Where the fuck were you watching all these games? The league didn't have a TV deal for most of Bill Russell's career. All we got from Wilt's 100-point game is that grainy ass pic of him holding the original 100 avatar because the game was played on a barn with a dirt floor in Hershey, PA. The league was still showing PLAYOFF games on tape-delay until 1986. Nope. Nobody saw them niggas play. I'mma have to go with the stats.

>I'mma have to go with the
>stats.

i basically pretend pre-merger NBA didnt exist (for the purposes of debating). for example, to me, Wilt isn't better or worse than MJ. he is basically just a concept, lol. when cats start talking that Pistol Pete sh*t, i just nod. im not qualified to judge either way, so its basically irrelevant (to the argument).

________
http://twitter.com/aehorton
http://instagram.com/aehorton

Because nobody but beat writers saw more than six Pistol Pete games.

s'not like people actually paid to go to games, or that actual skilled reporters wrote about them in newspapers, magazines or somesuch priot to 1976

*shrug*

>s'not like people actually payed to go to games, or that
>actual skilled reporters wrote about them in newspapers,
>magazines or somesuch priot to 1976

People did, but what's material (and why I agree) is that
the league was far less competitive then. Only a handful of
teams existed, and the vestiges of segregation were still
very real in terms of player composition, so you didn't even
have the most gifted/talented players playing in the League
at appropriate levels.

It is what it is. Bill Russell would never have as many rings
in today's game.

Old world nostalgic heads kill w/ this madness - on some "George Mikan would dominate Shaq with his skill-set." Non-sense, Shaq would body the old-guard. It's like people who think 6'0 cruiserweight Sonny Liston would dominate Wladimir Klitschko. He'd get destroyed.

I'm far more impressed with a team like the Spurs who have sustained dominance in a hyper-competitive era than I am at romanticizing the
pre-merger Celtic/Laker "dynasties" who played against woeful/minimal competition.


-->

You're right. He sucks.

<---https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DL9AVTQ

>You're right. He sucks.

Of course, I didn't say that. I simply said he would have far
less rings in today's game, which is true. So yes, perhaps half as many rings (which is about what Duncan has in comparison.) Although I think that's generous. Duncan's achievements are legendary.

Duncan > Russell

mad?


-->

by you or I on a messageboard. Shit's pretty set in stone by basketball historians.

No need to get all riled up, cuz I care about basketball Pre-Bron.

<---https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DL9AVTQ

Dude was great. But some old heads claim he's
the greatest of all time, citing his rings.

That's ridiculous.

and I stan'd for players since the late 90's.
Sorry if our relationship on OKP didn't begin
until much later, Billy.


-->

<---https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DL9AVTQ

-->

<---https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DL9AVTQ

the OP *might* have been trying to get at that sentiment, but didn't *SAY* what you said @ all

now onto what you said......

>People did, but what's material (and why I agree) is that
>the league was far less competitive then.

thats a slippery slope

teams cometing against one another trying to win....then just like now

are the contexts in which those competitions different? by all means

does that make it less than a simple one-to-one comparison? yup

but still.....

>Only a handful of teams existed,

which resulted in a less diluted talent-pool. it was easier to stockpile the creme of the crop onto those few teams. as such its not a stretch to say/thing the competition level was consistently HIGHER then because of this

>and the vestiges of segregation were still very real in terms of >player composition

assuming you meant team composition...

a. he played against who he played against. period
b. its not like someone like Bill Russell (since you brought hum up) ONLY played against white folks like black people were on another planet

if the Black folks from that time say a player was dope, why can't that count for something?

>so you didn't even
>have the most gifted/talented players playing in the League
>at appropriate levels.

this does point to something potentially valid, however there is an assumption at play. If there were BETTER players around at the time desegregation (or mergers) happen, why didn't teams go get them?

if you can will 11 championships with Russell, why not got get 'ol John-Henry who is better and win 12?

>Bill Russell would never have as many rings in today's game.

the thing is....you don't KNOW that. you can guess, but it can't be proven

the fact is he DOES have them, and having them is one of the criteria we use to measure worth/greatness.

