The Evolution of Basketball

[WayOutWest]

Rick asked why if Kareem was so superior he got worked in 4 games.  You two snuggle and skirt the issue then make up that I am changing the parameters.  The other 7 names were series he also got beat.  Right on topic.

So superior?  Off topic and spinning again!

Teams won those series, The Celts and Pistons beat the Bulls so Bird and Isiah must be better than MJ I guess.

[Skandery]

IMO if you switched Russell and Wilt you would get the same result, the Boston Celtics dominationg the league.  IMO it was NOT Russell beating Wilt, it was Russell and the Celtics beating Wilt.  I've read and seen documentaries of the 60's era Celtics robbing the league and other teams blind of talent.  But without watching most/all the players of that era I couldn't say with certainty that it was a Boston monopoly on talent.  Was it Russell elevating his teammates or were his teammates already the cream of the crop.  Again, I don't think it was Russell beating Wilt as much as it was Boston beating Wilt.  Russell has said so himself, Wilt would get his points but the Celtics would win the game.

You seem to think that the Celtics were so much better than everyone else.  It wouldn't have matter which Center between Chamberlain and Russell would've started.  Let's see if that's statistically true.  We'll start from Chamberlain's rookie year 59-60 and look at other prominent players and team scoring averages and see which supporting cast was better:  Boston or Philadelphia (San Francisco).      

1959-60
Philadephia Warriors lost to Boston Celtics (4-2)

The Warriors could count on Wilt to play 46.5 minutes per game and he put up 37.6 points and 27.0 rebounds.  They also had Paul Arizin (22.3 ppg, 8.6 rpg), Tom Gola (15.0 ppg, 10.4 rpg), and Guy Rodgers (11.6 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 7.1 apg).  That team averaged 118.6 ppg.  Boston had Heinsohn (21.7 ppg, 10.5 rpg), Cousy (19.4 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 9.5 apg), Sharman (19.3 ppg, 3.7 rpg), and super 6th man Frank Ramsey (15.3 ppg, 6.9 rpg), and of course anchored by Russell (18.2 ppg, 24.0 rpg).  That team averaged 124.5 ppg.  
Boston was the better team because Philly was pretty much a two-man show (Wilt and Arizin) while Boston went 5 strong.  

Advantage Boston

1960-60
Philly Warriors couldn't get past Syracuse Nationals in the Easter Division Semis getting swept 3-0.  Boston would later pound the Nationals 4-1

Statistically Philly was almost identical to the year previous and roster was pretty much the same except Woody Sauldsberry had moved on to make way for Andy Johnson.  Al Attles contributed heavily in vain during the playoff series.  Boston although still five strong, every player save Russell regressed.  Here's the kicker-this Philly team outscored Boston in points averaging 121.0 to 119.7.  Also of note, while Wilt regressed from season to the playoffs from 38/27 to 37/23, Russell stepped it up from 17/24 to 19/30.

Advantage: Probably Boston

1961-62
Boston would eke out the Eastern Div Finals series against Phila Warriors 4-3

Once again Wilt and Arizin lead the way for Philly.  Wilt averaged an awe-inspiring (50.4/25.7) that season.  Gola and Attles were still there averaging very respectable numbers, and a young kid named Tom Meschery averaged (12/9) and in the playoffs (20/11.5).  Boston still went 5 strong (avg between 15 and 20 ppg) but Sam Jones had now come into prominence due the retirement of Bill Sharman while Cousy and Ramsey regressed again.  Only 7 of Wilt's 12 playoff games were played against Russell but it is interesting to note that Wilt went from 50 ppg to 35 ppg, in my mind the difference between Philly going to the Finals and Boston.  Philly outscored Boston 125.4 to 121.1 during regular season.

