# 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 10?



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

I have a hard time gauging players like Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russel's careers since they played in an era that I am right now very much biased against. It even seems like its disrespecful to not name those guys high in a top 10; almost like the top 10 players were some sort of holy commandments etched in stone and Wilt/Bill are like ****ing religious figures on a pedestal. But we have a community of posters with basketball knowledge superior than mine so feel free to put me in my place and shed some light on why I should give more respect to 60's players. I am also interested in how you guys rank the historical greats and how this era of basketball sits in your minds when compared to today's game.

If you rank Wilt, Bill, or anyone from the 60's in your top 10 - why? I also think many people list these guys up there simply because everyone else does especially when the poster is literally less than a third of Bill's age.

I realize that the game changed and developed during Wilt/Bill's time but here's the big jumbled mess in my head when I think of the 60's and why I can't weigh their accomplishments and play to that of more modern eras:

Not as competitive as more modern eras; fewer teams, smaller talent pool, nowhere near as popular or heavily invested as seen in more modern eras, worse coaching, worse physical fitness level of players due to lack of modern fitness training methods and nutrition, game and player's arsenal of moves is still in its infancy, rampant racism and segregation, and more. 

The 60's also seemed to invite stat-padders since officiating was questionable and probably much worse than today's, physical play was allowed to a much higher degree, you could camp the hoop and jump over players' backs to get the rebound, and on another tangent the lack of video footage during this time only further hurts the 60's in my eyes. Of the footage available the players and overall game looks largely unimpressive unless its a highlight reel in which case its either Wilt or Bill destroying the other players. 

I realize that there was nothing Wilt could've done since that was just the era he was born in; but my bias against the 60's is further amplified when we take a look at the Dream Team versus the world in the Olympics compared to their modern counterparts. Even as recent as the early 90's, players have come a long way internationally and have stepped up to an NBA-level as seen when Team USA took home the bronze medal a few years back. International talent is found in more places than Africa which I attribute to the many benefits of living in the modern era.

While 60's GOATs made an undeniable historical impact; against big men who played in the best big man era of all time I feel that those more modern players' accomplishments, athleticism, skill, and overall impact on the team is of a much higher magnitude simply because of how much more competitive the NBA is today compared to the ABA/60's era. 

Sorry for the long post but this is a topic I am very interested in and don't get me wrong my perspective is more than malleable as long as some logical and rational discussion takes place however my bias is lengthy against the 60's.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*

Well, Wilt was a world class athlete, and he was what? 7' 260+? I think he would do well in any era considering his athleticism. I don't know much about Russell honestly, but what I do know is that he was a very cerebral player, and with that i think he'd do well in other eras also.

Would Wilt average 50/25 in todays nba, or in the 80s or 90s? Nope. Or lead the league in assists? Nah. Would Russell win 11 rings playing ball today? Not unless he was teamed with Duncan, Lebron, Kobe and Chris Paul. Ultimately it's not their fault they played when they played. The only thing I take issue with is when people bring up Wilt's stats as if he could do anything near that today, or that Russell will win titles the way he did. 

What I wonder more is, how would they react to the officiating? And lastly, if Wilt was playing today you have to remember you can't just throw him in the 2000s as he was. Consider that he would have his natural athletic gifts coupled with whatever you say helps today's athletes. He would be a great player, no doubt.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*

Wilt was a world class athlete.

He ran the 100 yard dash in 10.9 seconds... so imagine a 7 footer who is faster than your typical guard.

He high jumped 6 feet 6 inches when he was in school... I can't imagine his ups when he was in his prime. I guess the only thing close we have to that these days is Dwight Howard... imagine Dwight Howard at 7'1"... how could that not succeed in any era?

Is it that outlandish that Dwight Howard + 3 inches would average over 15 boards a game, at least?


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*

All eras are relative, and when you rank these players its only fair to compare them to the people they actually played against.. could shaq do what wilt did back in the 60's? nobody knows the answer to that. The game is constantly evolving, players are getting bigger, stronger and more athletic, its obvious to anyone that there is more physical talent in professional athletes today in all sports compared to 40-50 years ago, but its all about how you did against your peers when you were playing


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*

The individual accomplishments I have nothing against (as the NBA has always been the best of the best since the 60's). However, team wise accomplishments I just do not factor Russell's 11 titles in when ranking him. That era when the Celtics won their titles was in a league that wasn't even a real league yet.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*



HKF said:


> The individual accomplishments I have nothing against (as the NBA has always been the best of the best since the 60's). However, team wise accomplishments I just do not factor Russell's 11 titles in when ranking him. That era when the Celtics won their titles was in a league that wasn't even a real league yet.



Bull. That's like saying you just don't feel like the stats of people like Bird and Magic count because they played in the expansion era and before international players. You can feel it all you want but without some decent and articulated rationale for your refusal, you just look ignorant.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*



BadBaronRudigor said:


> Bull. That's like saying you just don't feel like the stats of people like Bird and Magic count because they played in the expansion era and before international players. You can feel it all you want but without some decent and articulated rationale for your refusal, you just look ignorant.


The NBA always had the best talent overall. His point is not the talent level, but the competition as a whole. Less teams to play against and a bigger chance to succeed.

Now imagine the NBA contracting to say, 12 teams with no cap. New York, LA and Boston take the top talent and everyone else gets whatever they can afford.

Now you have a team that features say, Deron Williams, Dwyane Wade, Lebron, Duncan and Howard as the starting 5, who then win 5 straight. It's like saying wow, "Lebron was so great a player he won 5 straight", without ever considering the other great players he won with, and how the league was imbalanced.

It's not ignorant. Also, let's be real. When it comes to international players, how many of them crack the top 10? Top 15? 

We're not talking about a sport like baseball before and after integration.


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*

I fully admit I have a negative bias against athletes like Wilt because of his era; due to this bias I can't help but question the validity of some of his athletic accomplishments like in the track and field events especially since many of them don't have video footage and they conflict with other articles like I quote from below. 

