The Evolution of Basketball

[Ted]

A few thoughts:

I agree with Jomal that players ought to be left in their own eras. You just can't objectively compare players when you start trying to foresee how they would have evolved differently in today's game. "Well, if Russell had a nutritionist, weight trainer, and pharmacist, he very well could have become King Kong . . ." Speculation is ruled out in a court of law for a reason.

I've watched tape of Russell, he looked like he had the athleticism to be good in today's game. But today's game is completely different than Bill's era. IMO, neither team nor individual defense compared to the kind of defense played by teams like the 90s Bulls or today's Pistons and Spurs. If MJ or Kobe were sent back to play against Cousy, Havlicek and Russell, they would absolutely destroy the Celtics. The greats of the past never saw an athlete like these two: Havlicek would be a sieve, and Russell would be on the bench after half time with foul trouble, and Cousy would barely be able to cross halfcourt without a turnover. For Pete's sake, BOB COUSY COULD BARELY DRIBBLE WITH HIS LEFT HAND! Maybe he could. Maybe he just didn't have to, but that in itself says a lot.

It's just no good to try to compare the two eras. The games were just too different. In the end, I think most players from the past would struggle today. The average basketball player and the game in general has improved over the years in nearly every area. Athleticism, training, ball-handling, defensive intensity . . . all are improved. I would say only a few aspects of the game have fallen since the old days; and they are very important ones: passing (not with everyone), jump-shooting, and player/team mentality. But the greats of the modern era (as they were in their era) against the greats of the past would be every bit as good.

Let the fun continue . . .

[WayOutWest]

A few thoughts:

I agree with Jomal that players ought to be left in their own eras. You just can't objectively compare players when you start trying to foresee how they would have evolved differently in today's game. "Well, if Russell had a nutritionist, weight trainer, and pharmacist, he very well could have become King Kong . . ." Speculation is ruled out in a court of law for a reason.

I've watched tape of Russell, he looked like he had the athleticism to be good in today's game. But today's game is completely different than Bill's era. IMO, neither team nor individual defense compared to the kind of defense played by teams like the 90s Bulls or today's Pistons and Spurs. If MJ or Kobe were sent back to play against Cousy, Havlicek and Russell, they would absolutely destroy the Celtics. The greats of the past never saw an athlete like these two: Havlicek would be a sieve, and Russell would be on the bench after half time with foul trouble, and Cousy would barely be able to cross halfcourt without a turnover. For Pete's sake, BOB COUSY COULD BARELY DRIBBLE WITH HIS LEFT HAND! Maybe he could. Maybe he just didn't have to, but that in itself says a lot.

It's just no good to try to compare the two eras. The games were just too different. In the end, I think most players from the past would struggle today. The average basketball player and the game in general has improved over the years in nearly every era. Athleticism, training, ball-handling, defensive intensity . . . all are improved. I would say only a few aspects of the game have fallen since the old days; and they are very important ones: passing (not with everyone), jump-shooting, and player/team mentality. But the greats of the modern era (as they were in their era) against the greats of the past would be every bit as good.

Let the fun continue . . .

I agree Ted but it's my opinion that guys like Kareem and Wilt would be just as effective in todays game as they were in thier day and IMO Russel and Mikam would not.  That's why I would pick Kareem over Russel for my "all time" team because I want players that would be just as effective today or in the 40's.  It's alot easier for a player to be successfull in past eras that is playing today then for players from the past to play today.  There are exceptions all across the board of course.  I don't think I was completely clear in my arguement about Russell, I have no doubt he would be successful in todays game, he'd probably be an all-star but no way am I passing up on Kareem or Wilt to take Russel for MY team.  Kareem was unstoppable, Wilt was pretty close as well but not quite up to Kareems level because of his FT's.  Russell was far from unstoppable on offense and he would fair no better against Kareem or Wilt on defense than anybody else and that would pretty much dilute from his overall effectiveness on the court because his biggest contribution on the court was defense.

