# original vs. current dream team



## mo76 (Jun 13, 2003)

VS.











Who would win?


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

Original especially when it comes to the 4/5 spot. Dwight Howard, Chris Bosh, and Carlos Boozer seem very outmatched and out-sized compared to what the original team can throw out there: David Robinson, Ewing, Barkley, and Karl Malone. Most of the guys on the original Dream Team seem tougher mentally and physically as well.


----------



## ajax25 (Jul 2, 2010)

i would hand it to the original team, i look at that picture and start counting all the legends of the game, I find at least 10 that I consider to be in the top 5 best at their position ever


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

The Dream Team > The Redeem Team. And it's not really even that close.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

The ranking goes something like this

92 team > 96 team > 08 team > 2000 team

The weakness of the 08' team is its front court. Those 92/96 teams had some of the best big men in the history of the game on the roster. Not to mention guys like Shaq, Barkley, David Robinson, Hakeem, Ewing, Malone were all in their prime.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

mo76 said:


> VS.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Some quick questions came to mind, was Jordan really 6'6"? and Kobe was a legit 6'7"? Stockon looks taller than 6'1". Malone had to sit out a but as his arms were to big to co exist with David Ribinson's.


----------



## Nate505 (Aug 22, 2003)

Even Christian Laettner can't ruin the total epicness that was the original Dream Team.


----------



## Kaas (Apr 8, 2003)

ajax25 said:


> i would hand it to the original team, i look at that picture and start counting all the legends of the game, I find at least 10 that I consider to be in the top 5 best at their position ever


Neither David Robinson nor Patrick Ewing are top 5 centers of all time. Obviously Mullin (while still a great player in his own right and deserving of a spot on the team) and Laetner aren't at that legend level either.

Still both 92 and 96 are definitely superior than the 2008 team.


----------



## Futurama_Fanatic (Jul 21, 2005)

the original dream team went on a 44-1 run at one point. i don't think this is close imo.


----------



## CosaNostra (Sep 16, 2010)

Futurama_Fanatic said:


> the original dream team went on a 44-1 run at one point. i don't think this is close imo.


that's partially because the international game was underdeveloped at the time... but yeah, this shouldn't even be a question. The 1992 Olympic team is unquestionably the greatest collection of talent in basketball history, and may even be the most talented team in any sport.

A better question would be to compare the 2000 team and the 2008 team.


----------



## richhobo89 (Nov 29, 2010)

I'd definitely give it to the original dream team. The fact that Jordan AND Magic are there you can't really say much else about. Although I will give it to the redeem team that they probably have a great team with movement of ball. Anyone know why Nash isn't on the current team?


----------



## hroz (Mar 4, 2006)

Nash is Canadian

I have to go with the origional.
Though 96 is very comparable to them.


----------



## richhobo89 (Nov 29, 2010)

hroz said:


> Nash is Canadian
> 
> I have to go with the origional.
> Though 96 is very comparable to them.


SHOOT I FORGOT ABOUT NASH BEING CANADIAN...I feel stupid.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

The original team strictly due to the advantage that they would have down low. It's just not really a fair comparison when you look at the big man rotation.


----------



## EpicFailGuy (Mar 5, 2010)

92 was called the Cream Team for a reason...that team was pretty much unstoppable. How many Hall of Famers did the U.S. need to make a point?


----------



## ans1928 (Feb 2, 2011)

yes the game of basketball has evolved athletically, but the 92' Dream Team was annihilating everybody. Sure the "Redeem Team" has Kobe, Lebron, and Wade, but the Dream Team was much better. especially when it came to big men. Dream Team FTW


----------



## dantheman9758 (Jan 27, 2012)

John said:


> Some quick questions came to mind, was Jordan really 6'6"? and Kobe was a legit 6'7"? Stockon looks taller than 6'1". Malone had to sit out a but as his arms were to big to co exist with David Ribinson's.


Both are about equal at roughly 6'5 

Never go by NBA list heights when trying to figure out a players actual height. Best bet is independently researching credible sources of actual barefoot measurements like draft camps or special events. 



















Kobe Bryant: 6'4.75" 
"Bryant, listed at 6-foot-7 when he entered the NBA and now listed at 6-6 (without the Afro, apparently), came clean with a grin: "I'm probably 6-5 in sneaks."
Bryant's wife, Vanessa, was there and had prodded him by saying she suspected the same thing — and measured her husband at home one day at 6-4 3/4." NY times 12/24/2006.