When it comes to jumping records - I think the form or rules behind it has also changed since Wilt's time? And in this old article that centers around college-Wilt, it lists him as having a standing vertical of only *24 inches*; however this article was written in 1955 when Wilt was still a college player:



> He stands 7-feet in his sweat socks. Over this frame are spread 225 sinewy pounds. He is almost as agile as a 5-11 playmaker. He can jump 24 inches straight up
> 
> http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/wilt/article3.html








Tragedy said:


> It's not ignorant. Also, let's be real. When it comes to international players, how many of them crack the top 10? Top 15?
> 
> We're not talking about a sport like baseball before and after integration.


Hmm as for all-time international players we have Hakeem who was born in Nigeria I believe and if we stretch the definition a little we can include Tim Duncan who is from the Virgin Islands. Those two are the main candidates from international origins for a top 10; but once we start expanding to say top 50 or so then we have guys like Dirk, Steve Nash, Yao Ming, Mutumbo, etc who are all probably overall better at basketball than anyone in the 60's if we compare them directly to their counterparts.



I'm probably not getting the concept of sports-era relativity; however I'm not sure if its even possible to relate the ABA days to the much more competitive and modern era's. Its hard for me to make the argument that Wilt or Bill is on the same page as Michael Jordan whose career lasted in the best big man era of NBA basketball all the while it was played at a much higher and competitive level than in Wilt's time. It seems like there's a lot of leeway given to guys who cemented their careers in the 60's especially since they have long since achieved legendary status in NBA history.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*

Hakeem and Duncan both products of the NCAA, and not true international players. Not is Steve Nash.

Yao, and Dirk are, not Mutumbo.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*



Jakain said:


> ............


1. Guys like Wilt and Russell (and Oscar) are getting mentioned because basketball fans want to make their All-Time Top-whatever list.
Yes, 60's ball was different than today's.
Yes, 70's ball was different than today's.
Yes, 80's ball was different than today's.
Trying to rank the Greatest Players Ever scoffing at the 60's is pretty supid (IMHO). We should all better put up something of a "All-Time List of Basketball Players that didn't play in the 60's". Or better yet, "Who is the GOAT considering 1980-and-beyond basketball?"
Stupid. People may like it or not, but the NBA didn't start with Michael Jordan.

2. People are always saying: "IF player X (today's player) would have played in the 60's, he would have demolished everyone." 
Very few people are thinking about the opposite:
- What if guys like Bob Cousy COULD dribble the ball without having to push it to the ground from the very top? Wjat if they could push it sideways? OR better yet, what if Bob Cousy could palm, carry or travel in every possetion?
- What if guys like West, Oscar, Hondo, even Barry had the luxury to play with the 3-point shot back in the day? How many more ppg would they haved achieve?
- What if assists were credited so loosely back in the day (as in: no dribbling after the pass)?

Picture this: a 7-1 center playing today. Ripped as David Robinson was; able to stick the jumper, or even the fade-away; who mastered the fingerroll; who would sink a jump-hook from the distance. Then you would get Wilt Chamberlain playing today. Yeah, from the 80's till today lumbering giants like Brad Daugherty and Yao Ming were/is called as a great center. Meh.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*

I don't take anything away from the players who played in the 60's. The team accomplishments I cannot buy when the Celtics can have 8-10 HOF on one roster. It was just an era that could not exist in the modern time because everyone would have a shot at those players. 

The NBA having a league with less than half they have now, is just not a real league. Too much talent was concentrated on one team during Russell's era and that's why he won those titles. So they don't receive an asterisk, but I look at the NBA pre-ABA merger as a different league anyway.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*

I've done this before but let's look at the players that played with Russell and see how many of them are legit HOF players if they played today. The HOF players that were on the early Russell teams were Cousy, Sharman, Ramsey,and Heinsohn. The players that played through his later years were Sam Jones, Havlicek, and KC Jones. 

*Bob Cousy* -- perennial All-Star, one MVP, on all time leaderboard in assists; sometime 20ppg scorer, weak defender -- Magic Johnson of his day (without the size), legit
*Bill Sharman* -- perrenial All-Star, on all time leaderboard in FT%; sometime 20ppg scorer, one dimensional jump shooter -- Michael Redd of his day (with no 3 pointer), not making HOF in modern era
*Tom Heinsohn* -- regular all-star, never made 1st team All-NBA even in smaller league, weak defense, mediocre rebounder, Tom Chambers, no way HOF today
*Frank Ramsey* -- never made an all-star team, never approached 20 ppg, in HOF for being pioneer 6th man; Toni Kukoc, no way HOF today

*KC Jones* was a defensive specialist PG who had no real offensive skills. He never even made an All-Star team but is in the HOF (go figure). Bruce Bowen. No way HOF today.
*Sam Jones* quickly became an excellent role player and given a starting role became a solid two way scorer. Never made a 1st team All-NBA, only 3 2nd team awards, not HOF caliber today. Horace Grant?
*John Havlicek* was easily the greatest player Russell played with. He came into the league as a great physical specimen without great skills (he learned to create his own shot later) but virtually limitless energy and effort. He was a perrenial All-Star but only started scoring big numbers and earning 1st team All-NBA honors after Russell retired. Equivalent is Scottie Pippen, sure HOF player.

So, Russell played with two "legit" HOF players, one of whom was winding down as the other came in. Other than that, he played with some decent role players (Sharman, Heinsohn, Sam Jones, KC Jones, Ramsey) who are in the HOF because they played with Bill Russell. None of them would have anything resembling a case for the HOF with their numbers (or even their numbers adjusted for pace and era fg% average) if they played after 1970, though Sam Jones might have a James Worthy type argument. This is not an unreasonable level of talent relative to the league for a great team. 