Advantage: Philadelphia

1962-63
San Francisco Warriors don't make the playoffs, Boston wins the championship  

Paul Arizin retired and Tom Meschery (16/10) took over as Wilts sidekick.  Wilt averaged 45 and 24.  Rodgers came back strong after a down year (14 ppg, 5 rpg, 10.5 apg) and Gola began regressing heavily (13 ppg, 3 rpg).  For Boston Sam Jones became the leading scorer, Heisohn was next, Russell was 3rd (17/23), Havlicek and Cousy (in his last year) had 14 and 13 ppg.  Both teams scoring was identical at 18 but it was defense that was the difference, Boston allowed 111 while SF allowed 120.

Advantage: Boston    

1963-64
San Francisco Warriors lost to Boston Celtics in NBA Finals (4-1)

Wilt dominated with (37/22) but SF had 6 guys in double figure scoring: Wilt, Meschery, Hightower, Guy Rodgers, Al Attles, and Gary Phillips and Nate Thurmond as a rookie (7 ppg and 10.5 rpg).  Boston only had 5 guys in double figures and Cousy had retired.  Interestingly while K.C. Jones led the team with 5.1 apg, Russell was second with 4.7 apg.  Boston as a team did outscore SF in regular season 113 to 107  

Advantage: San Francisco

1964-1965
Boston barely beat the Philadelphia 76ers in the East Div Finals 4-3

This year the San Francisco Warriors traded Wilt to the 76ers for Paul Neumann and Larry Costello.  Wilt (30/22) was one of 5 guys averaging at least 13 ppg: alongside Hal Greer, Chet Walker, Luke Jackson, and Dave Gambee.  Boston only had 4 guys average at least 13 ppg: Jones, Havlicek, Russell, and Heinsohn.  Also the venerable Celtic HOF sixth man, Frank Ramsey retired.  The teams averaged an identical 112 ppg, though once again the difference seemed to be defense as Boston allowed 104 while Philly allowed 112.

Advantage: Philadelphia

1965-66
Boston defeats Philadelphia 76ers in East Div Finals 4-1

Wilt is one of the fearsome foursome of Hal Greer, Chet Walker, and Billy Cunningham--3 of which were future HOFers.  Boston, though, had 7 guys score in double figures!!. . . Jones, Havlicek, Siegfried, Russell, Tom Sanders, Willie Naulls, and Don Nelson.  Philly still managed to outscore Boston 117 to 112.

Advantage: Close but I go with Boston

1966-67
Philadelphia 76ers defeat Boston in East Div Finals 4-1    

Finally getting over the hump and beating Bill Russell, Wilt (24/24 and 7.8 apg) leads 6 different players on the Sixers that avg at least 12 ppg:  Wilt, Greer, Walker, Cunningham, Wali Jones, and Luke Jackson.  Boston only had 5 guys avg at least 12 ppg but Heisohn wasn't one seeing as how he had retired along with Red Auerbach.  Interestingly this is the first year in Wilt's career that he does NOT average 30 ppg and significantly raised his assist average culminating in a championship season.  Russell coached Boston for the first time and led Boston in assists as well.  

Advantage: Philadelphia

1967-68
Boston defeats Philadelphia 76ers in another epic 7 game series (4-3)

Philly has the same 6 guys average double figures and Wilt (24/24) leads the league in assists 8.6 apg.  Boston had 7 guys in double figures but two of them barely make it at 10.0 apiece (Sanders and Nelson)--Russell (in his second-to-last year) regressed heavily to 12.5 ppg and 18.6 rpg.  Philly outscores Boston 122 to 116 during the reg. season.  Sadly for Philadelphia, after this season Wilt departs for Sunny L.A.  

