hondo was more of a swingman who settled into the SF position. Pippen, Hill, and Bron ALL later were their team's primary ball handler. And at times FLAT OUT PLAYED and DEFENDED as point guards.

So not only were they point forward kind of players, they FLAT OUT PLAYED as point guards. That kind of versatility is more along the lines of a Hondo style than a Baylor style. Frontcourt players who spent a good amount of time in the backcourt too.

[CavaliersFTW]

No doubt that Elgin revolutionized the forward position. I never denied that at all. But Elgin was strictly a frontcourt player. Hondo was more of a swingman who settled into the SF position. Pippen, Hill, and Bron ALL later were their team's primary ball handler. And at times FLAT OUT PLAYED and DEFENDED as point guards.

So not only were they point forward kind of players, they FLAT OUT PLAYED as point guards. That kind of versatility is more along the lines of a Hondo style than a Baylor style. Frontcourt players who spent a good amount of time in the backcourt too.
Again, so did Baylor.

My assertion of Baylor here is not to undermine what you think of Havlicek by the way. But Baylor in the NBA played guard, and forward, and in high school he even played center.

In the NBA when the Celtics would press, the Lakers play to counter was to let Baylor play guard. Because Baylor - not the guards like West or King, Barnett, or Selvy, was the most secure ball handler under pressure on that team. And he was a brilliant passer. The only reason a guy like him didn't play guard full time was that he was just that much more brilliant at rebounding and was in better position to sweep up boards as a forward.

You can see this position flexibility happening here, in this game: https://youtu.be/3ZVa_gAwgL4?t=2m11s

And Lakers coach Fred Schauss describing how Baylor is critical for handling against presses can be heard here: https://youtu.be/rjNS_oYE92E?t=10m30s

[dhsilv]

What's so funny about all this is, I can't even begin to imagine what people would say about Larry Bird had he played in the 1960s.

He's just lucky enough to have played in full colour against Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen...

Same goes for Tim Duncan today. Put him in the 1960s, and you can bet today's fans would call him a stiff who wouldn't stand a chance against the likes of DeAndre Jordan...

A lot of opinions about eras are based on perception more than anything else.
But there is a lot, and I mean a lot, of actual evidence that good players don't suddenly become terrible because we've entered some arbitrary new "era".

By the way, there's a YouTube video of Havlicek's very last game (29, 8 and 4 statline... the actual game starts around the 6 min mark):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vekb4RhplI


Color helps a LOT! That said bird still gets CONSTANT people saying he's too slow and can't defend today. I'll admit he's a 4 in today's game, he can't guard 3 as well as a 4 now. Still his shooting and passing are just absurd.

[dhsilv]

Adjusted numbers (pace,efg%,trb%,ast%) ;

2006-2011 Wade(playoffs) - 32.5 pts , 5.7 rib , 5.8 ast


1964-1969 West ( playoffs) - 34.5 pts , 4 rib , 5.5 ast .

How did you adjust field goals? Seriously?

[dreamwarrior]

Basketball might look funny back then due to the rules and level of competing talent, but look at sports like baseball and football in the 60s. In baseball it's pretty black and white, since you had a plethora of pitchers throwing 95mph back then and today that is still the benchmark. In the nfl Unitas, Brown, and Willie Davis would destroy the league today. So I'd have to assume that guys like West and Russell would do damn good against today's competition simply because they were elite level players.

[ShaqTwizzle]

Not gonna comment on the entire decade but I do feel like league was weaker in the early 60's when compared to the mid to late 60's.

Another thing I notice is that Wilt Chamberlain for all his regular-season dominance didn't seem to be that great of a scorer in the playoffs.

From 60-66 he averaged 29ppg on 52%TS (p42) which isn't that great.
Even over his later years his efficiency on average didn't rise considerably despite the much lower volume (his FT shooting got worse during that period).

We can see that Chamberlain basically only had two playoff runs in his entire career where he volume scored on decent efficiency (64/65) and even then he was only at 54-55%TS which while good is not elite in an All-Time sense.

I also noticed that in 68 and 69 his scoring stats weren't very good in the playoffs and got even worse in elimination.
68 VS BOS : 22ppg on 49%TS
69 VS BOS : 11.7ppg on 47%TS <--- jeez

People often make excuses for Wilt not winning more but if he hadn't sucked so bad offensively in 68 and 69 especially in elimination he probably would have 3peated + won another in a smaller role kind of like how Shaq did.

I see many people ranking Wilt very highly on their All-Time lists but based on his playoff career does he really deserve it?
I mean his rebounding was great but his offense (in the playoffs) doesn't seem all that amazing and his defense (on average) wasn't any better then Shaq's (which is not an insult btw).