Actual 6'7 guys are actually quite big. Believe it or not that was Ben Wallace's height in his bare feet, and 6'7.25 was Lebron James. PF Kevin Love and Celtics center Glen Davis are both 6'7.5". Of course all these guys listed heights have also been inflated into the 6'8-6'9.5 range...

Michael Jordan: 6'4.88"
At the 1984 NBA rookie camp, Jordan was measured at 6-4 and 7/8 without shoes.
And weighed in at 196-lbs. His 6'6 list height is his assumed height in shoes. 

Actual 6'6 guys have rarely been quick enough to play as guards. Most play SF or even PF. Dennis Rodman and Paul Pierce are both an actual 6'6 without shoes. Of course their heights were inflated into the 6'7-6'9 range. Just goes to show how bogus list heights can be.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

ans1928 said:


> yes the game of basketball has evolved athletically


has it really? do you know how much faster and more fluidly they played the game back then? 

are you saying someone today is more athletic than Michael or Dominique were? there are big men today more athletic than David Robinson? 

and do you really think that the average guy today is more athletic than the average guy in 92?

because aside from a few outliers (Griffin, Lebron) I dont see it 

and anyway skill trumps athleticism any day of the week


----------



## dantheman9758 (Jan 27, 2012)

e-monk said:


> has it really? do you know how much faster and more fluidly they played the game back then?
> 
> are you saying someone today is more athletic than Michael or Dominique were? there are big men today more athletic than David Robinson?
> 
> ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS1GJ5wxyTc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkXNn1sIsd0

I think people constantly mistake bulking up and increasing strength with athleticism. IMO athleticism is based entirely on an individuals natural potential and ability to perform sports. At least half of the guys in the 1980's youtube video did not spend any time in the gym building their upper bodies. But they were jaw dropping athletes. In fact, their lighter weight bodies are (arguably) better conditioned for that popular running style fast-break basketball. They almost seem to have MORE quickness stamina and acrobatic flexibility because they are lighter and less bulky.

Today's league isn't full of better athletes, it's full of athletes that believe they need to look more like NFL linebackers than a sinewy flexible gymnist. Guards and forwards want to be bigger and stronger so they can pound the ball at the top of the key and have the solid option of charging bodies in the paint looking for that foul or a finish. They are stronger I'm sure, but they aren't "more athletic". Most people will start to look less acrobatic as they increase mass. And ask Bynum, Yao, and Oden how great their legs felt under all that essential mass that this trend produces. Than look at the 240-250lb sticks, Kareem and Gilmore running the floor with guards in their mid 30's on fast breaks. Big men almost seem to have suffered in today's NBA due to this perception that muscle bulk equates to athleticism.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

the great thing about that first link is that those bulls were what passed for 'grinders' at the time (i.e. defensive minded, 'slow it down' (bottom 3rd in pace rating)) and they pretty much make any team in today's game look plodding

another perceptual bias I've noticed is that people discredit players from the 60s because they have to dribble properly, cant palm, and cant take that extra step - so for instance Cousy running out the clock in that famous clip looks silly (because he's not cheating)


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

the other thing is that by most objective measures Darius Miles was more 'athletic' than Kobe so what's that worth?


----------



## JKILLroy (Jan 4, 2012)

Fans who can't comprehend that basketball existed before they started watching tend to vastly exaggerate increase in "athleticism" or "size" ... when people start referencing 1992 as if that's some ancient age in terms of athleticism I begin to fall apart laughing. Even "size" ... Hell Carlos Boozer is built like a brick ISH house, but falls and breaks his hand when tripping over a gym bag haha ... no one in the league is as though, or pound for pound muscular and thick as Charles Oakley was. Same goes for Anthony Mason (who was thick, and VERY quick with nice ball handling)



dantheman9758 said:


> Never go by NBA list heights when trying to figure out a players actual height. Best bet is independently researching credible sources of actual barefoot measurements like draft camps or special events.