Advantage: Toss Up (Philly had much better starters, Boston was a little deeper)

1968-69
Boston defeats L.A. Lakers in yet another epic 7 game series (4-3)

Wilt had move on to the talent laden Lakers.  He formed a trio for the ages alongside Elgin Baylor and Jerry West and they each scored at least 20 points.  A fourth player, Mel Counts, averaged 12.4 to join them in averaging double figures.  Boston had 6 players average double figures but only one guy, Havlicek, scored 20, and two guys (Sanders and Nelson) were at 11.  Sam Jones had regressed and it was the first time Russell didn't score double figures.  The Lakers won 7 more games than Boston and averaged 112 to Boston's 111.  Though once again defense was the difference as Boston allowed 3 less points.  Wilt after averaging 20.1 ppg was held to 13.9 in the playoffs that year while Bill went from 9 and 19 in the reg season to 11 and 20.  Fortunately for Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell retired after this his 11 championship and the 4th time in their careers that Bill Russell beat Wilt in a Game 7 elimination game.  When the entire season culminated in 48 minute game 4 different times (and with 3 different teams), Wilt could never muster enough strength to win.  But I digree. . .

Advantage: Lakers

There is my analysis and from my perspective, Wilt's team had the advantage 5 out of 10 times.  Bill had it 4 out of 10 and I consider one year truly a toss-up.  5 out of 10 is even odds and I think if you replace Wilt Chamberlain with Bill Russell on those strong Warriors and 76ers team, they'd have a great chance to beat Wilt's Celtics, ESPECIALLY on those series that went to Game 7.

[Reality]

Skandery,
Can i help you produce one of those shows like the NFL did of "All Time vs All Time" teams?
Where they edited tape and had for example the 66 Packers vs the 89 Joe Montana 49ers.

We could make an additional version for WOW,Lurker and the rest of Laker Nation that ommits any scoring, outrebounding or any other negatives vs Kareem.

[rickortreat]

Rick asked why if Kareem was so superior he got worked in 4 games.  You two snuggle and skirt the issue then make up that I am changing the parameters.  The other 7 names were series he also got beat.  Right on topic.

So superior?  Off topic and spinning again!

Teams won those series, The Celts and Pistons beat the Bulls so Bird and Isiah must be better than MJ I guess.

Did MJ beat either of those players or their teams in their prime?  You know better.  MJ couldn't break through to the finals until Bird's back failed him and Isiah's team had their run.  Both of those teams faced MJ in the playoffs and kept him out for years.

[WayOutWest]

Did MJ beat either of those players or their teams in their prime?  You know better.  MJ couldn't break through to the finals until Bird's back failed him and Isiah's team had their run.  Both of those teams faced MJ in the playoffs and kept him out for years.

Was MJ better than Bird and Isiah?  I think the point of my post was missed.

[rickortreat]

I liked watching MJ more, same as I liked watching Dr. J play.  I really hated Detroit even when they were winning, simply didn't like Thug ball.

Better?  Than Isiah, for sure. Bird I think was a better player than anyone.  Saw the floor better, fooled people with his passes, a dead-eye shooter.  MJ was a better defender and he certainly won a lot of titles when the NBA was really pretty weak.  I'll give him his due, but if those Chicago teams were playing a few years earlier against the Showtime Lakers and the Celts, I don't think they would have won a title!

[WayOutWest]

I liked watching MJ more, same as I liked watching Dr. J play.  I really hated Detroit even when they were winning, simply didn't like Thug ball.

Better?  Than Isiah, for sure. Bird I think was a better player than anyone.  Saw the floor better, fooled people with his passes, a dead-eye shooter.  MJ was a better defender and he certainly won a lot of titles when the NBA was really pretty weak.  I'll give him his due, but if those Chicago teams were playing a few years earlier against the Showtime Lakers and the Celts, I don't think they would have won a title!

There is no doubt in my mind that MJ was better than Isiah, Bird and even Magic BUT like you said NO WAY the Bulls dominate the league in the 80's the way they did in the 90's.  That doesn't make Zeke, Bird or Magic better than MJ, just means that their teams were better.

[Skandery]

Had Jordan played in the same era as Bird or Magic and lost to either 7 different times in the playoffs, I don't know for sure that I'd call Jordan the better player.  He played in half the Magic/Bird era and lost to Milwaukee once, Boston twice, and Detroit three times.  Got over the hump the 4th time he met Detroit and won the championship 6 out of the next 7 seasons he participiated in --- I'd say MJ's case is a little different than Wilt's.   