Russell was the greatest winner of all time but not the greatest player, he's not even the best at his position IMO.  I've stated before that if I had first pick in the "all time" draft it would be Kareem.  Russell, MJ, Magic, Wilt and others don't even come into consideration for me since IMO Kareem is clearly the best player to build a team around.  His unstoppable offense and solid defense put him head and shoulders above the rest.

[rickortreat]

Ted,

The defense played in today's NBA is completely inferior to the early years.  In the first place, zone defense was illegal in the NBA, they changed that rule because the players lacked the skill to play man to man at a high level.

Remember there were only TEN teams in the NBA in the 60's.  Each team played the other so many more times that there were no secrets, every team knew every other team's plays, players, strengths and weaknesses. That familiarity made it much tougher to fool the other team.

Wilt averaged 25 rebounds a game one year- the best in the NBA these days pull down 12-15 tops.  The game was played at a much faster pace- the Sixers team that won it all averaged 125 pts. a game against what I assert was much better defense.   

Players today have better equipment and nutrition, better shoes, better rims, better medical care, and make a lot more money.

With so many fewer teams, each one had more quality players and was far deeper than the teams of today.  In this era, you can get by with 2-3 stars and win the championship.  Shaq and Kobe, Shaq and Wade, Duncan and Parker. Teams back then had players on the bench that would be starters today.

This thread and the other one prompted me to go look at the History section at NBA.com  In 1981, a panel  of experts chose the 66-67 Sixers as the best team of the 35 years the NBA had been in existence.  This was before the great Celtics and Lakers teams that came after as well as the 83 Sixers, and I think those teams would have been very competitive with that 66 team.  But the players then at least on that 66 team were as big and physical as those teams with tremendous depth of talent.  More physical defense was permitted then. Under those rules, the modern teams would have found themselves being pounded every time down the floor. You were allowed to hand-check then, another defensive skill the NBA took away.  Players like Kobe and MJ would be knocked to the ground hard when they tried to drive the lane, they would have gotten to the free throw line, but they'd be too hurt to put up the shots!

I was very young at the time, so my own recollection is limited, but I watched every game they showed on ABC, and they showed quite a few.  But what I do remember is the quality of the play and the intensity.  Not as many players played above the rim then, but Wilt certainly did, and Billy Cunningham wasn't called the Kangaroo Kid for nothing.

IMO, the modern era has seen a substantial drop in quality. Players don't even have the same grasp of fundamentals they had then.  Players didn't come out early, they stayed in College for 4 years.  The passing was better back then, and so was team speed.  I think the Celts and Lakers teams from the 80's were so far ahead of the best teams in the NBA today, that the modern teams could not compete.  Talent is so watered down, the rules have been changed to make up for the lack of skill.  The teams then were 10 players deep.  Most teams in the playoffs limit themselves to 8 or 9, and there is a severe drop-off in talent. 

They didn't even have the three point shot in the 60's. A lot of the players of that era could have made many more points if they did.  And, having the chance to make a 3 spread the floor and opened it up so players like MJ could drive the lane.  There wasn't nearly the same amount of room in which to operate.  It is true it's all speculation, but in my opinion the quality of play, and the depth of the teams made them far superior. 

[Reality]

The old era guys should be allowed to pump iron and have a nutritionalist.  Fair is fair.
Is Ben Wallace nearly as ripped in 1957?  No.  Does Bill Russel put on bulk in 2000?  Yes.

Most of the other factors i agree too many things to compare.  But food and iron pumping/modern training techniques and pampering training staff?  Of course the 1950s and 60s guys should get the same even playing field.  Throw in the hormone enhanced foods and Bill Russel might be as big as Barry Bonds. 

Speaking of hormones, fix Kareem some sandwhiches.  His beanpole physique and snaillike sidemovement along with unwillingness to mix it up physically hardly qualifies him for best ever.   Apparantly his solid D did not apply when playing:
Nate Thurmond '73 1st round ouster
Dave Cow
Mo Malone
Bob Parish healthy
Hakeem and Ralph
Bill Lamebeer

Kareems longevity was impressive, even if it was helped along by Sterns no touch rule for he and Majic.

[Derek Bodner]

The defense played in today's NBA is completely inferior to the early years.  In the first place, zone defense was illegal in the NBA, they changed that rule because the players lacked the skill to play man to man at a high level.