Even if we just look at his circumstances and what he achieved with them he seems like a disappointment.
At the very least you would have expected another title or two in the late 60's especially with his own teammate winning FMVP in 69.

[CavaliersFTW]

Not gonna comment on the entire decade but I do feel like league was weaker in the early 60's when compared to the mid to late 60's.

Another thing I notice is that Wilt Chamberlain for all his regular-season dominance didn't seem to be that great of a scorer in the playoffs.

From 60-66 he averaged 29ppg on 52%TS (p42) which isn't that great.
Even over his later years his efficiency on average didn't rise considerably despite the much lower volume (his FT shooting got worse during that period).

We can see that Chamberlain basically only had two playoff runs in his entire career where he volume scored on decent efficiency (64/65) and even then he was only at 54-55%TS which while good is not elite in an All-Time sense.

I also noticed that in 68 and 69 his scoring stats weren't very good in the playoffs and got even worse in elimination.
68 VS BOS : 22ppg on 49%TS
69 VS BOS : 11.7ppg on 47%TS <--- jeez

People often make excuses for Wilt not winning more but if he hadn't sucked so bad offensively in 68 and 69 especially in elimination he probably would have 3peated + won another in a smaller role kind of like how Shaq did.

I see many people ranking Wilt very highly on their All-Time lists but based on his playoff career does he really deserve it?
I mean his rebounding was great but his offense (in the playoffs) doesn't seem all that amazing and his defense (on average) wasn't any better then Shaq's (which is not an insult btw).

Even if we just look at his circumstances and what he achieved with them he seems like a disappointment.
At the very least you would have expected another title or two in the late 60's especially with his own teammate winning FMVP in 69.
TS% in a 2 to make 3 and 1 to make 2 era? TS% does not apply in that era, for obvious reasons. How come if you don't know something as simple as this you feel so ready to make a big post about that era?

And lol at not knowing how dominant Wilt's defense and rebounding was in the playoffs nor even understanding how he changed his approach to playing and shooting when he played at least three times. The middle and 2nd half of his career are not years he tried to dominate at scoring - he attempted less shots, on his own volition, so how does his scoring become a target for criticism during those seasons. Do you even know what Wilt's motives were for scoring during various given seasons or are you just assuming the guy was trying to gun every season of his career? It sounds like you are. If we had Wilt's shot blocking numbers in the playoffs, and you understood his roles I have a feeling your criticism would fall totally silent. Wilt averaged 9 assists per game one playoffs. 9.

It's unbelievable how dominant he was. Playoffs or regular season.

[ShaqTwizzle]

TS% in a 2 to make 3 and 1 to make 2 era? TS% does not apply in that era, for obvious reasons.


Meh.
The difference that would make on TS% is very small.
The fact is Wilt was not an efficient scorer in the playoffs.
You can brag about his regular-season numbers all you like but it didn't translate into the playoffs and Russell regularly held him to lines like 26.5ppg on 48-51%TS (p42).


And lol at not knowing how dominant Wilt's defense and rebounding was in the playoffs nor even understanding how he changed his approach to playing and shooting when he played at least three times.

His rebounding was dominant indeed.

His defense was elite but not above Shaq level.
Great interior defender. Average perimeter defender.
Effort level on that end varied over his career.

Obviously his defensive impact was greater back then due to era differences.


The middle and 2nd half of his career are not years he tried to dominate at scoring - he attempted less shots, on his own volition, so how does his scoring become a target for criticism during those seasons.

Because even if we can accept his lower volume (fine with me) due to a role change it doesn't excuse his ineptitude as a scorer especially since great scorers should be much more efficient when asked to score less.
Doesn't excuse an 11.7ppg on 47%TS series or key games where he was horribly inefficient or failed to score when his team needed it.


If we had Wilt's shot blocking numbers in the playoffs, and you understood his roles I have a feeling your criticism would fall totally silent.

Wilt was a great shot-blocker though obviously having his numbers would be meaningless since he'd never be able to garner those high block numbers consistently in the modern league.


It's unbelievable how dominant he was. Playoffs or regular season.

Meh...
Consistently struggled to score efficiently in the playoffs even when perhaps we could excuse his teams failures to lack of support.
Lost in 68 and 69 despite having contender worthy rosters and he performed terribly in both series.

Wilt was a great athlete but he wasn't that skilled offensively in the halfcourt.
His go to move was a not overly accurate fadeaway shot which he often struggled with against better defenders.
He didn't have that dominant halfcourt power game like Shaq or an unstoppable finesse move like Kareem with the skyhook.
That is why when he faced a great defender in Russell his efficiency usually sucked.