Totally. Although some players prefer to be rounded down, for position purposes. KG has always told people to list him as 6'11, but he's EASILY over 7 feet tall. MJ was 6'4 and some change (with shoes), Kobe is ever so slightly longer than MJ, probably a legit 6'5 and some change. Seen Wade in person, who is listed as 6'4, he's like 6'3. Rose is listed as 6'3, and he's more like 6 foot or 6'1. Iverson was listed as 6 foot, but he's 5'10 / 5'11 at best.

With that said, the actual comparison at hand isn't as in favor of the '92 Dream Team as people tend to think.

Magic was rusty, coming off no basketball. And I don't consider him at that stage of his career better than LeBron.

Bird wasn't even close to his former self, and would end up retiring a few months later. Could barely play.

Stockton was hurt.

Jordan, is better than Kobe, but not by such a HUGE margin that it destroys the comparison.

Is Barkely, Robinson, Ewing, Malone, Pippen, Mullin, Laetner really that much better than Wade, Melo, Howard, CP3, Deron Williams, Tayshaun Prince?

I really don't think so to be honest. It's a lot closer if they played as they were on their respective TEAM USA's at the time.

Now, if the '92 Dream Team roster were put together in '88 and you added Isiah Thomas, and replaced a few others. Easily the greatest team of all-time.

Magic and Bird in their primes, or near it. MJ not in his prime, but physically was still one of, if not the best singular talent in basketball.


----------



## JKILLroy (Jan 4, 2012)

e-monk said:


> the other thing is that by most objective measures Darius Miles was more 'athletic' than Kobe so what's that worth?


Exactly. So is Terrance Williams, J.R. Smith, Vince Carter, James "Flight" White, Gerald Green ... and see where that got them.

It's never JUST athleticism, it's skill and bball IQ, and heart.

If on average the talent before the 2000's was less athletic, and I'd agree with that ... doesn't make the post 2000 average NBA athlete better BASKETBALL players.

The game isn't a track meet, or a combine. It's a GAME.

The 2000s and beyond have been on average more athletic because of the influx in straight out of HS "prospects" who were totally judged off athleticism, and not basketball skill. Most of them NEVER panned out.

The average player wasn't as athletic pre-2000's but they were better, smarter ball players. They were pros coming INTO the league, because they went to college and learned their craft. I'd say pre-2000's teams played much smarter basketball.

It's also why we saw such a drop off in identifiable skills in the game, and FG %'s plumeted. Not because of defense (the hand check had been abolished since the '94 season) ... it was the total lack of passing ability, shooting ability, and basketball IQ that gave us such terrible basketball.

The worst I've ever seen was 1999 - 2005.

Sure the complete no breath on rules of 2006 and beyond helped re-spark PPG numbers and interest in the league, but also basketball intelligence was slowly coming back, and we have no more "straight outta HS" flame outs. Thus the league is getting better. I still say they should have mandated at least 2 years of college ball, and not just 1.

Hard work beats talent, when talent doesn't work hard.


----------



## JKILLroy (Jan 4, 2012)

dantheman9758 said:


> Today's league isn't full of better athletes, it's full of athletes that believe they need to look more like NFL linebackers than a sinewy flexible gymnist. Guards and forwards want to be bigger and stronger so they can pound the ball at the top of the key and have the solid option of charging bodies in the paint looking for that foul or a finish. They are stronger I'm sure, but they aren't "more athletic". Most people will start to look less acrobatic as they increase mass. And ask Bynum, Yao, and Oden how great their legs felt under all that essential mass that this trend produces. Than look at the 240-250lb sticks, Kareem and Gilmore running the floor with guards in their mid 30's on fast breaks. Big men almost seem to have suffered in today's NBA due to this perception that muscle bulk equates to athleticism.


Another fantastic point about being more massive as opposed to wirey strong. Which as a basketball player, is really more important anyway.

Everytime I've seen a player now a days gain excessive mass, he's started to have injuries. When Kobe added 20 lbs of muscle before the 2003 season, that was the start of his long list of knee issues. He gained too much weight in 2005, too, had problems.

Every season where he had an athletic, trim physique he's held up well and faired the best 2001, 2002, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, etc.

Last year, LeBron was at the heaviest I've ever seen him. Way heavier than he was as a nimble and quick 6'7 ridiculous athlete from 2004 - 2010. He gained so much weight, he went from a year ago beating one of the best on ball defenders in the league (Kirk Hinrich a combo guard) off the dribble ... to not being able to beat Omar Asik and Taj Gibson off isolations with a live dribble.