The idea that the 60s Celtics were somehow stacked with HOF players is mainly because of the old timers of the HOF committee that (like in baseball) puts lesser players from earlier days in with the true greats (and blackballs ABA stars like Artis Gilmore, George McGinnis, and Mel Daniels). I would say that the Showtime Lakers, Bird Celtics, and Jordan Bulls had at least equivalent talent RELATIVE TO THE LEAGUE, those players just got less recognition for their skills.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*

I reckon you could get your *** kicked for Ranking Wilt or Bill below top ten.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*

OK, even beyond the roster, there were only a dozen or so NBA teams back then, no?


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*

Yes, and that is a legit reason to consider MJ #1 rather than Russell. Bill James did a study in Baseball Abstract showing how much more difficult it was to lead a league or win a title in an expanded game . . . more than I would have guessed. But, that doesn't mean the titles are valueless. And . . . the fact that Russell started winning then immediately and kept it up through retirement while MJ needed to mature and quit playing for stats (with his "supporting cast") are counter arguments. For that matter Duncan winning 4 in today's NBA with it's greater talent base and larger size may even be more key than Jordan's 6. It's the kind of question worth debating. But Russell's titles aren't like Mikan's . . . tainted be an absence of black players and no shot clock. They are in a relatively modern NBA.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*

There are knocks against any players claims to fame. I personally feel like Jordan played in a watered-down time in terms of total team talent. Ewing never had a Pippen-level sidekick, nor did Reggie, Barkley, or a few others I'm probably leaving out. Payton-Kemp and Shaq-Penny hadn't hit their primes(and even then Shaq-Penny beat Jordan in the playoffs once). 
Aside from these teams the other contenders were mostly ensemble casts. Stockton-Malone are probably the best response to this claim, but Malone was known for coming up short in big spots and Stockton wasn't the type to take over a series with scoring. 

It isn't Jordan's fault that nobody put together a team to push him to another level, and this also isn't an airtight argument, which I know. Jordan just happened to reach his peak right after the Big Three, Showtime, and some great Philly teams and before Duncan and Shaq dominated a decade. Hakeem was probably the next best of Jordan's era, and they never met in the finals during Hakeem's peak, once due to baseball and once because the Bulls were eliminated by Orlando. None of this takes away from what Jordan did because the era he played in wasn't under his control, just like it isn't Russell and Wilt's fault that Wilt was a physical freak and Red Auerbach was the greatest GM of his time.

EDIT: I failed to mention the bad boy Pistons. Jordan followed them directly. Pretty bad omission on my part.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*

Great question by the OP:
Some good points have been made already and I'm surprised that there hasn't been more discussion about this. To quickly answer the OP's question on whether Wilt and Russell would still be top 10 players in today's league, I think the answer is "yes" and "maybe" respectively.

In Wilt's case, it's a fairly easy call. If you'd put Shaq and Kareem in the top 10, then Wilt would go there too. If your top 10 is more competitive than that, then...well, I'd like to see your top 10!

In Russell's case, he would pretty much have to win LOTS of rings to get that kind of recognition; maybe not 11, but 5+, because his strengths are not quite so obvious as Wilt's (i.e. not purely physical/visual and not so obvious from a statline). If Russell played on a perennial contender, he'd likely garner the DPOY, All-Defense, BPG, RPG, All Star bids, and rings to maybe pull it off.

Problem with a lot of these comparisons is that bad arguments lead to bad counter arguments. i.e. "Russell only won because he had so many Hall of Famers" "Russell is GOAT because he had 11 rings"...these statements argue opposite viewpoints but are equally flawed for their shallow analysis of the subject.

Without understanding exactly WHO Russell's teammates were, one might assume he played for the 60's equivalent of the Dream Team. Such was not the case. Without understanding the context in which Russell won his championships, one might assume that he was 2.75 times the winner that Shaq is.

To really understand how Russell would fare in today's game or whether you should judge him to be in your Top 10 (I am assuming that this discussion is based on the premise that we rank players by how they would fare in actual compeition - usually in the current or a recent era - and not simply by accomplishments), you need to understand Russell.

And so on for each player you wish to consider.

Since I wasn't alive in the 60's and have very little opportunity to watch full games from that era, rating most players is difficult. Fortunately, we're not interested in most players, only in the best.

Wilt is easy because he is no less a physical marvel today than in his time. The athletic competition among legitimate 7-footers is not particularly intense. Wilt is one of the most athletic (if not the most) 7-footers of all time. His skills are evident even from youtube clips (ever seen Shaq do a turn around fadeaway from 12 feet?). His numbers can be roughly adjusted for pace to avoid THE ALL TIME DUMBEST "WILT IS GOAT" ARGUMENT "He did 50/25, nobody else could do that!".

I suspect that Wilt would be overall inferior to a prime Shaq on offense, but more skilled and versatile overall and a better defensive presence. In short, if you didn't have Shaq, you would want Wilt. If you didn't have Wilt, you would want Shaq.

Other players, especially those who appear to be rather unathletic or under-sized at their positions (West at SG, Baylor at SF, Russell at C) are a tougher call. For what it's worth, I think many of the greatest players in the era (or any era one would hope) were great for their mental attributes as well as their skills and physical attributes. This doesn't mean that Oscar Robertson would AVERAGE A TRIPLE DOUBLE (probably the second worst "60's GOAT" argument of all time), but he might not be too far from pace adjusted averages of 24/7/10 in the right situation. Kind of looks a bit like a higher scoring Jason Kidd, doesn't it?

As another poster (think it was Paolo) mentioned, unimpressive ball-handling in clips is mostly down to much tighter officiating. Many thought Jordan got away with murder in the 80's with his pseudo-palm crossovers and spins, now the situation is even *more* lax with players like LeBron even filing complaints to the league essentially arguing that a travel is not a travel. Players today are not such superior ball handlers to players before; the league has just pandered to whatever flashy play will attract casual fans.

Long story short, if (like me) you didn't have to privilege of actually watching them play, then it takes a bit of work to come up with a halfway decent analysis. If you're interested, learn more about how the era was different: how pace influences the statlines you see, how different standards of officiating influence the game that you see, how certain players *really* played and who their teammates were.