30 years from now will Jordan's six have no value because folks have gotten better?

again, that's weird logic

>Old world nostalgic heads kill w/ this madness

If it isn't backed up with anything. sure dismiss it if you so choose

but in the end... you don't know, just like they don't

>I'm far more impressed with a team like the Spurs who have
>sustained dominance in a hyper-competitive era than I am at
>romanticizing the
>pre-merger Celtic/Laker "dynasties" who played against
>woeful/minimal competition.

and in doing that you create a sliding scale where what was will always be less than what is.

the 80s lakers sucked too?

the 80s celtics?

Jordan's juggernaut Bulls teams wouldn't/couldn't exist today either

so now THEY suck?

the criteria you used earlier either exists directly (fewer teams) or in a different way (segregation vs. a comparative lack of international players who have dramatically shifted how today's game is played)

don't throw the baby out with the bath water

Obviously the Celtics could not have assembled and certainly not have kept what they had at their peak if they were doing it today. But that means the competition is also watered down. Russell was a winner, in any era.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

-->

Almost every dynasty has to come along at the right time and today things are set up to prevent dynasties in many cases (certainly true in the NFL and NHL, IMO).

You play the competition in front of you and I don't see that as a reason to disparage the Celtics or Canadiens or whomever, even though I know I would have absolutely hated those teams if I were alive in that era.

When you look at Russell in particular, I think it's very important to note that the Celtics were not that strong at the end of his career and obviously he was past his physical peak. They had little business winning in 68 and basically none winning in 69. Before then, there was the whole "loaded team" thing (though they faced some loaded ones also), but 69 really solidified Russell's greatness and also validated the people who thought he was better than Wilt despite not being the individual talent/producer. What I mean to say is that he didn't just win because he had a physical advantage and his team was stacked, he really was basketball's ultimate winner and yes I would include Jordan, Magic, et al there.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

I don't think many people would claim that Jordan would win less than 6 titles if he played today, but I bet a lot of people would surmise that Jordan would win more than 6 if he played during Russell's era when the path towards the trophy was less rigorous.


-->

There are few if any "would have done it in any era" dynasties. Maybe the Steelers, maybe the Oilers or Isles, maybe the 80s Lakers ... but then you have the logistical questions. How could the Oilers possibly have kept their dynasty together with a hard cap? The Lakers would have had three max players and little money for guys like Michael Cooper and Byron Scott. I just feel like it's a futile what-if type game that unnecessarily discredits some of the best teams ever, or, in this case, THE best team ever.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

But I agree in general w/ the point that it's difficult
to compare eras. Still, I come from mindset that athletes
generally get better/more evolved as time goes by, as opposed
to regressing to where we romanticize past eras for their greatness
while downplaying today's athletic realities.

But more to the point in the NBA: organizationally, it's just very different now than it was pre-merger. I still think people do not bring up the point of how segregation and a heavily partitioned league changed the reality of the landscape. Was it really the case that the *best* talent was able to rise to the top pre-merger, given the social climate? No.

Also, the league wasn't a world-wide attraction then. Now the league attracts the best talent (really the best talent) not just domestically, but globally. And even if you think the league is watered down, there are still about 12-15 very good teams in the NBA. There were 8 teams total when Russell played, and not all of them were great teams by any stretch.


-->

teams of the 80s and he'll be lucky to get to 2. Because those teams were just BETTER.

<---https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DL9AVTQ

for all those teams. That sword would cut both ways.


-->

i'm gonna go ahead and say that a team with the best 2 guard ever, the best wing defender ever, the best rebounding specialist ever, the best 3 point specialist ever, the most versatile 6th man ever, and the winningest head coach ever would've been competitive in any era.

just a hunch.

___

low end crazy, eastside crazy, wild hunnids crazy, englewood crazy.

So there is a lot of grey area regarding "competitive" between being terrible and winning 6 chips

If the bulls dont win 6 titles, none of those superlatives even exist

So are all of those people still the greatest anything had they played in the 80s and won 2 titles?

>If the bulls dont win 6 titles, none of those superlatives
>even exist

and thus, the superlatives hold weight.

-->

i just finished jeff pearlman's book on the showtime lakers (great read, btw) who took advantage of an absolutely horrific pac div and western conf. i mean, just dreadful.

personally i don't think there's any way that team gets to 5 rings in the 90s, having to go thru a much much stronger west gauntlet and then have chicago waiting every year if they managed to make it thru.

so like vex said, it cuts both ways. 90s bulls, particularly the rodman/kerr/kukoc/harper incarnation, was just as strong as the best Cs (86) and laker (87-88) teams imo.