This year he has slimmed down some, and is starting to regain some of that explosion. As we've seen with a lot more electrifying athletic plays in this young season so far.


----------



## dantheman9758 (Jan 27, 2012)

JKILLroy said:


> Totally. Although some players prefer to be rounded down, for position purposes. KG has always told people to list him as 6'11, but he's EASILY over 7 feet tall. MJ was 6'4 and some change (with shoes), Kobe is ever so slightly longer than MJ, probably a legit 6'5 and some change. Seen Wade in person, who is listed as 6'4, he's like 6'3. Rose is listed as 6'3, and he's more like 6 foot or 6'1. Iverson was listed as 6 foot, but he's 5'10 / 5'11 at best.


Kobe as I stated above, looks like he was measured at his home by his wife to be 6'4.75" and Jordan for sure was 6'4.88". Despite their negligible difference in height I'll just point out that because of Jordan's immense hands, I believe Kobe ISN'T likely "longer" than Jordan. I actually believe (if referring to wingspan) Kobe likely has a tad less length. Keep in mind hand length (plus shoulder breadth) all counts towards wingspan. It's why Jerry West, the 1960's 6'2 guard with a freaky 6'10 wingspan actually had a sleeve length as long as Wilt Chamberlains. BUT... Wilt's wingspan was 7'8. The difference in their wingspans was entirely Wilt's immense hands and broad shoulders. So, Kobe and Jordan do not appear much different in shoulder length, or arm length, but Jordan's hands likely give him a wingspan edge no? Just my thoughts seeing as how neither player has had their wingspans measured. 

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/ 
A VERY awesome tool that totally exposes much of the controversy over player heights. Just be careful with #'s that pre-date the early 2000's because any rounded number from that period wasn't measured by a draftexpress tape measure, it was "acquired" information from old newspapers and outside sources.

Derrick Rose: Reliably measured 6'1.5 barefoot. 6'2.5 in shoes. Listed: 6'3.... a 1.5" inflation

KG's draft info lists 6'11 barefoot. I believe this is likely true as a rough number. I think what sets him apart from other guys entering the NBA was not that he fibbed about his height, but rather that he chose NOT to fib about it lol. Remember, 99 percent of everyone else in the league uses an inflated "in shoes" height. Comparatively speaking, he's equal too or in excess of most every "7 footer" or "7 foot one" listed player that's ever played the game since the 1980's, since he's the odd man out nobody is going to assume everyone elses height is a lie, they'll assume HIS height is the lie. Odd men out like his sort of plays a mind trick with fans who see him on the floor next to guys that are listed a few inches taller that always look SHORTER than KG! Another rare example of a guy listed barefoot vs in shoes would be O'Neal. His profile states 7'1" barefoot... but specifically he was measured twice his drafted summer first time was 7'0.67" and second measurement a week later was 7'0.88" (a normal discrepancy) - but like I said that old 90's data isn't displayed as precisely as the new stuff so to them this was close enough to just say 7'1. To this day Shaq is always argued by unaware fans to likely be "7 foot two, three, or four!" cause just as with KG, he indeed looked taller than most of his similarly listed "7 footer" peers. (Like 7'0 Olajuwon, 7'0 Ewing, and 7'1 Robinson). Those guys are actually about 6'10.5 6'10 and 7'0 respectively.

What I know about AI is the same as with Shaq. 6'0 barefoot is on his profile but precisely that's not true. He was 5'11.25" at his 1996 draft camp so I think draftexpress.com should look into re-evaluating some of that old rounded 90's draft data. But yah you get the idea, most guys don't stack up to their list heights lol.

Dwane Wade was reliably measured to 6'3.75" barefoot which I'm sure you might find plausible seeing as how you've seen him in person correct? It's not too far off from your guess of about 6'3. He gained A LOT of bulk. He was a rather well filled out 212lb rookie but this summer he was about 231. And he has had knee surgeries, this combination of aging, surgery, and weight gain I notice def effects peoples heights even if only marginally. For example Shaq as I stated was measured precisely 7'0.67-0.88 as a 22 year old 303lb rookie, but as of this past year he openly stated he's now about 6'11 and 7/8ths (6'11.88), which I guess makes sense considering he's at least 70 more lbs, 20 years older, and had knee surgery. Wilt Chamberlain was once a 258lbs and 7'1.06" as a 23 year old rookie but at 48 years old after knee surgery and a solid weight jump to 327 he was measured in 1984 to be exactly 7'0.5" barefoot. 