I will give you this.
Wilt was the most dominant rebounder of that era (closely followed by Russ).
Oscar & West were the two most dominant offensive players of that era.
Russell was the most dominant defensive player of that era (follow by Thurmond).

[Sarcastic]

60s was probably better than the sh!t product we've had for the past decade and a half. Modern game is fundamentally awful, and the refs make the game almost unwatchable at times.

[CavaliersFTW]

Meh.
The difference that would make on TS% is very small.
The fact is Wilt was not an efficient scorer in the playoffs.
You can brag about his regular-season numbers all you like but it didn't translate into the playoffs and Russell regularly held him to lines like 26.5ppg on 48-51%TS (p42).



His rebounding was dominant indeed.

His defense was elite but not above Shaq level.
Great interior defender. Average perimeter defender.
Effort level on that end varied over his career.

Obviously his defensive impact was greater back then due to era differences.



Because even if we can accept his lower volume (fine with me) due to a role change it doesn't excuse his ineptitude as a scorer especially since great scorers should be much more efficient when asked to score less.
Doesn't excuse an 11.7ppg on 47%TS series or key games where he was horribly inefficient or failed to score when his team needed it.



Wilt was a great shot-blocker though obviously having his numbers would be meaningless since he'd never be able to garner those high block numbers consistently in the modern league.



Meh...
Consistently struggled to score efficiently in the playoffs even when perhaps we could excuse his teams failures to lack of support.
Lost in 68 and 69 despite having contender worthy rosters and he performed terribly in both series.

Wilt was a great athlete but he wasn't that skilled offensively in the halfcourt.
His go to move was a not overly accurate fadeaway shot which he often struggled with against better defenders.
He didn't have that dominant halfcourt power game like Shaq or an unstoppable finesse move like Kareem with the skyhook.
That is why when he faced a great defender in Russell his efficiency usually sucked.

I will give you this.
Wilt was the most dominant rebounder of that era (closely followed by Russ).
Oscar & West were the two most dominant offensive players of that era.
Russell was the most dominant defensive player of that era (follow by Thurmond).
TS% will be HUGELY different in the 2 to make 3 and 1 to make 2 era if you are a poor free throw shooter ESPECIALLY. What the hell are you talking about it's a small difference? He gets an extra chance every time he misses and even as a 50% free throw shooter that means he's still practically guarantee'd to score every time he's at the line :oldlol:

Yes, he had a variety of unstoppable finesse moves. A fingerroll and the fadeaway. And he used dominant inside presence in moderation.

Oscar and West can't score 100 points. Or average 24 on 70% from the field with 8 assists.

Wilt's the most dominant offensive player ever, not just in his era.

[ShaqTwizzle]

Yes, he had a variety of unstoppable finesse moves. A fingerroll and the fadeaway.


Not sure how unstoppable the fingerroll was.
I heard it was blocked alot especially by Russell. Seems like a move that might not translate super well to the modern league.

The fadeaway wasn't a bad move but it doesn't seem unstoppable the way Shaq's power game was or Kareem's skyhook generally was.
Seems like a shot he "missed" quite often especially against better defenders/defenses.


And he used dominant inside presence in moderation.

Maybe but I don't think his inside game was that dominant because he didn't have the footwork, handles or overall variety of skill/skills needed to fully take advantage of his power near the hoop the way say Shaq did.


Oscar and West can't score 100 points. Or average 24 on 70% from the field.

And yet their playoff offensive stats absolute crush Chamberlains.
I'll take the elite playoff scorer/offensive anchor over the regular-season stat-stuffer 100/100x times.

I mean David Robinson has better offensive stats then Hakeem in the regular-season but would I take him over Hakeem as my teams offensive anchor?

Hell no!

[CavaliersFTW]

Not sure how unstoppable the fingerroll was.
I heard it was blocked alot especially by Russell. Seems like a move that might not translate super well to the modern league.

The fadeaway wasn't a bad move but it doesn't seem unstoppable the way Shaq's power game was or Kareem's skyhook generally was.



Maybe but I don't think his inside game was that dominant because he didn't have the footwork, handles or overall variety of skill/skills needed to fully take advantage of his power near the hoop the way say Shaq did.



And yet their playoff offensive stats absolute crush Chamberlains.
I'll take the elite playoff scorer/offensive anchor over the regular-season stat-stuffer 100/100x times.

I mean David Robinson has better offensive stats then Hakeem in the regular-season but would I take him over Hakeem as my teams offensive anchor?

Hell no!
"I heard?"