That's just wrong.  Everything from defense today being inferior to the reasoning behind the implementation of zone defenses.

[rickortreat]

The defense played in today's NBA is completely inferior to the early years.  In the first place, zone defense was illegal in the NBA, they changed that rule because the players lacked the skill to play man to man at a high level.

That's just wrong.  Everything from defense today being inferior to the reasoning behind the implementation of zone defenses.

That's you're opinion.  That is actually a paraphrased quote from Charles Barkley! 

You tell me Dabods, when on defense is it easier to stop a team if you can use a zone or not?  I have noticed a number of teams that flourish while playing man to man, stop scoring when forced to deal with a zone. 

Zone was always used in College, and before they instituted a shot-clock it was the most boring form of B-ball ever. Instead of scoring teams played keep away, not even trying to score just trying to lull the other team to sleep before managing to get a good shot. 

I would contend that the zone is largely responsible for the decline in the average score in an NBA game.  Even Phoenix, which plays a very open running style doesn't come close to putting up points the way Doug Moe's Denver Nuggets teams did.

[Derek Bodner]

Being a quote from Charles Barkley doesn't give it any more credence.  I love Charles, but he's wrong as much as he's right.

First of all, zone defenses are NOT allowed in the nba.  At the crux of almost all zones in college is a big man in the middle you can funnel into.  The NBA still maintains the defensive 3 second rule.  The net effect is that "zones" as in the NBA is vastly overrated and in virtual non-use.

"zones" (or what's allowed in the NBA) were instituted to try to force ball movement.  Not to help defenses.  It's failed, but that was the reasoning. 

You want to know a rule that has legitimately had an impact in the NBA?  Hand checking rules.  That makes it infinitely harder for a perimeter defender than it did in the 70's.

I would contend that the zone is largely responsible for the decline in the average score in an NBA game

And, again, you would be wrong.  Zones were instituted for the 2001-2002 NBA season.  Here are scoring averages before and after that:
96-97: 96.9
97-98: 95.6
98-99: 91.6
99-00: 97.5
00-01: 94.8
01-02: 95.5
02-03: 95.1
03-04: 93.4
04-05: 97.2
05-06: 97
06-07: 98.7

As you can see, scoring in the NBA dropped significantly BEFORE zones were allowed, hitting a low point in 98-99.  Furthermore, since zones have been allowed, scoring has increased, with this past year being the highest in a decade.  The NBA has averaged 97+ ppg 3 years in a row, something that happened only once in the 5 years before zones were allowed.

[rickortreat]

All of these years are in the modern era, zones permitted or not.  If you could extend that series of data back to the 70's my statements about the decline in quality of play will become apparent.

If disallowing the hand-check was so significant, why were scores significantly higher in past seasons?

Being a quote from Charles Barkley doesn't give it any more credence.  I love Charles, but he's wrong as much as he's right.

Agree completely. 

IMO Zones retard ball movement - who said that it would improve the flow?  That sounds like the ultimate B.S. to me.

[Derek Bodner]

All of these years are in the modern era, zones permitted or not.  If you could extend that series of data back to the 70's my statements about the decline in quality of play will become apparent.

Of course scores were higher in the 70's.  Nobody's debated that.  You stated that zones were the cause of the decreased scoring.  I posted the scoring #'s pre-zones to disprove that.  Obviously, zones were not the cause of the decreased scoring from the 70's to the mid-late 90's, since they were not implemented yet.

If disallowing the hand-check was so significant, why were scores significantly higher in past seasons?

Scores have risen the past 3 seasons.  That's the proof of hand-checking being significant.  The fact that scores were higher in the 70's doesn't disprove that, since there are more factors in play (obviously, if scores dropped so significantly from 70's to mid-late 90's).

In fact, the fact that scores were much higher in the 70's pretty much proves my point, that defenses have gotten better.  You stated that zones were proof that defenses have gotten worse, and that the they caused a drop in scoring.  They are not, and did not.  The scoring drop was happening before zones.  What I have posted above proves that.  You can discredit the advances of defenses and whether that has caused the drop, but saying zone defenses caused the drop in scoring and are proof that defenses aren't as good as they used to be is just factually incorrect.