Don't let a lame argument or a bad counterargument influence you into a broad opinion such as "the 60's was not a legit era".


----------



## gi0rdun (May 31, 2007)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*

Most people weren't alive or don't remember the 60s so when someone drops a name from the 60s they'll automatically be like "oh yea *60s player* is really good!" to not sound stupid.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*

Greatness is measured by how much better the guy is compared to the guys he played against. Wilt was that much better than his peers just like Tiger Woods is that much better than his competition. You can't just drag the 2 names and say that because Shaq may beat Wilt in a game of fantasy one on one that automatically makes Shaq the better player. It is the same thing in other sports. I don't think Babe Ruth can hit Tim Lincecum if Ruth had a time machine and travelled to our times. That doesn't mean that the Babe isn't a great player, it just means that players evolve. It is the same in boxing. They say that Joe Louis is one of the best heavyweights ever but I don't think he can beat someone like Roy Jones in his prime. Roy Jones isn't considered the greatest boxer of our times but I don't think anyone in the 30s and 40s had his kind of physical ability.

Look at it like this, 50 years from now when we look back at Lebron and co. perhaps we will say that whoever is the best at that time is better than guys right now. You see guys get better in all sports but that doesn't take away the greatness of the guys that played in the past.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*



seifer0406 said:


> Greatness is measured by how much better the guy is compared to the guys he played against. Wilt was that much better than his peers just like Tiger Woods is that much better than his competition. You can't just drag the 2 names and say that because Shaq may beat Wilt in a game of fantasy one on one that automatically makes Shaq the better player. It is the same thing in other sports. I don't think Babe Ruth can hit Tim Lincecum if Ruth had a time machine and travelled to our times. That doesn't mean that the Babe isn't a great player, it just means that players evolve. It is the same in boxing. They say that Joe Louis is one of the best heavyweights ever but I don't think he can beat someone like Roy Jones in his prime. Roy Jones isn't considered the greatest boxer of our times but I don't think anyone in the 30s and 40s had his kind of physical ability.
> 
> Look at it like this, 50 years from now when we look back at Lebron and co. perhaps we will say that whoever is the best at that time is better than guys right now. You see guys get better in all sports but that doesn't take away the greatness of the guys that played in the past.


You're right about preserving the greatness of everyone based on how they did against the competition they faced. I think this thread and the OP's original question has more to do with directly comparing players to each other. It's not an issue of what you "can" or "can't" do, so much as what you wish to do. 

For some fans, we really want to know "how would Wilt do?" or "would Mikan do okay?", not so we can say "Wilt would just be another David Robinson" or "Mikan wouldn't make it out of the NCAA, so he's not that great afterall", but because we want *another* way to view the greatness of players.

Maybe that sort of thing doesn't interest you, but it's not wrong, and it doesn't make the measure of greatness you're talking about - how players really performed in their era - an inferior measure of greatness. It's just not the _only_ measure of greatness.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*



JPSeraph said:


> You're right about preserving the greatness of everyone based on how they did against the competition they faced. I think this thread and the OP's original question has more to do with directly comparing players to each other. It's not an issue of what you "can" or "can't" do, so much as what you wish to do.
> 
> For some fans, we really want to know "how would Wilt do?" or "would Mikan do okay?", not so we can say "Wilt would just be another David Robinson" or "Mikan wouldn't make it out of the NCAA, so he's not that great afterall", but because we want *another* way to view the greatness of players.
> 
> Maybe that sort of thing doesn't interest you, but it's not wrong, and it doesn't make the measure of greatness you're talking about - how players really performed in their era - an inferior measure of greatness. It's just not the _only_ measure of greatness.


If that's the question then my answer is that Wilt wouldn't be considered as good if he played today. He certainly wouldn't score 100 points and have those ridiculous averages.

However, like I said, I find this kind of comparison pointless because the game is evolving constantly. Even if someone claims that Lebron is the greatest player in the history of NBA because he would theoretically dominate guys 40 years ago, 50 years from now he wouldn't be nearly as good because I'm sure there will be better guys by then. So basically using that comparison, whoever that you conclude as great today likely wouldn't be great down the road. And whoever you conclude as great in the future wouldn't be considered great in a later future.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*



seifer0406 said:


> If that's the question then my answer is that Wilt wouldn't be considered as good if he played today. *He certainly wouldn't score 100 points and have those ridiculous averages.*


You're right, he wouldn't. Before you can ascertain how good Wilt might be today, you'd want to understand a bit about what his numbers might look like today - something I mentioned in both of my previous posts in this thread.




> However, like I said, I find this kind of comparison pointless because the game is evolving constantly. Even if someone claims that Lebron is the greatest player in the history of NBA because he would theoretically dominate guys 40 years ago, 50 years from now he wouldn't be nearly as good because I'm sure there will be better guys by then. So basically using that comparison, *whoever that you conclude as great today likely wouldn't be great down the road. And whoever you conclude as great in the future wouldn't be considered great in a later future.*


On what are you basing this?

Perhaps you do not like comparing players across eras on any basis other than how well they each did in their respective eras. That is a a perfectly valid way of comparing players, and in some cases (track and field world records) a clearly better method than the one employed in this thread - but it's not the _only_ way of comparing players.

You seem to favor one method very highly; perhaps this has led you to expend little effort in using or understanding other methods. That makes you somewhat unqualified to claim that other methods are invalid.


----------



## BadBaronRudigor (Jul 27, 2006)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*



JPSeraph said:


> Other players, especially those who appear to be rather unathletic or under-sized at their positions (West at SG, Baylor at SF, Russell at C) are a tougher call. For what it's worth, I think many of the greatest players in the era (or any era one would hope) were great for their mental attributes as well as their skills and physical attributes. This doesn't mean that Oscar Robertson would AVERAGE A TRIPLE DOUBLE (probably the second worst "60's GOAT" argument of all time), but he might not be too far from pace adjusted averages of 24/7/10 in the right situation. Kind of looks a bit like a higher scoring Jason Kidd, doesn't it?