Also I should point out that before the 1980's, the exaggeration of players heights WAS still present, but it appears to be less prevalent and most it importantly, much less dramatic. Before the advent of those massive 2" healed Nike's like Hakeem would wear, the standard basketball shoe was Chuck Taylors... Which had a laughable 1/4" of padding even in the thickest socks lol... so there was no such thing as an "in shoes" list height, and this alone entirely explains the mid 1980's "average height of NBA player" bump. If a vintage players height was going to secretly be rounded up or exaggerated it never was by the 1.5-3" inflation seen today, it was mostly by .25"-.75" and rarely more than a full inch. Out of dozens of independently researched 50's/60's/70's player heights I've only seen a <1" exaggeration ONCE that pre-dates 1975. And I've calculated the average height of the entire 1961-62 NBA league. There is no indication that the league ever got taller since that era. Literally, modernly tall people appear to have been sought after at every position since what must have been long before the 1960's cause even that far back none of those players would look out of place in today's league when strictly speaking on their height. Upper body strength sure, but def not height.

More interesting stuff
*Ralph Sampson stirred up a boat load of height debates on other forums I've seen. People who DON'T realize a league-wide height inflation was in full swing by the 80's often use him as a ruler to conclude KAJ is _also_ at least 7'4. Sampson has always refused to be measured when his height legitimately came into question in the 1980's. But Kareem for certain was measured no taller than 7'1.625" in his barefeet, and this reasonably was rounded to 7'2". It pre-dates the ridiculous inflation of the 80's-present. Sampson was very likely a 7'1.75" person at best, he never looked taller than Kareem, barely (if at all) looked taller than Robert Parish. Reliably measured 7'3.75" Mark Eaton was taller than Sampson and used to say Sampson looked like he was about 7'1. As a result of this, I think Ralph Sampson takes the cake as one of the most inflated heights I've come across. 

*Magic Johnson of 1979 draft was listed 6'8 in the NCAA... then 6'9 in the NBA. In 1992 he and a small handful of dream team players were measured and he was actually only 6'7 in his socks. He's one of the earliest players I found to have a confirmed 2" height inflation. Most U.S. fans even into the '00's had no idea NBA heights were being inflated but international competition almost always put U.S. players under outside scrutiny because their heights stood out next to equal sized international players.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

and yet, given all that excellent info, my friend at Elias says that there's maybe an 1" difference in average listed height for players from 1960 thru to 2000 (a little more for perimeter players and a little less for the bigs) and yet people will think what they think


----------



## dantheman9758 (Jan 27, 2012)

e-monk said:


> and yet, given all that excellent info, my friend at Elias says that there's maybe an 1" difference in average listed height for players from 1960 thru to 2000 (a little more for perimeter players and a little less for the bigs) and yet people will think what they think


Maybe some day you can show him this... I originally made this list because out of the many people that insisted Wilt Chamberlain only dominated in a "small era" full of 6'6 white centers, none of those critics were honestly willing to do the ACTUAL research to back it up it was all hear-say. I did the research. Found the truth to be rather eye-opening.

So I took his most statistically awesome and unfathomable season (1962-61 when he put up 50.4ppg, 25rpg) and then I researched the size of every individual NBA athlete he had dominated in his league that season from starters down to the last bench player and compared them with all the calculated NBA barefoot measurements displayed on Draft Express from 1989-present as per this tool: http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre...ge=avepos&year=All&source=All&draft=100&sort=... Why barefoot you say? Because remember... "shoe heights" don't exist in Chuck Taylors.