And zones absolutely do increase ball movement.  It is easier to drive 1-1 when playing man-man, and easier to deny a slasher in a zone defense.  The way to beat a zone has always been to get the ball into the middle of the zone, move without the ball, pass, and make jumpshots.  It's the reason the princeton offense was invented.  Zones most definitely do not retard ball movement.

[rickortreat]

In fact, the fact that scores were much higher in the 70's pretty much proves my point, that defenses have gotten better.  You stated that zones were proof that defenses have gotten worse, and that the they caused a drop in scoring.  They are not, and did not.  The scoring drop was happening before zones.  What I have posted above proves that.  You can discredit the advances of defenses and whether that has caused the drop, but saying zone defenses caused the drop in scoring and are proof that defenses aren't as good as they used to be is just factually incorrect.

Your conclusion isn't necessarily logical.  My contention is that players are inferior in terms of their knowledge and execution in the modern era.  It isn't that defenses have gotten better, it's that players don't pass as well, move as well or shot as well as they did in the 60's 70's and 80's. 

And while your date shows that scores have improved since the zone rules were added, the change in scores is only a few buckets from the low in 98-99 to the high this last season.  These teams are still scoring under 100 pts.  Statistically, I'm not sure that this is significant, but I will concede the point. 

Scores have risen the past 3 seasons.  That's the proof of hand-checking being significant.  The fact that scores were higher in the 70's doesn't disprove that, since there are more factors in play (obviously, if scores dropped so significantly from 70's to mid-late 90's).

Yes, there are more factors in play- back to my original position that players were better schooled in the past.  In order, I would say the first reason for the decline in scoring is dilution- more teams mean fewer quality players per team. 

Second would be quality of play- specifically passing.  Yes, we have exceptional players like Nash and Kidd, but back when teams were putting down 120 a night every team had more than one great passer.  There are no forwards that pass like Bird anymore.  There aren't many Centers who can pass to cutters like Kareem did.

Third would be the lack of fundamentals being taught to players- partly because many left college early and partly because NBA coaches don't teach the players.  Not too many teams are running the classic plays any longer- the give and go, pick and roll, etc.  And if they are, they aren't running them proficiently.  When was the last time you saw a team with three big men that could pass the ball back and forth to each other like the Celtics teams with Bird, McHale and Parrish, or the Laker teams with Kareem, Worthy and Wilkes?  They weren't running basic pick and roles, but freelancing based on the principals that made those plays so successful.

Even with hand checking and more physical play, teams in the past were able to score at a much higher level. With everyone trying to run some form of motion offense, but lacking the passing skill and court awareness teams take longer to shoot and put up fewer shots over the course of a game.  IMO zones contribute to that, but obviously, the more teams get used to the zone the more proficient they will be against it.

So while the rules like the 3 pt. line, the hand check rule and zone defenses play some role.  IMO, these things are less significant than the changes in the game I mentioned above.

True the population is larger but there are even more teams relative to the general population today than in the past.  Most coaches and their larger coaching staffs aren't enough to overcome the lack of talent and basketball understanding that player in the past have. In many ways, the NBA has become more of an individual sport, with players trying to emulate MJ.  This is why the NBA has problems dominating on the international level, some of the foreign players play more of a team game than NBA players do.

The Spurs are the best team in the NBA today, and they play more of a team game than any other in the league with greater depth and better skill as passers. The rest of them are a collection of me players pretending to be MJ.  Even AI, who can distribute the ball well enough to put up reasonable assist numbers is much more of a me player than a guard should be. The Kobe's and LeBrons are accused of being selfish, but they don't have the players around them capable of playing the game on the same level as in the past. 

These players are better athletes without question, but their thinking and understanding is lacking.  They don't play the team game, they lack the discipline to run plays and think that they can make shots by beating the defender.  Some of them take shots that they just shouldn't- like Antoine Walker.  In the good old days Riley would bench him and put in someone else, but these days he doesn't have anyone else.