Just a couple of things that I see constantly that I want to correct. 
(a) West was a PG. He brought the ball up the court and set up the offense. He played with bigger guards as well as smaller. He led the Lakers guards in assists every year he played. HE LED THE WHOLE LEAGUE IN ASSISTS ONCE. Yes, he scored a lot but by that standard, Oscar, Magic, Nate Archibald, even Cousy aren't PGs. . . Oh and as for his size, he was 6'2 or 6'3 in stocking feet depending on which site you use. Adding 1.5" for shoes, that puts him at 6'4, about the same as Dwyane Wade.

(b) Oscar was not a higher scoring Jason Kidd. Calling either Oscar or Magic (who played a style more like Kidd) a higher scoring Jason Kidd ignores the fact that they are two of the most efficient scoring points to ever play while Kidd is one of the lower efficiency players. Great at other things, sure. Better defensively than either, sure. But it's not just scoring volume, efficiency is an even bigger differentiator.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*



BadBaronRudigor said:


> Just a couple of things that I see constantly that I want to correct.
> (a) West was a PG. He brought the ball up the court and set up the offense. He played with bigger guards as well as smaller. He led the Lakers guards in assists every year he played. HE LED THE WHOLE LEAGUE IN ASSISTS ONCE. Yes, he scored a lot but by that standard, Oscar, Magic, Nate Archibald, even Cousy aren't PGs. . . Oh and as for his size, he was 6'2 or 6'3 in stocking feet depending on which site you use. Adding 1.5" for shoes, that puts him at 6'4, about the same as Dwyane Wade.
> 
> (b) Oscar was not a higher scoring Jason Kidd. Calling either Oscar or Magic (who played a style more like Kidd) a higher scoring Jason Kidd ignores the fact that they are two of the most efficient scoring points to ever play while Kidd is one of the lower efficiency players. Great at other things, sure. Better defensively than either, sure. But it's not just scoring volume, efficiency is an even bigger differentiator.


My mistake, I do that all the time with West (and blame the media for always ranking him as a SG). It seems that most of his Lakers squads did not have a traditional point guard, but another combo guard or a pure scorer alongside him. At least that is my impression.
Was Baylor a pure small forward?

I perhaps somewhat lazily threw out that "Jason Kidd with better scoring" comment, since most "no way X player would be that good in today's NBA" people would find it more offensive if I said something like "scoring skills of Kobe, playmaking of Magic".

Of the three you mentioned, I would say that in terms of scoring ability, there is about as much difference between Oscar and Magic as between Magic and Kidd.

But I may be overrating Oscar's scoring ability. I have never seen a complete game of Oscar while he was still in his early prime, so my comment is mostly based on what I have read, what others whose judgement I trust have said, and his statistical profile, which is of course, unique.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*



JPSeraph said:


> You're right, he wouldn't. Before you can ascertain how good Wilt might be today, you'd want to understand a bit about what his numbers might look like today - something I mentioned in both of my previous posts in this thread.


But how are you going to come up with numbers that are conclusive. It is easier with Wilt because we know that he has the athleticism and size by today's standards, but how about guys without distinctive physical traits. You pull guys like Jerry West or Bob Cousy and line them up against today's NBA they are certainly not going to do as well, at least in my opinion, because they are just not athletic enough.



> On what are you basing this?


I'm basing this on the fact that the game is evolving and the athletes are evolving, which is the basis of my entire post. Guys(on average) 40 years ago are less athletic than guys 30 years ago, and guys 30 years ago are less athletic than guys 20 years ago, and so on and so forth. This leads me to believe that while it may not be as big of a gap athletically 50 years from now than 50 years before, there will be gap that is significant enough that the average player of this era will be deemed unable to compete in the future. 



> Perhaps you do not like comparing players across eras on any basis other than how well they each did in their respective eras. That is a a perfectly valid way of comparing players, and in some cases (track and field world records) a clearly better method than the one employed in this thread - but it's not the only way of comparing players.
> 
> You seem to favor one method very highly; perhaps this has led you to expend little effort in using or understanding other methods. That makes you somewhat unqualified to claim that other methods are invalid.


It is not whether I like or dislike a method of comparing, I just don't see how these discussions can come to any realistic conclusion because it's just one person's view against the other without any realistic stats to back them up. The stats are relative, the competition is relative, it's basically one person pitching a fantasy scenario to another person. This is all well and dandy but it does feel offensive when someone is going to take away greatness from past players using such methods.

You talk about expanding effort for supporting my argument, but the matter is that I don't feel anyone can expand any effort from either side. Because there is no solid evidence on either side to stand on, which is exactly why I feel the way I do.

And just to clear this up, I am not saying that these types of comparison are invalid by anyway. You can make these comparisons and determine that so and so player from the past is better/worse than certain player from another era. It is just that I don't feel that the conclusions reach by these comparisons should have any impact on the historical values of those players.


----------



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*

This is an interesting thread 
Earlier this year I was able to see some really old games in full through a friend of mine
He had a bunch of games from 64/65 season of the lakers with Baylor and Jerry West
Some games from Wilts legendary 50 point campaign (not the 100 point game though)
and even some 58 finals games between the Celtics and St Louis Hawks(Pettit, Hagan)

Here is what I gather
Wilts 50 points is amazing no doubt but people forget that he averaged OVER 48 minutes a game
Actually if you adjust his number to pace and 36 minutes a game its really only 37 points a game

Russell is terribelly overrated (by most people)
Im sorry this guy was a great defender but he was border line Ben Wallace on offense(maybe not that bad)

People forget that besides Russell, Cousy, Havlicek Tom Heinsohn was a heck of a player

Oscar would never average a triple double in todays game, rebounds were much much much easier to come by because there were so many misses

Anyway here are my top 6 players pre70 (from what I saw, which is probably 15 to 20 games, he had a lot more but I didnt get around to it plus they were kind of boring to be honest) and what I estimate they would average in todays NBA in their prime season