Great source. You study a lot of film of Russell blocking that shot? Show me who said Russell blocked that shot 'a lot'. I've got about a hundred of Wilt's finger rolls, haven't seen it blocked too many times. Not even sure I've any clip of Russell blocking it. Nate Thurmond got one, Kareem got two. Out of over 100 makes and even more attempts that exist on film. It's rarely touched, and the only time it ever is that I've seen, is when the defender is out of position trying to anticipate the shot which is a risk given Wilt's variety of other finishes, fakes, and passing ability.

A fadeaway is a fadeaway to be unstoppable. It's a jump shot - that fades away from the defender.

David Robinson did not have the inside game Wilt Chamberlain had.

[ShaqTwizzle]

Wilt's the most dominant offensive player ever, not just in his era.

Oh c'mon man.
Better then Jordan?

Wilt's offensive stats in the playoffs are simply not that good in an All-Time sense.

Even friggen Hakeem has far better offensive numbers in the post-season over his Prime.

Wilt also rarely led great offenses except when he was in a decoy role and didn't score much.

Wilt was far from the GOAT on offense.
He'd be lucky to make the Top 10 based on his playoff career.
He certainly wouldn't make the Top 5.

[CavaliersFTW]

Oh c'mon man.
Better then Jordan?

Wilt's offensive stats in the playoffs are simply not that good in an All-Time sense.

Even friggen Hakeem has far better offensive numbers in the post-season over his Prime.

He also rarely led great offenses except when he was in a decoy role and didn't score much.

Wilt was far from the GOAT on offense.
He'd be lucky to make the Top 10 based on his playoff career.
He certainly wouldn't make the Top 5.
The playoffs is not the only time a basketball player plays basketball. It doesn't usurp 80 games of regular season work.

Elgin Baylor is the GOAT scorer in the Finals. Which is the ultimate expression of the playoffs. Therefore, Baylor should be your GOAT scorer. Right?

[dhsilv]

60s was probably better than the sh!t product we've had for the past decade and a half. Modern game is fundamentally awful, and the refs make the game almost unwatchable at times.

I assume you mean the rules and not the refs? Otherwise you're just talking crap for the sake of talking crap.

[ShaqTwizzle]

The playoffs is not the only time a basketball player plays basketball. It doesn't usurp 80 games of regular season work.


True but the playoffs are what matter most to me.
I mean if a guy can score 20ppg on 70%FG in the reg-season does it really mean anything if in the playoffs he drops down to 15ppg on 50%FG?

I'll take the guy who is level 5 in the reg-season and level 10 in the playoffs over the guy who is level 10 in the reg-season and level 7-8 in the playoffs.

Every decent guy on a contender level cast can get a team into the playoffs.
Not every guy can perform at a dominant level in the playoffs consistently.


Elgin Baylor is the GOAT scorer in the Finals. Which is the ultimate expression of the playoffs. Therefore, Baylor should be your GOAT scorer. Right?

No because the playoffs aren't just one series.
I don't cherry pick a single series or round to make a guy look better as a playoff performer.
Consistency is very important to me.
(I do give some extra value for the Finals though).

Peak Baylor in the playoffs was a 32ppg scorer (p42) on 51%TS.
Not bad numbers by any means but hardly GOAT numbers when you factor in the efficiency and the fact that I feel the early 60's were kind of a weak period (or weaker then the mid to late 60's).

Plus if we were debating careers Baylor lacks longevity.
Outside of that 5 year stretch he pretty much sucked offensively in the playoffs.

[CavaliersFTW]

True but the playoffs are what matter most to me.
I mean if a guy can score 20ppg on 70%FG in the reg-season does it really mean anything if in the playoffs he drops down to 15ppg on 50%FG?

I'll take the guy who is level 5 in the reg-season and level 10 in the playoffs over the guy who is level 10 in the reg-season and level 7-8 in the playoffs.

Every decent guy on a contender level cast can get a team into the playoffs.
Not every guy can perform at a dominant level in the playoffs consistently.



No because the playoffs aren't just one series.
I don't cherry pick a single series or round to make a guy look better as a playoff performer.
Consistency is very important to me.

Peak Baylor in the playoffs was a 32ppg scorer (p42) on 51%TS.
Not bad numbers by any means but hardly GOAT numbers when you factor in the efficiency and the fact that I feel the early 60's were kind of a weak period (or weaker then the mid to late 60's).

Plus if we were debating careers Baylor lacks longevity.
Outside of that 5 year stretch he pretty much sucked offensively in the playoffs.
Again, TS% doesn't apply to that era.

I think we're done here if you keep leaning on stats that only apply after certain rule changes. There is no way TS% is valid in the 2 to make 3 and 1 to make 2 era. Your arguments revolve around flawed data.