*Pure Guards (Let's call them the Point Guards:*
Bob Cousy G	6-1
K.C. Jones	G	6-1
Gary Phillips	G	6-3
Al Attles	G	6-0
York Larese	G	6-4
Guy Rodgers	G	6-0
Al Bianchi	G	6-3
Larry Costello	G	6-1
Paul Neumann	G	6-1
George Blaney	G	6-1
Donnie Butcher	G	6-2
Al Butler	G	6-2
Richie Guerin	G	6-4
****** Martin	G	6-2
Sam Stith	G	6-2
Hot Rod Hundley	G	6-4
Bob McNeill	G	6-1
Bobby Smith	G	6-4
Jerry West	G	6-2
Bucky Bockhorn	G	6-4
Adrian Smith	G	6-1
Dave Zeller G	6-1
Johnny Egan	G	5-11
Willie Jones G	6-3
Chuck Noble	G	6-4
Don Ohl G	6-3
Gene Shue	G	6-2
Jimmy Darrow	G	5-10
Dick Eichhorst	G	6-3
Vern Hatton	G	6-3
Cleo Hill	G	6-1
Johnny McCarthy	G	6-1
Lenny Wilkens	G	6-1
Howie Carl	G	5-9
Ralph Davis	G	6-4
York Larese	G	6-4
Slick Leonard	G	6-3
1961-62 Season, 37 active, avg = 6-1.89"
1989-2011 NBA draft (sample size avail, 93) avg = 6-1.02"
(Point guards of that season averaged over 3/4 of an inch _taller_ than modern point guards of 1989-present) 

*Guard/Forward swingmen (Let's call them the Shooting Guards):*
Carl Braun G-F	6-5
Sam Jones G-F	6-4
Frank Ramsey F-G	6-3
Paul Arizin F-G	6-4
Ed Conlin F-G	6-5
Tom Gola G-F	6-6
Hal Greer G-F	6-2
Bill Smith G-F	6-5
Frank Selvy G-F	6-3
Oscar Robertson G-F	6-5
Jack Twyman F-G	6-6
George Lee F-G	6-4
Jackie Moreland F-G	6-7
Al Ferrari G-F	6-4
Si Green G-F	6-2
Cliff Hagan F-G	6-4
Fred LaCour G-F	6-5
Bob Sims G-F	6-5
Andy Johnson F-G	6-5
Jack Turner G-F	6-5
1961-62 Season, 20 active, avg = 6-4.45"
1989-2011 NBA draft (sample size avail, 90) avg = 6-3.76"
(Shooting guards of that season average over half an inch _taller_ than shooting guards of 1989-present)

*Pure Forwards (Let's call them the Small Forwards):*
Gene Guarilia F	6-5
Jim Loscutoff F	6-5
Tom Sanders F	6-6
Ted Luckenbill F	6-6
Tom Meschery F	6-6
Frank Radovich F	6-8
Dave Gambee F	6-6
Joe Roberts F	6-6
Chuck Osborne F	6-6
Lee Shaffer F	6-7
Dave Budd F	6-6
Ed Burton F	6-6
Doug Kistler F	6-9
Elgin Baylor F	6-5
Tom Hawkins F	6-5
Bob Boozer F	6-8
Joe Buckhalter F	6-7
Bob Wiesenhahn F	6-4
Bailey Howell F	6-7
Shellie McMillon F	6-5
S. Arceneaux F	6-4
Horace Walker F	6-3
Barney Cable F	6-7
Ron Horn F	6-7
George Bon S. F	6-8
1961-62 Season, 25 active, avg = 6-6.08"
1989-2011 NBA draft (sample size avail, 91) avg = 6-6.40"
(The average small forward height of that season is only 1/3rd of an inch less than the average small forwards drafted between 1989-present)

*Forward/Centers (Let's call them the Power Forwards):* 
Tom Heinsohn F-C	6-7
Joe Ruklick F-C	6-9
Joe Graboski F-C	6-7
Red Kerr C-F	6-9
Dolph Schayes F-C	6-7
C. Buckner F-C	6-9
Johnny Green F-C	6-5
Phil Jordon C-F	6-10
Willie Naulls F-C	6-6
Howie Jolliff F-C	6-7
Jim Krebs C-F	6-8
Rudy LaRusso F-C	6-7
Wayne Embry C-F	6-8
Hub Reed C-F	6-9
Bob Ferry C-F	6-8
Ray Scott F-C	6-9
Larry Foust C-F	6-9
Clyde Lovellette C-F	6-9
Bob Pettit F-C	6-9
W. Sauldsberry F-C	6-7
Archie Dees F-C	6-8
Joe Graboski F-C	6-7
Dave Piontek F-C	6-6
Charlie Tyra C-F	6-8
1961-62 Season, 24 active, avg = 6-7.83"
1989-2011 NBA draft (sample size avail, 127) avg = 6-7.95"
(The power forwards average height that season is negligible in comparison with all modern power forwards from 1989-present... less than 1/8th of an inch)