1. Wilt Chamberlain 33/12/2 I know those numbers are huge but this guys 61/62 season was truly magical and he would be able to put up 30 plus in any era with his athletism and he actually understood the game pretty well (compared to lets say DHoward)

2. Elgin Baylor 26/10/4 Maybe a little high rebounding numbers for a 6foot5 guy but he could truely fly and I saw him getting rebounds amost as often as Russell and Wilt

3. Oscar Robertson 23/5/9 No triple double for him but this guy can score and the only guy I saw that can be an amazing passer in todays NBA(Cousy would be an above average passer for a PG but nothing special)

4. Jerry West 25/4/5 This guy was an amazing shooter and probably the best pure scorer of his time, kind of like a less athletic Kobe because he had so many go to moves on the offensive end

5. Bob Pettit 23/8/3 This guy really caught my eye and I was gonna rate him higher but I think that might be because I saw him score 50(!) points in the finals, including 19 in the 4th, I realize that it was probably the best game of his career so I dropped him a little

6. Bill Russell 12/12/4 As you see his numbers wouldnt be very impressive these days but besides scoring, he was easily the most dominating defender of his time and a really good passer and outlet passer in particular


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*



seifer0406 said:


> But how are you going to come up with numbers that are conclusive. It is easier with Wilt because we know that he has the athleticism and size by today's standards, but how about guys without distinctive physical traits. You pull guys like Jerry West or Bob Cousy and line them up against today's NBA they are certainly not going to do as well, at least in my opinion, because they are just not athletic enough.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think the key is that there is no truly scientifically rigorous methodology involved and thus no firm conclusions can be drawn. In my opinion, with this type of comparison, it is primarily just a recreational activity. I do it to reach a better understanding of the game and to have a good time, not to make a firm decision regarding a player's value (although with Wilt, it IS quite easy).

If it bothers me how someone can say that this type of comparison is worthless, I can see how it might bother you that someone might use comparing across eras to come to conclusions like "Mikan sucks and this detracts from his historical value". Personally, I don't think Mikan would be quite so successful in today's NBA, but in my mind, this doesn't detract from his place in NBA history.

Regarding athletes evolving, this does present a certain difficulty. But, I think it's a case of diminishing returns. Much of the difference physically between 1950 and 2000 has to do with a greatly expanding talent pool. Another major factor is greatly increased physical conditioning. Since the NBA is fairly global at this point, the talent pool shouldn't grow too drastically (although with 2.5 billion people in China and India, you never know...), so it's down to physical conditioning. This will no doubt continue to improve, but barring something dramatic (legalizing all steroids, use of nanotechnology to create 'super' humans, etc) gains should be fairly limited.

So, I don't think you will have a situation in 50 years where you look at Michael Jordan and say "well, he would still be above average, but..."

Really, for myself and most fans under age 40, the biggest obstacle to comparing players from the 50's, 60's, and 70's is still lack of knowledge. I didn't watch much from the 80's, but it's a heck of a lot easier to figure out guys like Magic, Bird, Isiah than West, Baylor, Robertson.

For these reasons, (lack of adequate footage, vast differences in the game, physical differences in the players), the older basketball generations will always be tougher to compare. Provided that footage from the 90's is still available via whatever (youtube?) channel in 2050, my future counterpart should have a much easier time seeing how a player like Jordan would fit into the NBA in 2050 than I did trying to figure out how Jerry West would do in 2000.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*



> If it bothers me how someone can say that this type of comparison is worthless, I can see how it might bother you that someone might use comparing across eras to come to conclusions like "Mikan sucks and this detracts from his historical value". Personally, I don't think Mikan would be quite so successful in today's NBA, but in my mind, this doesn't detract from his place in NBA history.


I don't know if you realize this, but saying an entire era is overrated does alter the historic value the players who plays in that era. If you were a #1 student in your class and I say that your class is retarded, doesn't that cheapens your #1?



> Regarding athletes evolving, this does present a certain difficulty. But, I think it's a case of diminishing returns. Much of the difference physically between 1950 and 2000 has to do with a greatly expanding talent pool. Another major factor is greatly increased physical conditioning. Since the NBA is fairly global at this point, the talent pool shouldn't grow too drastically (although with 2.5 billion people in China and India, you never know...), so it's down to physical conditioning. This will no doubt continue to improve, but barring something dramatic (legalizing all steroids, use of nanotechnology to create 'super' humans, etc) gains should be fairly limited.


I'm sure someone 50 years ago have taken your line of thinking. You have answered your own question. Because the game is now global, if anything it is possible that there may be drastic changes in 50 years because more and more people are playing basketball. It doesn't take super humans to make this a tougher league. If the average player becomes closer to Lebron James rather than say Reggie Miller in terms of athleticism, that itself will be a huge difference.



> For these reasons, (lack of adequate footage, vast differences in the game, physical differences in the players), the older basketball generations will always be tougher to compare. Provided that footage from the 90's is still available via whatever (youtube?) channel in 2050, my future counterpart should have a much easier time seeing how a player like Jordan would fit into the NBA in 2050 than I did trying to figure out how Jerry West would do in 2000.


It might also make it easier to remove his legacy because people can see that his physical ability isn't spectacular by present day standards. I don't think we need to wait 50 years for that either. In these forums there have been plenty of discussions between Jordan and Lebron and there are a good number of people who feel that Lebron is or will be a better player. People who take Lebron's side generally base their opinion on Lebron's physical abilities which are by far superior than MJ's. It is quite likely that we will see several lebrons or players close to lebron's physical ability within 50 years, which by that time if we were to compare them in fantasy 1 on 1 basketball, those players would be considered better. Again, I don't see anything wrong with those comparisons as it is indeed for fun, but if we are going to use that to judge an entire group of players from a certain era, I don't see the point as every era will be deemed "overrated" by a later era.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*



seifer0406 said:


> I don't know if you realize this, but saying an entire era is overrated does alter the historic value the players who plays in that era. If you were a #1 student in your class and I say that your class is retarded, doesn't that cheapens your #1?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If someone else's 'pointless debating' alters your sense of a player's historical value, then it's no wonder that you don't like comparing players across eras!