[Ted]

Had Jordan played in the same era as Bird or Magic and lost to either 7 different times in the playoffs, I don't know for sure that I'd call Jordan the better player.  He played in half the Magic/Bird era and lost to Milwaukee once, Boston twice, and Detroit three times.  Got over the hump the 4th time he met Detroit and won the championship 6 out of the next 7 seasons he participiated in --- I'd say MJ's case is a little different than Wilt's.   

Sounds like a double standard is being applied to MJ here. Bird, Magic, and Isiah had great players around them for their strong years, but we're measuring; MJ's early years against those teams as if he was on an even footing with them. Brad Sellers vs Robert Parish, or Kareem, or Bob Parish . . . of course MJ couldn't beat them!

For the bulk of his career, MJ was the greatest basketball player on the face of the earth. What more can we ask of him? Sometimes it seems like we hold it against these players that they didn't have time machines allowing them to compete against each other in their primes. Like dominating their own time wasn't enough.

GOAT discussions are worthless.

[rickortreat]

Ted, if you're going to have a GOAT discussion, you necessarily HAVE to compare players of different era's and consider the context.  You're right, it is worthless and meaningless, but it IS FUN!

MJ was the most successful player of his era, by far, but when you are comparing him against the best of the best, you have to ask how would he stack up against other players.  He was in the league for a few years and Chicago took a while to get to the point where it would support a series of playoff runs for MJ, never beating those teams that I mentioned previously.

I think he was the best individual talent in the NBA, but basketball is a team sport, and I think both Magic and Bird were better team players than MJ.  Michael drew a crowd and a lot of attention on the court, that opened up shots for a lot of teamates, like Hodges, Kerr and Paxon.  But those were outside shots, not high percentage ones, like those Magic and Bird created for their teamates.

A lot of the passes Bird threw to open players for easy baskets fooled everyone- they didn't even think to defend against that pass!  Same thing with Magic, the defender is dazzled by his moves, the ball around the waist, the up and under move- and then, not a shot but a PASS to a streaking teamate for an easy layup.

So even if it is worthless, I don't think MJ was the best ever. But there's no doubt Bird or Magic would have wanted him on their team!

[WayOutWest]

You're right, it is worthless and meaningless, but it IS FUN!

Exactly, that's the point of this board.  Plus what sets this board apart from most is nobody is name calling because we can't agree (at least not in this thread .

[westkoast]

I have to address the 'defense is inferior now' especially a comment made by Skandery on the first page (ya I don't know why I didn't get on this debate at all until now, awesome thread btw)

The players all around are more athletic and in better shape.    Since great offense always beats great defense it's pretty hard to say that the defense now is inferior because of the caliber of the offensive player in this league now.  The bar has been raised high (for better or worse, that is another thread).  Right now in this league you  have a pretty extensive list of players who do or could easily average 30 points a game.  Not because the defense is so horrible but because there are just so many talented players.  Think off the top of your head players who can or could avg 30 ppg..Kobe, Lebron, Wade, Duncan, KG, Amare, Arenas, AI, Melo, T-Mac, and a whole bunch more I can't think of at 5:30 AM.  Not to compare previous era's too much but correct me if I am wrong...there is just a lot more firepower right now on the offensive end.  Major firepower came from 3-4 guys in previous decades for the most part.  Now you can easily name 5-10 players who can score with ease.

The hand checking rule makes a huge difference and that cannot be ignored.  Have you guys ever tried to guard a player at the basketball court with any ounce of athletic ability without using your hands?!  It is down right impossible unless you yourself have Bruce Bowen like powers of anticipation or have the ability to slide quickly while still forcing them into a tough shot.  Now think about replacing Mike the local basketball star with say, Lebron James or Dwayne Wade.

And why does MJ not get the chance to learn the game before having to play against players who learned the game at the pro level almost a decade before him?  Bird and Magic already were seasoned vets by the time MJ made his first appearance in the NBA.  Not fair to expect him to take out those teams right away, even if he had a better cast around him.  MJ started to win after his bball IQ improved and he stopped relying on athletic ability.