___

low end crazy, eastside crazy, wild hunnids crazy, englewood crazy.

You're right about the LAL division in those days. Not good at all.

But I dont think the West in general was very good in the 90's either. Those Utah teams werent championship caliber in any era imo. Phoenix was built for one run, they made it, and it failed. I really thought Seattle was going to win at least 1 but they had a dark side.

So I dont know. Bump those Bulls back ~10 years and they win at least one. But I dont see LAL, BOS, DET not winning at least 1 also.

The 96 Bulls beat the best the West had to offer between Magic and the later Spurs/Blazers/Kings/Lakers power group, and personally I think they are one of the best of all time. But after the 96 Sonics and maybe 93 Suns, I dont hold the Western finalists from that run in very high regard.

Obviously this is all subjectivity, but yeah.

i don't even think that's debateable. huge influx of talent in mid-late 80s that really started to bear fruit @ the turn of the decade. you had maybe 5 or 6 teams w/ hall of fame, top 5 ever at their position type guys, backed by deep benches. some great coaches in the mix as well.

i really think you're underplaying how weak the 80s west was. those last 3 lakers titles were cakewalks. i mean, look at who they beat in 87

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1987.html

cmon fam lol

___

low end crazy, eastside crazy, wild hunnids crazy, englewood crazy.

the Lakers of the 80's validated themselves by winning a couple finals against whoever came out of a stacked East

even if the Lakers's division was shit, they still beat the East champion multiple times.

The Bulls beat 5 different teams in the Finals, and none of them won a Finals of their own. All the Bulls could do was beat who was in front of them, but i dont think that's a ringing endorsement of the field. Even Malone and Stockton didnt do shit until after their contemporaries were gone, and then they faded as the turn of the millenium West kicked into high gear.

they obv deserve credit for winning the finals once they got there. but when one team is so much better than the others, the path to get there is so much easier, way more so than it would've been in the 90s when the conf was a lot stronger, and that makes a big difference.

maybe some of those years they don't get to the finals at all. maybe some they get to, but are too beat up at that point to seal the deal.

look at that 87 team i just mentioned. easily the best of the showtime teams imo, but not challenged at all in the western playoffs, had an entire week off before the finals, and got to face a boston team coming off brutal back-to-back 7 gm bloodbaths. shit matters.

you look at the bulls facing 5 diff teams in 6 finals as indicative of the west field being weak, i think it's the exact opposite. 80s was one extremely dominant west team and a bunch of patsies. 90s was 5 or 6 great teams battle-royaling it out every year.

those teams all featured all time great, hall of fame players. 80s lakers weren't facing any west teams led by guys on that echelon. their oppts mostly featured fading 70s guys, 2nd tier cats, injury disappointments like sampson and bowie, and underachievers like joe barely cares.

i'm pretty sure the lakers were the only 80s west team with a 60 win season. there were 5 or 6 diff teams in the 90s west to do it (lakers, blazers, spurs, jazz, suns, sonics), some multiple times. and that's not even counting dream's rockets who might've been the best of the bunch.

showtime lakers don't win 5 titles in the 90s west. no way, no how.

___

low end crazy, eastside crazy, wild hunnids crazy, englewood crazy.

the point is - your era bias is showing because you act like if Jordan played in the 80's versus those teams that only his ring-count would decrease, and not the ring-count of those other teams you purport as superior, yet none of whom earned more rings than Jordan's teams.

-->

I think Jordan's Bulls do win a championship or 2 in the 80's

But theres no 3 peat. Definitely not 2 3peats.

You want me to be ahitting on Jordan and im not. Im shitting on his mid 90's contemporaries.

And I only used the term competitive because Dula did in a specific context, which you seemed to miss. Obviously there are competitive teams with no championshipa in all sports in all eras.

crazy talk.


>You want me to be ahitting on Jordan and im not. Im shitting
>on his mid 90's contemporaries.

you're saying that those elite jordan teams would get consistently beaten by the 80's celtic, laker, and piston teams. And you make little to no consideration for the possibility that those teams may be beaten by the Bulls teams.

That's disparaging the greatness of those Bulls teams, for sure.