You missed the nuances of what I was saying. The talent pool should only increase by so much. The training regimen should only improve by so much. Thus, the resulting physicality of the players should only improve by so much. 1950 to 2000 is a bigger change than 2000 to 2050. There was no debate about this in 1950, because there was no NBA in 1900.

You assume too much about how physically "better" today's players are even compared to players from the 80's or 90's. Guys pump more iron, so they're bigger. Verticals are probably somewhat higher. An incredible athlete like Jordan, plucked from, say, 1990, would still be an incredible athlete in today's NBA, so not a lot has changed in 20 years. Allowing for players to make use of any improved training/nutrition/etc further decreases the gap.

LeBron is a unique physical specimen. I don't think anybody knows when we will see the next LeBron anymore than you can predict the next Randy Moss.

The progression of athleticism is nowhere near what you seem to think it is and the game can still be dominated by less athletic players. It's kind of like how many people assume players today are so much taller, when the difference is relatively minor. I think comparisons with future generations will be much easier due to parity of talent, improved statistical record-keeping, and abundance of game footage. These comparisons across eras aren't going anywhere.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*

Wilt Chamberlain is a debateable top 10 player of all time. 

Bill Russell cannot be included in the elitest of the elite in NBA history, because he only can play one side of the ball. If you start considering Russell as a top 10 player of all time, then you have to start considering guys like Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman as possible top 10 players of all time.

Wilt's 61-62 season is a good one. He scored at a high volume, on an average (or good for his time) efficiency. But it was also one of the biggest acts of selfishness in NBA history. Wilt played 48.5 minutes/game that year. He played in every minute of every game because all he cared about were his stats. He took 39.5 FGA!!!

If you give Jordan/Lebron/Kobe in their highest PPG seasons that amount of FGA that Wilt got, then they would average:

Jordan - 52.7 PPG
Lebron - 53.7 PPG
Kobe - 51.4 PPG


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*



JPSeraph said:


> If someone else's 'pointless debating' alters your sense of a player's historical value, then it's no wonder that you don't like comparing players across eras!


The title of the thread is a question of whether the guys from the 60s are overrated. I am simply saying that they are not because you cannot reach that conclusion through a game of fantasy one on one. Take it how you want to, but I've at least stated this 3 times in this thread and I'm tired of repeating myself.



> An incredible athlete like Jordan, plucked from, say, 1990, would still be an incredible athlete in today's NBA, so not a lot has changed in 20 years. Allowing for players to make use of any improved training/nutrition/etc further decreases the gap.


And like I said, you don't need someone to be more physically imposing than Lebron or MJ to make it a more physically tolling league. All that needs to happen is that the overall athleticism of the league increases to a point where guys are closer athletically to someone like Lebron. MJ was a freak of an athlete back in the 80s and early 90s, but if you look around the league today, there are a lot guys who match up to him athletically. 



> You missed the nuances of what I was saying. The talent pool should only increase by so much. The training regimen should only improve by so much. Thus, the resulting physicality of the players should only improve by so much. 1950 to 2000 is a bigger change than 2000 to 2050. There was no debate about this in 1950, because there was no NBA in 1900.


I got exactly what you're saying, I don't think you do the other hand around. There were less people playing basketball 50 years ago and we have already seen this much changes. Now with more people playing it, you're saying that we won't experience some significant change in the next 50 year? Have you not been watching international basketball? The gap between Euros and Americans have been rapidly decreasing the past 2 decades and it is quite possible that it will be on par within 50 years. More good players mean there will be more elite players such as a Dirk or Lebron. If anything the league will be more competitive and there will be better players as a result of that. If you have 10 million people playing this game, you might end up with a thousand good players, if you have 50 million people playing it, you will 1)get more good players, 2)the good players will need to be better in order to be recognized. This is common logic, I think it's self-explanatory. It's not steriods, and it's not super humans, it's simply an increase of possibilities.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*



BG7 said:


> Wilt Chamberlain is a debateable top 10 player of all time.
> 
> Bill Russell cannot be included in the elitest of the elite in NBA history, because he only can play one side of the ball. If you start considering Russell as a top 10 player of all time, then you have to start considering guys like Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman as possible top 10 players of all time.


I don't think that's a good comparison, actually. Russell's peak was incredibly high for his era and incredibly long for any era. I think Rodman was his peer as a rebounder and Wallace arguably came close, but neither were nearly as valuable to their teams for at least the following reasons: 

- Russell was so great in measurable and non-measurable ways that he was widely considered the best and most important player on those Boston title teams. Rodman and Wallace were at best the third best players on their teams (and neither were ever seriously mentioned in MVP discussions, as far as I remember).

- Russell was on the floor way more than either of those guys. He had several seasons of logging considerably more minutes than either of them did. Therefore his team got much more value out of his rebounding and other contributions. 

- He was a much better passer.

- He was a better shotblocker than Wallace and a vastly better shotblocker than Rodman. His help defense was incredible.

- He scored more than either of them (although at a poor percentage by today's standards).


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*

Russell was probably a better shotblocker than Rodman, as Rodman wasn't a good shotblocker, but give some proof that Russell was a better shotblocker and help defender than Wallace. There is no evidence that says that Russell is a better shotblocker than Wallace.

The only thing there is are oldtimer accounts about how Bill Russell used to block 10 shots every game! I once had one of those same old timers trying to tell me that Manute Bol was 8'10"....

And scoring cannot be factored in Russell's favor. He scored at 47.1 TS%, which is pathetic. He was big and tall, so they let him shoot back in the day. But any legitimate NBA coach would limit Russell from having any type of significant offensive opportunities, to the point where his offensive stats, if he played today, would look like Wallace/Rodman's. (And that's giving him the benefit of the doubt, that he would be able to translate into the same player he was against competition back in his day...which is probably not the case. Bill Russell would probably be Tyrus Thomas at best in today's NBA).