[WayOutWest]

The old era guys should be allowed to pump iron and have a nutritionalist.  Fair is fair.
Is Ben Wallace nearly as ripped in 1957?  No.  Does Bill Russel put on bulk in 2000?  Yes.

That is just dumb, you are missing the entire point of this debate.  The POINT is an "all-time" team, none of this stupid "what if" fanhome arguments.  No "what ifs" with Kareem, MJ, Magic, TD or Bird.  As-is or stay out of the debate.

Most of the other factors i agree too many things to compare.  But food and iron pumping/modern training techniques and pampering training staff?  Of course the 1950s and 60s guys should get the same even playing field.  Throw in the hormone enhanced foods and Bill Russel might be as big as Barry Bonds. 

STUPID!

Speaking of hormones, fix Kareem some sandwhiches.  His beanpole physique and snaillike sidemovement along with unwillingness to mix it up physically hardly qualifies him for best ever.   Apparantly his solid D did not apply when playing:
Nate Thurmond '73 1st round ouster
Dave Cow
Mo Malone
Bob Parish healthy
Hakeem and Ralph
Bill Lamebeer

Care to quote how may all-defensive teams those guys made?  Combined they MIGHT not stack up to Kareems 5 first team all NBA defensive teams and 6 second team all NBA defensive teams.  Try again, talking out of your ass with fake made up numbers belongs on fanhome not here, you will get called to task very quickly as has been shown on numerous occasions.

You're right about Kareems physique, he couldn't hold a candle to Parish's WWE-like guns!  LOL! 

Kareems longevity was impressive, even if it was helped along by Sterns no touch rule for he and Majic.

Too bad Stern didn't implement a no cocaine rule for Bias or a don't get fat and lazy rule for Bird.

[Reality]

The old era guys should be allowed to pump iron and have a nutritionalist.  Fair is fair.
Is Ben Wallace nearly as ripped in 1957?  No.  Does Bill Russel put on bulk in 2000?  Yes.

That is just dumb, you are missing the entire point of this debate.  The POINT is an "all-time" team, none of this stupid "what if" fanhome arguments.  No "what ifs" with Kareem, MJ, Magic, TD or Bird.  As-is or stay out of the debate.

Most of the other factors i agree too many things to compare.  But food and iron pumping/modern training techniques and pampering training staff?  Of course the 1950s and 60s guys should get the same even playing field.  Throw in the hormone enhanced foods and Bill Russel might be as big as Barry Bonds. 

STUPID!
Or in other words, fair.  Which repels any Laker Mecca adherents.

Speaking of hormones, fix Kareem some sandwhiches.  His beanpole physique and snaillike sidemovement along with unwillingness to mix it up physically hardly qualifies him for best ever.   Apparantly his solid D did not apply when playing:
Nate Thurmond '73 1st round ouster
Dave Cow
Mo Malone
Bob Parish healthy
Hakeem and Ralph
Bill Lamebeer

Care to quote how may all-defensive teams those guys made?  Combined they MIGHT not stack up to Kareems 5 first team all NBA defensive teams and 6 second team all NBA defensive teams.  Try again, talking out of your ass with fake made up numbers belongs on fanhome not here, you will get called to task very quickly as has been shown on numerous occasions.

I watch the games myself and did not and do not need media to spoon feed me decisions like a sheep.  The above games and matchups were anything but fake, should you ever end up watching them.  You may not find them in your Laker guide tho.  By all means avoid posting on them.

You're right about Kareems physique, he couldn't hold a candle to Parish's WWE-like guns!  LOL! 
Parrish did not have WWE-like guns, but you're progressing.

Kareems longevity was impressive, even if it was helped along by Sterns no touch rule for he and Majic.

Too bad Stern didn't implement a no cocaine rule for Bias or a don't get fat and lazy rule for Bird.
The no coke rule was only for those '86 butt kicking Rockets.  Watch the games!  Bird fat and lazy?  And you talk about fanhome.

 

[Derek Bodner]

Rick, I'm not arguing that players are worse offensive players now, or that team basketball hasn't fallen.  You made the point that defenders are worse, and that Zone defenses are proof that defenders aren't as good as they used to be, and that zone defenses have caused lower scoring.  These are the points that I have disputed, not that offensive basketball is worse. 

