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

[fpliii]

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

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

[kennethgriffin]

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

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

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

ben wallace would average 25/20



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

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


as for the 25ppg...

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

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

[LAZERUSS]

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

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

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

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

[fpliii]

ben wallace would average 25/20



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

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


as for the 25ppg...

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

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

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

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

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

[Sarcastic]

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

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

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

[fpliii]

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

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

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

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

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

[LAZERUSS]

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

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

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

[Round Mound]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Which isnt rare here. But its always annoying.

[Cali Syndicate]

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

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

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

20 years?

[BoutPractice]

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

[fpliii]

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

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

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

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

[GrapeApe]

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

[Dro]

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


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



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



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

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

Bro, you're the one that started this ridiculous thread about something you obviously have no clue about and Kblaze set you straight. If you didn't want him to answer with a "thesis" which by the way, would not be ANYWHERE near as long as Kblaze' post, so its actually not a thesis, then why would start a thread making a stupid claims of which you know nothing about?

[Marchesk]

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

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

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

[Dro]

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

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

A little too much logic in this post...