Incidentally, very few (if any) experts would agree w/ you on that point. Just so you know.




-->

<---https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DL9AVTQ

care to actually refute any of them?

___

low end crazy, eastside crazy, wild hunnids crazy, englewood crazy.

<---https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DL9AVTQ

___

low end crazy, eastside crazy, wild hunnids crazy, englewood crazy.

just that he was the best 2-guard ever.

Sorry, that's not arguable.

And Rodman wasn't the greatest rebounding specialist of all time?
Who was then?

-->

I've heard old dudes say Oscar was the best.

It's arguable.

And as far as Rodman goes, some would say Moses...others Wilt...shit Wes Unseld.

Lol...y'all cats can live in your own Post 1995 world if you want. But shit happened before that.

<---https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DL9AVTQ

___

low end crazy, eastside crazy, wild hunnids crazy, englewood crazy.

-->

I think Chicago Rodman was a little overrated

I mean he is an obvious HOFer to me, but the scope of his game shrunk considerably.

he focused exclusively on rebounding, to a fanatical degree, to the detriment of his overall game.

stopped looking for his own shot at all. very lazy at times. defensive intensity in spurts. he'd bail early on jump shooters to secure rebounding position. malone dug in his ass in those finals.

he also for some reason started jacking these ridiculous 3 pointers all the time. everybody i knew found it hilarious but i used to hate that shit so much lolz.

his passing was absolutely great tho. that's the one area where he vastly improved in chicago. dude was built to run triangle.

___

low end crazy, eastside crazy, wild hunnids crazy, englewood crazy.

the crowd fuckin LOVED it even tho they knew it was below "feed James Edwards every time down" on the Likelihood of Success scale

he'd hit one and people would go fuckin nuts

but the erosion of his defensive intensity was kinda sad to see for me. my earliest memories of Rodman were from a time before he was starting and he used to get AFTER it. even once he moved up the ladder as an offensive player he still never did anything half-speed defensively.

i think that was partly a product of his relationship Chuck Daly tho. i dont think other coaches knew him the way Daly did, even Feel.

like really, dude? you can't even concede the jordan thing?

no need to even continue the conversation at that point. it's like a dude showing up for a job interview wearing a wave cap and biker shorts.

"yeah, thanks for coming in... no, i don't need your résumé, we've seen enough"

___

low end crazy, eastside crazy, wild hunnids crazy, englewood crazy.

The Bulls had three marquee players and a bunch of guys who knew their roles. The Lakers and Celtics had that plus supplementary guys who were MUCH better. They also had huge mismatches inside for the Bulls, which no team (except maybe the Knicks) really presented them with. The Pistons? They owned the Bulls' asses when the Bad Boys were at their peak. No way in fuck do the Bulls win six titles in any era but the won they did, honestly, because earlier eras they would have been facing considerable depth, too. Maybe they could pull it off today, too, but not in the past IMHO.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

>No way in fuck do the Bulls win six titles in any era but the
>won they did

lol k.


-->

In the 70s they might have pulled it off but I doubt it, it was an era where depth won (Knicks, Blazers, Warriors, Bullets, Sonics, etc). In the modern era, they'd have a shot also.

But to think they could have done what they did in the 80s or 60s? Absolutely not. Not only was Boston a better team than them throughout the 60s, some of the runners-up (e.g. Los Angeles) were also better at times, along with the only other team that won it all (1967 Sixers). Then in the 80s you had an incredibly dominant performance again from Philly and dynasties from Boston and L.A. that could have been even more successful than they were, not to mention Detroit. The top-level teams were better, deeper and had just as much star power as the Bulls. What's "absurd" is playing up the Bulls' three-headed monster against teams that had their own plus players like DJ and Coop. And we've already touched on how Jordan fared against the Pistons at their peak.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

and Bill Russell would have 15 rings if he played in today's game.

thanks for the insight.

-->

you're ducking the point and providing nothing substantive about jordan's ability to compete in eras that were not diluted by expansion and where he would have had to face deeper teams with better bigs.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

Talent gets diluted with *more teams*

Talent gets concentrated with *less teams*

Saying that fewer teams means it was watered down is the exact opposite of logic

>Talent gets diluted with *more teams*

not when the talent POOL enlarges as well.