Personally, I think defense HAS improved ALONG WITH worse offensive and team fundamentals, and the pace of the game has fallen drastically (teams average 9 less fga's/game than they did in 1980).  It's a combination of many things.  However all I've disputed is that zone defenses caused the drop in scoring, and that zones are proof that defenders are worse now than before.

[Skandery]

I'd like to first answer those who assume that the top modern players of today couldn't hold a candle to those of yesteryear, after all, the statistics just speak for themselves.  How many rebounds does Tim Duncan pull down, 11, 12 on a good year.  Russell and Chamerlain were in the 20s, 6 foot 5 Elgin Baylor pulled down 18 boards in a season.  All this seems like a no-brainer, you have to look beyond simple statistics. 

The game and the 60s was fast, more field goals were attempted, therefore more field goals were missed, hence more rebounds to be had.  Russell's 1st full year, 1957-58 season (rookie year, he played 48 games due to commitment to USA basketball), he averaged 22.7 rpg.  That year, your average NBA team attempted 89 shots per game and made  roughly 34.  That's 55 rebounds per game to be pulled down, that means he took down ~41% of the rebounds that were available per game.  Let's compare that with last year's leading rebounder--Kevin Garnett at 12.8 rpg.  Average Team made 37 of 80, 43 rebounds available, of which Garnett took ~30%.  If Garnett were in the 57-58 NBA season, his season rebound average would have been 16.6 rpg -- good for 4th in the NBA behind Russell's 22.7, Maurice Stokes' 18.1, and Bob Pettit's 17.4; and ahead of Dolph Shayes' 14.2 and Red Kerr's 13.4.  So Garnett's still pretty much their with HOFers Shayes and Pettit but still well short of Russell (nothing to be ashamed of BTW).

=================================================================

The question of defense is tricky.  From my statistical analysis above, you'd see the average team in 1957-58 shot at about 38%.  As an aside, Russell's offense is widely disparaged, yet his 44.2% that year was good for 3rd highest in the NBA.  Last year, the average team shot 46%.  Clearly one can say that defense is much weaker in the modern game.  You have to take into account rule changes, game pace, coaching philosophy, etc.  Its much harder on perimeters players with hand-checking rules hence its easier to penetrate, break the defense, and raise scoring.  Players are more specialized now, with designated shooters on the floor (Jason Kapono, Michael Redd, Ray Allen, Mike Miller) and designated defenders that rarely attempt shots (Desagana Diop, Quinton Ross, Bruce Bowen, and Shane Battier).  Hence the correct players are more often than not shooting the ball, raising scoring percentage.  The philosophy changed from getting as many possessions as possible to put up the maximum amount of shot attempts where coaches rarely dictated individual plays to now where coaches slow the game down to maximize each possession often-times dictating which play is to be ran each time down the court.  All these factors lead to higher offensive percentages without necessarily meaning that defenders today don't measure up to those of yesterday. 

. . . now back to the continuing saga with WayOutWest
==============================================================================

I agree Ted but it's my opinion that guys like Kareem and Wilt would be just as effective in todays game as they were in thier day and IMO Russel and Mikam would not.  That's why I would pick Kareem over Russel for my "all time" team because I want players that would be just as effective today or in the 40's.  It's alot easier for a player to be successfull in past eras that is playing today then for players from the past to play today.  There are exceptions all across the board of course.  I don't think I was completely clear in my arguement about Russell, I have no doubt he would be successful in todays game, he'd probably be an all-star but no way am I passing up on Kareem or Wilt to take Russel for MY team.  Kareem was unstoppable, Wilt was pretty close as well but not quite up to Kareems level because of his FT's.  Russell was far from unstoppable on offense and he would fair no better against Kareem or Wilt on defense than anybody else and that would pretty much dilute from his overall effectiveness on the court because his biggest contribution on the court was defense.