[Ted]

The hand checking rule makes a huge difference and that cannot be ignored.  Have you guys ever tried to guard a player at the basketball court with any ounce of athletic ability without using your hands?!  It is down right impossible unless you yourself have Bruce Bowen like powers of anticipation or have the ability to slide quickly while still forcing them into a tough shot.  Now think about replacing Mike the local basketball star with say, Lebron James or Dwayne Wade.

And why does MJ not get the chance to learn the game before having to play against players who learned the game at the pro level almost a decade before him?  Bird and Magic already were seasoned vets by the time MJ made his first appearance in the NBA.  Not fair to expect him to take out those teams right away, even if he had a better cast around him.  MJ started to win after his bball IQ improved and he stopped relying on athletic ability.

Nice post IMO. There's one thing that no one ever mentions when comparing Bill Russell's league with Michael Jordan's league. The predominance of athletes. Now I am in no way disputing that many of the fundamentals of basketball have become diluted over the years. Personally, I think the best display of pure fundamentals I've ever seen was an ESPN Classic Finals game between Bill Walton's TrailBlazers and Walt Frazier's Knicks. I have never seen so many made jump shots by everyone on the court. But that's what it was . . . jump shots.

Anyway, I digress. We all talk about diluted talent, but personally I think it's a myth. For a long time, basketball was a peripheral sport. The NBA was not the goal or even the first option for a great athlete. Heck you had something like 8 teams at one point. The great misconception is that the old NBA had just as many athletes hoping to play in it as today's NBA does. If the NBA of that time really did possess the best athletic talent the world had to offer, don't you think that league would have looked a little more like this league? Maybe one or two white guys on one team? Sorry, but it's true.

Basketball has evolved and has been adapted by an entire subculture as a cultural pastime, and I believe strongly that we see much greater talen in the average NBA player as a result.

You old guys just idolize these old guys because they won a tiny league of "stacked" teams. Well, IMO, these old guys (Russell, Chamberlain) were all-era talents playing against 1950s talent. Seriously, can any of you really doubt what AI (or even Deron Williams) would do to Bob Cousy?

Basketball has evolved, and on the whole, gotten stronger. Even if it is less fun to watch.

[Lurker]

Some great posts.

Ted, IMO, touched on some real important subjects.  But the one that showed up in just one line was this one...

Seriously, can any of you really doubt what AI (or even Deron Williams) would do to Bob Cousy?

What would Duncan or Shaq have accomplished if playing with the defensive rules of the Russell/Wilt era?  If they played under the rules, as interpreted by the refs, of that time would they have been even more dominant?  Most of the arguments go: what would so & so do against the players now?

So the basic comparison cannot be how would athletes of different generations compare to all playing on the same court.  But does dominance of a time period...through winning or statistical...make a player the GOAT for that position?

[westkoast]

Basketball has evolved and has been adapted by an entire subculture as a cultural pastime, and I believe strongly that we see much greater talen in the average NBA player as a result.

And I think that about hits it right on the head.  You now have guys who might have been an all-pro wide reciever  playing in the NBA as their first choice.   Randy Moss could have been a pro basketball player..he can run fast, hes moody, has a huge ego, wastes away his athletic ability for celebrity, and has good hands.     Kids play basketball their entire lives just to end up playing in the NBA.     The league as a whole gets a lot of talent if you think about it for the simple fact more people want to be basketball players .  When people say there is less talent now I think they mean less talented teams.  There is a lot more individual talent but not the same amount of talented teams.   

If you want to compare 1 on 1 I think there argument is very strong for newer era players.  I think I would actually take a 2000 Shaq up against any year Wilt Chamberlain.   Reality has already confirmed that Manu Ginobilli is better then Magic Johnson and Kareem.  If only we could get a video of Bob Cousy trying to guard an AND 1 basketball player, that would be awesome.  I'm searching youtube right after this.