8-9 teams comprised almost exclusively of white americans <<<<< 30 teams of whites, blacks + internationals

___

low end crazy, eastside crazy, wild hunnids crazy, englewood crazy.

The Cs with like a half dozen HOF'ers facing other teams with 3/4 are somehow being knocked? Weird.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

<---https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DL9AVTQ

____________________

<================== MVP

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

AND ONCE DUNKED THE BALL,TOOK A FIVE OFF THE TOP OF THE BACKBOARD,MADE CHANGE,AND GOT A KNISH BEFORE LANDING
____________________

<================== MVP

saying he jumped higher than anyone in today's game.
He pointed me to the highlight and dude was barely hovering
above the rim w/ a basic one-hand dunk that h.s. kids
do w/ regularity today lol.

It was cute tho.

-->

And not too much later came guys like Gus Johnson and Connie Hawkins, who could throw it down with anyone in any era. Pre-merger you're also talking about Dr J and David Thompson, two of the greatest dunkers in history.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

with my loose delineation of eras being

'46 inception thru '76 merger
'76 merger thru '98 lockout
'98 lockout thru present day

outside of the most cursory-level discussions, it really only makes sense to compare players to their peers. there are just way too many factors that vary over time.

i don't really even like comparing today's players to the 80s guys, let alone the 50s and 60s, that might as well be the high middle ages.

take something as basic as free agency. the modern version of which didn't really exist until the mid 90s. in today's league it just isn't realistically feasible to keep a core together long enough to win 11 titles like russell's Cs or make 9 of 12 finals like magic's lakers. the duncan spurs being the rare exception.

the three point line. introduced in 79-80. took players and coaches a decade to really embrace and incorporate it. bird averaged less than 2 3PFGAs per game for his career. in today's league he'd be hoisting 7 or 8 a game like durant, love, curry, harden et al. his scoring average might've been 5 points higher.

nutrition. sport science. travel conditions. rule changes. expansion.

etc etc

just stick within eras. keep your search terms narrow. casting too wide a net just turns it into apples v. oranges.

___

low end crazy, eastside crazy, wild hunnids crazy, englewood crazy.

>Where the ....(cut for brevity)...Nobody saw them niggas play.

^^^^ you say all THAT, then you end with this:

>I'mma have to go with the stats.

so, my question becomes, do you not see how that woudl invalidate your "premise"?

If all you do is look at raw numbers look at the kind of stuff you would end up with:

Most seasons leading league, field goals
10 Michael Jordan
7 Wilt Chamberlain
5 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
5 Shaquille O'Neal

Most consecutive seasons leading league, field goals
7 Wilt Chamberlain 1959-60—1965-66
7 Michael Jordan 1986-87—1992-93
3 George Mikan 1948-49—1950-51
3 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 1969-70—1971-72
3 George Gervin 1977-78—1979-80
3 Michael Jordan 1995-96—1997-98
3 Shaquille O'Neal 1998-99—2000-01

Most field goals, career
15837 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
13528 Karl Malone
12681 Wilt Chamberlain

Most field goals, season
1597 Wilt Chamberlain 1961-62
1463 Wilt Chamberlain 1962-63
1251 Wilt Chamberlain 1960-61

Most field goals, rookie, season
1065 Wilt Chamberlain 1959-60
973 Walt Bellamy 1961-62
938 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 1969-70

Most field goals, game
36 Wilt Chamberlain Mar 2, 1962
31 Wilt Chamberlain Dec 8, 1961
30 Wilt Chamberlain Dec 16, 1967
30 Rick Barry Mar 26, 1974

Most field goals, one half
22 Wilt Chamberlain Mar 2, 1962 2nd Half
21 Rick Barry Mar 26, 1974 2nd Half
20 David Thompson Apr 9, 1978 1st Half

Most field goals, one quarter
13 David Thompson Apr 9, 1978 1st Qtr.
12 Cliff Hagan Feb 4, 1958 4th Qtr.
12 Wilt Chamberlain Mar 2, 1962 4th Qtr.
12 George Gervin Apr 9, 1978 2nd Qtr.
12 Jeff Malone Feb 27, 1988 3rd Qtr.
12 Carmelo Anthony Dec 10, 2008 3rd Qtr.
12 Brandon Jennings Nov 14, 2009 3rd Qtr.