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*



seifer0406 said:


> The title of the thread is a question of whether the guys from the 60s are overrated. I am simply saying that they are not because you cannot reach that conclusion through a game of fantasy one on one. Take it how you want to, but I've at least stated this 3 times in this thread and I'm tired of repeating myself.


I think we're both tired of repeating ourselves.




> And like I said, you don't need someone to be more physically imposing than Lebron or MJ to make it a more physically tolling league. All that needs to happen is that the overall athleticism of the league increases to a point where guys are closer athletically to someone like Lebron. MJ was a freak of an athlete back in the 80s and early 90s, but if you look around the league today, there are a lot guys who match up to him athletically.


I've already explained why I don't see any such dramatic shift in the league's level of athleticism occuring from 2000 to 2050 as from 1950 to 2000. If the current talent pool has produced one LeBron James, I don't see the incidence of LeBron's increasing anymore than the incidence of Jordan's has increased since 1985.

Who matches up to Jordan athletically? This is a mistaken impression. Where is the evidence? I think more guys with a huge vertical end up being recruited for the wrong reasons and most don't pan out. Players are *bigger* now, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are more athletic.

For instance, I would consider Kobe Bryant a premier athletic player in the post 2000 NBA. Yet I would not rate his athleticism over Jordan's. Maybe just about on a par. You can draw parallels from Kobe's peers to Kobe himself to see how many Jordanesque athletes there are.



> I got exactly what you're saying, I don't think you do the other hand around. There were less people playing basketball 50 years ago and we have already seen this much changes. Now with more people playing it, you're saying that we won't experience some significant change in the next 50 year? Have you not been watching international basketball? The gap between Euros and Americans have been rapidly decreasing the past 2 decades and it is quite possible that it will be on par within 50 years. More good players mean there will be more elite players such as a Dirk or Lebron. If anything the league will be more competitive and there will be better players as a result of that. If you have 10 million people playing this game, you might end up with a thousand good players, if you have 50 million people playing it, you will 1)get more good players, 2)the good players will need to be better in order to be recognized. This is common logic, I think it's self-explanatory. It's not steriods, and it's not super humans, it's simply an increase of possibilities.


Despite all the presumed increases in the size of the talent pool, many people argue that the league, have expanded to 30 teams, has less depth than it did in the 1980's. How many teams were there in 1985? About 24 or so? A 25% increase in the number of teams while the talent pool has presumably increased by a much greater margin. Yet 25 years later, we still don't see loads of incredible, Jordan-like athletes. In fact, few international players are considered among the NBA's elite and fewer still for outright athleticism.

While I have expect that if the game of basketball continues to grow internationally, future generations of international stars will be even better, so far there is limited evidence to suggest that they will be physically better. The majority of athletic studs in the NBA are still produced locally. This, while perhaps not 'common logic', limits the persuasiveness of arguments claiming that the NBA in X years will be so athletically superior to today's NBA that it will not be reasonable to compare stars from the current era to stars from that future era.

It also, transitively, allows that stars from even older eras - such as the 60's - who are deemed to have been athletically competent enough to thrive in the current era - such as Chamberlain - would also likely be athletically competent enough to thrive in a future era.

Don't get me wrong: I'd love to see more Chamberlains and Jordans and LeBrons - who wouldn't? It's just not something that has been demonstrated as a reasonable certainty.


----------



## JPSeraph (Dec 17, 2005)

*Re: 60's = Most overrated era? Is it disrespectful to rank Wilt and Bill below top 1*



BG7 said:


> Russell was probably a better shotblocker than Rodman, as Rodman wasn't a good shotblocker, but give some proof that Russell was a better shotblocker and help defender than Wallace. There is no evidence that says that Russell is a better shotblocker than Wallace.
> 
> The only thing there is are oldtimer accounts about how Bill Russell used to block 10 shots every game! I once had one of those same old timers trying to tell me that Manute Bol was 8'10"....
> 
> And scoring cannot be factored in Russell's favor. He scored at 47.1 TS%, which is pathetic. He was big and tall, so they let him shoot back in the day. But any legitimate NBA coach would limit Russell from having any type of significant offensive opportunities, to the point where his offensive stats, if he played today, would look like Wallace/Rodman's. (And that's giving him the benefit of the doubt, that he would be able to translate into the same player he was against competition back in his day...which is probably not the case. Bill Russell would probably be Tyrus Thomas at best in today's NBA).


This is incredibly ignorant, to the point that it almost looks like you are trolling.

Comparing Tyrus Thomas to Russell is ridiculous - what do they have in common that would make Thomas a better point of comparison than Wallace?

Regarding Russell's shotblocking, he and Wilt were peerless in their day. Wallace was among the league's better shotblockers, but only just. I would say that we don't know definitively that Russell was a better shot blocker than, say, Hakeem Olajuwon, but Olajuwon was far a far superior blocker than Wallace.

Perhaps someone can confirm this, but I believe in the years leading up to the NBA's decision to officially record stats such as blocks and steals (circa 73-74), that these stats were often unofficially kept by local statisticians and often reported in local newspapers or Associated Press game summaries. So, while I doubt that Russell or Wilt would average anywhere near 10 blocks a game today, there is evidence suggesting that they did, fairly routinely, rack up numbers like that in their time.

Regarding Russell's offensive game, he was far more involved than either Rodman or Wallace. The latter two were abysmal to the point that they lacked confidence in their ability to score. Russell started the break, ran the break, and could even score somewhat reliably in the post. He might not be too far from someone like Emeka Okafor in that regard...perhaps averaging 10-15 points per game at a modest level of efficiency. Not a prime option on a contender, but not a near complete liability like Rodman and Wallace.

There are numerous other reasons why Russell is considered an all time great and I believe much of that would translate well in today's game, so there is no need to provoke arguments with absurd comparisons to an underachieving bench player like Tyrus Thomas.


----------