*Players strictly listed as Centers:* 
Bill Russell C	6-9 (1/2)
Wilt Chamberlain C	7-1 (1/16)
Swede Halbrook C	7-3
Darrall Imhoff C	6-10
Ray Felix C	6-11
Wayne Yates C	6-8
Bevo Nordmann C	6-10
Walter Dukes C	7-0
Walt Bellamy C	6-11
1961-1962 Season, 9 active, avg = 6-11.06" (6-10.81" _excluding_ Wilt) 
1989-2011 NBA draft (sample size avail, 67) avg = 6-10.44"
(Centers of that season averaged over 1/4 of an inch _taller_ than modern centers, and that is if we exclude Wilt - the difference is more than 1/2 an inch if we included him)

The reason I have to structure the list in such a way for 1-5 spots was because back then there were only 3 recognized positions. G, F, C. But www.basketball-reference.com has done an excellent job at indicating the players that were pulling double-duties between 2 positions. I used those players that pulled double duty as the analogues for today's common distinctions between of P/S Guards and S/P Forwards. 

Also take a close look at the guards. UNLIKE today's league, there were a lot less sub-6 foot point guards making the cuts on teams likely because it was a small 8-9 team league and plenty more "large" guards were available vs in a 30-32 team league. Today, hundreds of draftee candidates since 1989 have been less than 6'0 tall. Even to be 6'1 back then could net you a teasing nickname like 6'1 Nate "Tiny" Archibald. He would be close to Derrick Rose's height today, and would dwarf today's 5'7.75 Nate Robinson but in his league he was rather small next to the starting point guards of the early 70's.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

*Tiny*



dantheman9758 said:


> Even to be 6'1 back then could net you a teasing nickname like 6'1 Nate "Tiny" Archibald. He would be close to Derrick Rose's height today, and would dwarf today's 5'7.75 Nate Robinson but in his league he was rather small next to the starting point guards of the early 70's.


How do you know "Tiny" referred to his height?


----------



## dantheman9758 (Jan 27, 2012)

*Re: Tiny*



RollWithEm said:


> How do you know "Tiny" referred to his height?


lol, if it isn't than... poor guy...


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

I look at those two teams and off the original dream team id take off only laettner and mullin and replace them with lebron and kobe, otherwise dreamteam 1 is superior right on down the line


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

roux2dope said:


> I look at those two teams and off the original dream team id take off only laettner and mullin and replace them with lebron and kobe, otherwise dreamteam 1 is superior right on down the line


if you're going to do it that way then I'd take Paul over Stockton every day of this or any other week


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

e-monk said:


> if you're going to do it that way then I'd take Paul over Stockton every day of this or any other week


That one may be close, but i still like stockton personally


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

dantheman9758 said:


> Maybe some day you can show him this... I originally made this list because out of the many people that insisted Wilt Chamberlain only dominated in a "small era" full of 6'6 white centers, none of those critics were honestly willing to do the ACTUAL research to back it up it was all hear-say. I did the research. Found the truth to be rather eye-opening.
> 
> So I took his most statistically awesome and unfathomable season (1962-61 when he put up 50.4ppg, 25rpg) and then I researched the size of every individual NBA athlete he had dominated in his league that season from starters down to the last bench player and compared them with all the calculated NBA barefoot measurements displayed on Draft Express from 1989-present as per this tool: http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre...ge=avepos&year=All&source=All&draft=100&sort=... Why barefoot you say? Because remember... "shoe heights" don't exist in Chuck Taylors.
> 
> ...


So the average Center ofc course wasn't 6'6" like some like to say... and your stats prove that the average height was much more than that....BUT, look at the names on that Center list. The talent level of big men then was awful. Just looking at height doesn't mean anything to me. Of course you disprove the guy that goes around saying Wilt only did it against 6'6" white guys, but to the basketball fan, telling me the average height means nothing, especially when you look at the names attached to those heights.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

that's for one season for an 8 team league - look at the center position for this season for a 30 team league and tell me it's any better (for instance 3 hall of fame studs starting amongst the 8 teams = 37.5% of the teams have a hall of fame level guy playing at center - can you say better than that about this season?)


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

This thread has certainly be derailed.


----------