Games Played
BA/ABA
Rank Player Games
1. Robert Parish* 1611
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 1560

Points Scored - NBA/ABA
Rank Player PTS
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 38387
2. Karl Malone* 36928
3. Michael Jordan* 32292
4. Kobe Bryant 31700
5. Wilt Chamberlain* 31419
6. Julius Erving* 30026
7. Moses Malone* 29580
8. Shaquille O'Neal 28596
9. Dan Issel* 27482
10. Elvin Hayes* 27313

Total Rebounds - NBA/ABA
Rank Player TRB
1. Wilt Chamberlain* 23924
2. Bill Russell* 21620
3. Moses Malone* 17834
4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 17440
5. Artis Gilmore* 16330
6. Elvin Hayes* 16279
7. Karl Malone* 14968
8. Robert Parish* 14715
9. Nate Thurmond* 14464
10. Walt Bellamy* 14241

Free Throws - NBA/ABA
Rank Player FT
1. Karl Malone* 9787
2. Moses Malone* 9018
3. Kobe Bryant 7950
4. Oscar Robertson* 7694
5. Michael Jordan* 7327
6. Jerry West* 7160
7. Adrian Dantley* 6832
8. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 6712
Dolph Schayes* 6712
10. Paul Pierce 6690

Field Goals - NBA/ABA
Rank Player FG
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 15837
2. Karl Malone* 13528
3. Wilt Chamberlain* 12681
4. Michael Jordan* 12192
5. Julius Erving* 11818
6. Shaquille O'Neal 11330
7. Kobe Bryant 11055
8. Elvin Hayes* 10976
9. Hakeem Olajuwon* 10749
10. Alex English* 1065

Minutes Played - NBA/ABA
Rank Player MP
1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 57446
2. Karl Malone* 54852
3. Jason Kidd 50111
4. Elvin Hayes* 50000
5. Moses Malone* 49444
6. Kevin Garnett 48910
7. Wilt Chamberlain* 47859
8. John Stockton* 47764
9. Reggie Miller* 47619
10. Artis Gilmore* 47134

point being: look at how much of that is the "pre-merger" players you seemingly want to discount

in 1994.

<---https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DL9AVTQ

I didn't disparage any of the pre-merger players, just the opinions of people who "saw" them.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

there was a radio recording of wilt's game, there were friday games on TV (usually wilt-russell), people did live in NBA markets (local tv/radio, attending games), etc.

i know a lot of people who say elgin baylor, oscar robertson, jerry west, wilt, et al. how is this hard to fathom?

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

Laying eyes on a particular player every single game is pretty easy for any asshole with a credit card now. Doing it as recently as 30 years ago was hugely difficult by comparison.

As a result, cross generational player comparisons based on "I watched him play" can reasonably be met with caution.

Also, radio? Really?

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

reading the paper, SI, listening to the radio ... these are all basically secondhand experiences where you're getting a description. sportswriting then was also more about lore than nuts and bolts.

that said, i still think this post is underestimating considerably what is known, what was seen and even what can be seen of players before the merger. from the mid or at least the late 60s onward, there is plenty to see.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

>that said, i still think this post is underestimating
>considerably what is known, what was seen and even what can be
>seen of players before the merger. from the mid or at least
>the late 60s onward, there is plenty to see.

But Russell won the overwhelming majority of his titles before the mid-to-late 60's - so your point here would suggest that he did play in a less competitive/dynamic era.


-->

They won EVERY title in the mid to late 60s except one (1967). I don't know where you want the 60s to begin but I have seen broadcasts of the conference finals where Boston beat Cincinnati for example (either 1963 or 1964, as they beat them both years in the ECF).

So let's say it was 63, that means 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 and 69 were all televised playoffs. That's 6/11 titles. That's the majority. I don't know about seasons prior to that.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

and yes - he won the vast majority of his rings prior
to the mid-to-late 60's, which was the era you identified
as the commencement point for when there was 'plenty to watch'

-->

He was on all 11 championship teams. You are so fucking far out of your element here, and yet you won't stop talking.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

you said that from the mid-to-late 60's and forward, there was much to see in the NBA. That was your point of reference for when you considered NBA achievement to be legitimate.