[ShaqTwizzle]

Again, TS% doesn't apply to that era.

Does it really matter much in the case of Baylor who was a good FT shooter?
I mean with Wilt I sort of get it but why does it matter with Baylor?

Anyway I still don't believe that rule you spoke of makes such an enormous difference that the TS stat become completely unusable.
I am not familiar enough with the rule to say but I don't think it would make more then 1% difference at most even with guys who sucked from the line.

When was that rule put in place or ended by the way?
Curious and you probably know.




Anyway no hard feelings I enjoy talking to ya.
We can pick this convo up another time.

[Richesly]

Nothing wrong with '60s ball. '70 Elgin Baylors would've been a starter in today's league.

[Sarcastic]

I assume you mean the rules and not the refs? Otherwise you're just talking crap for the sake of talking crap.

Are you suggesting that the league mandated the refs to make "superstar calls" and have a different set of rules in how they call the game?

[CavaliersFTW]

Does it really matter much in the case of Baylor who was a good FT shooter?
I mean with Wilt I sort of get it but why does it matter with Baylor?

Anyway I still don't believe that rule you spoke of makes such an enormous difference that the TS stat become completely unusable.
I am not familiar enough with the rule to say but I don't think it would make more then 1% difference at most even with guys who sucked from the line.

When was that rule put in place or ended by the way?
Curious and you probably know.




Anyway no hard feelings I enjoy talking to ya.
We can pick this convo up another time.
I will pick it up later sure, apologies if I'm coming off rude. I'll try to better explain the 1 to make 2 and all those, yes it does apply to Wilt more than Baylor but it makes the whole TS% stat flawed regardless of which player is in question. Someone like Wilt for example, goes from a 50% real-world impact free thrower to like an effectively 65+ percent free thrower. A guy who shoots 80% becomes more like an 85-90% free throw shooter Etc. Because they are all granted extra chances to make up if they miss at the line.

[sdot_thadon]

Who's clearly better Mathew Dellavedova or Howard Komives?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io8jN53qx7Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8KowkGMiBw

I don't see this difference in common players that you're speaking of.
You're better than this cavs, komives played 10 years and averaged 27 minutes a game. Averaged double figures in scoring for his career. Delly as much as I like his hustle hasn't averaged double figures one season yet and is a 3rd string pg in all reality. If he's not on the cavs he's out of the league within 5 years. Bad comparison, but you knew that when you did it. I'm not saying the 60's was a weak era like these other guys but I do believe the average player is better now.

[Asukal]

This bad...

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/4-24-2015/TKHIWW.gif

:rolleyes:

[buddha]

watching a 60's game is equivalent to watching a pickup game at your local rec center.

did I mention in a white neighborhood? the rec center has to be in a white neighborhood.

[warriorfan]

This bad...

http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/4-24-2015/TKHIWW.gif

:rolleyes:

Goat scorer bro! :lol

[Duffy Pratt]

Another all time great:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jsqK5nZQhk

And the top center of the last decade?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_J3cTupw7s

And the best foul shooter on the Spurs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUGyyo5nTZs

Or a premier power forward:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10qIOjwBCUk

Some people think this guy is ok:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i--mrQzEl14

But that was just a freak occurrence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vkq9BcZQqY

[KevinNYC]

[QUOTE=Naero]Funny how people are hasty to downplay his potential in today's game without even trying to contextualize how well he would've modernized himself in today's culture.

He played during an era where basketball wasn't even popularized during his childhood, and it therefore took a while for it to be embraced as popularly as Baseball (at the time). He was playing while the entire basketball culture was raw and under-evolved, and the same players of today would likely be subjected to the same shortcomings of that era that are denigrated by today's fans.

If he grew up as contemporaries to modern-era players, he'd have acclimated himself to more advanced training methods, techniques, methodology and nutrients; as such, he'd be more skilled, in better athletically shape, and he would manage to make use of his high-IQ headwork in today's culture too.

How would he have played today? Only speculation can paint the picture on that; but as it pertains to past players, you can only logically appraise them on how well they managed to transcend their own era, and historians respect it regardless of how they'd supposedly fare today.

Based on my eye-test of his basketball IQ and range, I'd imagine a modernized Jerry West would be akin to Steve Nash of today

[KevinNYC]

It was bad enough that John Havlicek made it all the way from 1962 to 1978 without suffering any suspect drop in production.......
Yet we know for a fact that his game did translate, and that he was still very solid as late as 1978, averaging 16, 4 and 4 despite being 37 with a ton of mileage.

He said had he known Bird was coming along he would have stayed for a few more years.