I'll give you the fact that you've framed your argument a little better with this paragraph.  On your personal all-time team, you feel the skills of Wilt and Kareem translate across the entire spectrum much better than Russell or Mikan.  I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact they were both Lakers, hmmmm? 8)Sorry, the congruence was too easy.  In short I agree with you on Mikan, but not Russell. 

Mikan was truly a giant amongst the men of his era.  Basketball was a fringe sport on the national scene -- locally supported teams and schools playing in armories and barns captured the attention of your average fan moreso than the professional team out of Fort Wayne or Minneapolis (Mikan's team).  In this different era of exposure, the best players weren't always in the professional league of basketball (BAA and later NBA).  It was easier for 6'10, 250 pound guy like Mikan to absolutely dominate before the shot-clock era, and when each possession started with a jump ball.  At the age of 32 (his last season), he'd regressed greatly, mustering only 37 games of the 82 game season and averaging 10 points and 8 rebounds. 

Russell's era, while still nowhere near the spectacle it is today, was more refined and more advanced than that of Mikan's.  Russell's rookie year was the year after Mikan retired, people lump Mikan and Russell together never realizing they never played in the league together.  Russell's league truly had the best players in the country populating the teams and the competition was legitimately the best.  That was made no more true than when Wilt Chamberlain (the finest athlete of his generation) left the Globetrotters to play in the NBA.  Chamberlain is the feather in Russell's cap, what separates him from basketball giants (Jack Twyman, Maurice Stokes, Jerry Lucas, Bob Pettit, Dolph Shayes, and Elgin Baylor).  None of those players consistently beat Chamberlain save one. 

Forget about Russell for a second and just think of Chamerlain's legacy:  Physical paragon of athleticism, arguably most dominant offensive player, most dominant rebounder, only player to score 100 in a game, immovable, unstoppable.  Yet, when it came to winning one man stood in his way year after year.  I might have more doubt in my mind about the greatness of Russell had Chamberlain came after Russell, but they played 85% of their careers during the same era, yet one guy has 11 championships and one guy has 2 championships.  Championships are the measure of greatness of in my mind because that is when pressure, anxiety, and competition are at its highest.  Championship series are the clutch situations of the season at large.  The Finals is to the season what the last 2 minutes of a tie is to a hard-fought 48 minute game.  It's do or die, there is no tomorrow, no next time, nothing but failure or success.  The great ones rise to the occasion, welcome the challenge, relish the pressure, and consistently succeed -- no matter how badly the other guy wants to beat them.  Its an intangible of Russell's character that I think carries through the spectrum of time.  George Karl, reminiscing about his Finals against Jordan, wrote, "You have to reach in and rip Jordan's beating heart from his chest to kill him."  I think much the same applies to Russell.  What he and Jordan had in spades, players like Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul Jabbar lacked. 

Kareem Abdul Jabbar was a dominant basketball player.  One of the best two-way players in NBA history and his sky-hook was the most indefensible shot in the history of the game, yet he needed Magic Johnson (a great one among greats) on 4 of his 6 championships.  Why?  The answer is simple . . . Desire.  By all rights and because of his unparalleled skills, Kareem should have had 10 championships, but for the most part he was content.  It was why his resolve was so widely criticized during his playing days (heck the comedy "Airplane" spoofed it).  The Russell/Jabbar argument would be akin to a scout (circa the summer of 1996) debating whether to recommend drafting Ben Wallace or Lorenzen Wright.  One guy averaged 17 and 10 at the University of Memphis (drafted 1st round, 7th pick) and one guy played with some intensity in little Virginia Union (undrafted).  While Russell isn't anywhere near the complete player Kareem was, but it takes more than skill, versatility, and athleticism to be the greatest player of ALL time, it takes heart and an absolute refusal to fail at the highest level.  Something Russell and Wallace had on their respective counterparts.       

So you can take Kareem or Wilt before Russell on your all-time team with Magic, Jordan, Bird, and Duncan.  I'll take Russell and have the convenience of having his absolute refusal to allow his Magic, his Jordan, his Bird, and his Duncan to fail.



That went longer than expected . . .            

[Ted]

I hate to add this so late in the game, but . . .

what the heck is Tim Duncan doing in a list of the top 5 players of all time?