Russell won the majority of his titles before the mid-to-late 60's. So by your own statement, you're degrading his titles earned in 1957, 1959-1965. Hence reinforcing my initial point that he played in a partitioned, segregationist era where the true talent wasn't allowed to rise to the top, and there were only 8 teams, 2 or 3 good ones.

Maybe you just have the hots for Red Auerbach, or maybe you're just simp'd and mad for entertainment purposes.

Either way, this was an enjoyable exchange. Thanks for playing.


-->

>you said that from the mid-to-late 60's and forward, there
>was much to see in the NBA. That was your point of reference
>for when you considered NBA achievement to be legitimate.

that's extrapolating what i said, what i said was from that time period forward, you can see more actual footage and more was available at the time.

that being said, you can always "man who beat the man" an era back (to guys like petit and schayes) and in russell's case he continued playing (and winning titles) through that era. his crowning achievement came in 69 IMHO, as we have already covered. you are fox newsing the fuck out of this for no reason.

>Russell won the majority of his titles before the mid-to-late
>60's. So by your own statement, you're degrading his titles
>earned in 1957, 1959-1965. Hence reinforcing my initial point
>that he played in a partitioned, segregationist era where the
>true talent wasn't allowed to rise to the top, and there were
>only 8 teams, 2 or 3 good ones.

there only being eight teams is such a perverse argument. when there were fewer teams, the teams were BETTER on the whole. a "big three" might get you to the conference finals in that era, today it would be a ticket punched to the finals if not a championship.

>Maybe you just have the hots for Red Auerbach, or maybe you're
>just simp'd and mad for entertainment purposes.
>
>Either way, this was an enjoyable exchange. Thanks for
>playing.

K, so basically you showed your ass not knowing shit about russell and the c's, then tried to pull a quote out of context on some "check mate crown me king!" shit. cute.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

and a more competitive league - that's another absurd point
and it's been readily refuted time and time again.

Boy that Charlie's special.

The league was not more competitive when Russell won his titles, period.


-->

Why is this so hard for you to understand when it's a common sense deduction that half a dozen people have made in this very post?

The champions and top-level competition was stronger, so it you put them in another era they would fare just fine. Was there as much parity? As much competition night in and night out? No, but those are not arguments you make when comparing champions.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

>You are so fucking far out of your element here, and yet you won't stop talking.

<---https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DL9AVTQ

-->

<---https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DL9AVTQ

-->

like...would you believe it existed if it was in the bible?

<- My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard

...

barber shop talkin ish etc..

Or the writers/historians who saw and wrote abt the players of their day?

If it's the former, then I understand the skepticism, because we all can tend to be a little bias when it comes to the players we actually saw play, but if it's the latter, I see no reason to disbelieve or to be suspicious of their opinion considering they saw enough of these players play

The truly great players (for the most part) are as great as any players of any era..

grassrootsphilosopher

admittedly it's tough to find footage of guys like bob pettit and dolph schayes in their primes. in elliot kalb's book, for example, he talked about how it was difficult to evaluate players like paul arizin, stating that he basically relied on interviews with his peers and journalists who covered the warriors.

but i think wilt/russell is sort of the beginning of the nba's prominence, even though it didn't fully blow up until the 80s.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

when comparing great players (and the league) across different eras...

Because they're the first two NBA players whose greatness was transcendent

Although I don't believe Russell would've been nearly as dominant in the 80s (the best era for the center position) or beyond had he played then, I still can't dismiss his greatness

But I think Wilt could've held his own in ANY era


>admittedly it's tough to find footage of guys like bob pettit
>and dolph schayes in their primes. in elliot kalb's book, for
>example, he talked about how it was difficult to evaluate
>players like paul arizin, stating that he basically relied on
>interviews with his peers and journalists who covered the
>warriors.
>
>but i think wilt/russell is sort of the beginning of the nba's
>prominence, even though it didn't fully blow up until the
>80s.

grassrootsphilosopher

They are in play and then from the early days I think Mikan has to be recognized. Overall though I am very hesitant to put pre-60s guys on any sort of all-time whatever lists. No integration, little footage, kind of a dog-and-pony league, etc.

And you will know MY JACKET IS GOLD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

<--- Introducing Mr. Khaleed Case.

.
.
.
.
.


***
Instagram - @casethenupe
Twitter - @revjcase