The Evolution of Basketball

[Lurker]

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?

Playing PF.

[rickortreat]

Skandery!

That was a great post you wrote.  Congrats on a well-reasoned and thought out piece both on the changes in the game and your take on the best ever.

I did have a few things to add, however.

When we're talking about the best of the best, one of the criteria seems to be longevity, as well as the statistics and records.  But being the best over a long period means a lot of things had to go right for you.

Russell DID have more heart than Wilt- who hated and despised practice. (Yes, we're talking about practice!) Wilt refused to practice! He liked to go up to NYC and party and womanize too.  Wilt was the best ever, but in truth was not nearly as dedicated or committed as Russel was to winning. 

But that isn't why Russel had more rings.  He had more rings because he had better teammates around him for a longer period of time.  He was also fortunate enough to escape injury for many years, something that has hurt the careers of many a player.  Not only did Wilt score a 100 in a game, he also led the league in Assists for a season, and I think he also won the Rebounding crown that year as well.

After I brought up Moses Malone, I went the the History section of NBA.com and found out that Moses hung around for many years after winning in Phila.  But he never again reached the championship round, and suffered from serious injuries that hampered his ability to win more, as well as fewer solid teamates. 

This begs the question- is the number of championships the real test to determine who's the best?  Kareem had many more rings than Moses and better statistics for his career, but in '83 Moses dominated Kareem, outrebounding him 72-30 when the Sixers swept the Lakers.  There is no question Kareem accomplished more in his career, but how can you call him the best when Moses thoroughly outplayed him in a championship series?

Maybe if Moses managed to catch on with a better team sooner, say teaming up with Magic and Worthy et. al. would he have managed the same number of titles as Kareem?  If he had come to Phila. sooner, and Dr. J came to Phila. when he was younger (Julius was much, much better when he played with the Nets) We might very well be saying Moses was the best.

Longevity and talent around you are necessary to win a title. Even the best players need a supporting cast.  When Boston won everyone talked about Bird, McHale and Parrish, but it was Cedric Maxwell that won the series MVP in 81 against the Houston Rockets with Malone.

So really how long do you have to play and how much do you have to accomplish to be considered the best.  Is one fantastic season enough, or do you have to win over many years to be in that group?

Championships are a team effort, no matter how great the individual.  Individual records also count, and in Moses 21 year career, he put up incredible numbers, but not quite as many as Kareem.

Could it be enough to be the best for just one amazing season, where your team which had been competitive enough to reach the finals for years before you came, yet unable to win a single one, you put a team so far over the top that they go 15-1 to win the Championship against a team that won 2 championships prior and 3 more after that disappointing season?

[WayOutWest]

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

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. 

It's a Laker thing?  I guess you're right since the other guy I considered leaving off my all-time team was Magic.

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. 

Even in his prime I don't think he would translate well in the modern game.  He was not a hulk nor was he very athletic so he'd be more of a supporting cast PF than a dominant franchise player.  Like I stated from the begining I want someone as effective TODAY as they were in THEIR day.

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. 

Who are these people that lump Mikan and Russell together?  Never met one, they reason people I know mention them in the same breath is becuase of how they dominated the league.  IMO Mikan was a one-man show that would have had the same success no matter what team he played on because of the factors you mentioned, extreemely weak league being the prime factor.  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.

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. 

Again, I don't think it was one man in Russells way as much as it was one team.

IMO Kareem gets a bad rap for being aloof, much like TD.  TD and DRob never showed the fire that players like Magic, Bird and especially MJ showed, that win or die mentality.  To me DRob never showed me any different but TD has done that since DRobs departure and he broke his milk money image to me in game 6 of the playoffs against the Lakers in 03.  The Lakers nearly pulled off the upset in game 5 and had all the momentum going into game 6 but TD single handedly refused to let the Spurs loose.  Kareem showed the same fire in 85 after the infamous "Boston Masacre".  After that game everyone was saying Kareem was done, the Boston front line dominated Kareem and the Lakers, so Kareem comes back in game 2 to dominate the game and win the series.  Kareem's fire burned deep, it wasn't something he wore like a badge of honor because of his background.

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.       

Then I guess TD should be taken off the list as well.  Sorry but I don't agree with your "heart" arguement.  All things being equal, or near equal, yes it plays a part may be the determining factor but when the talent level is so different then talent alone will win over.  I'd like to say any one of us take on JR Rider and win with our "heart".  IMO Kareem would have had the same success as Russell in his era on those teams based on PURE talent.  I don't think the same would be true if you switched Russell for Kareem because Kareem would dominate on both ends where Russell would not be the scoring monster and go-to guy that Kareem was asked to be.

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.

Great, and we will win every series with Kareem.

[Reality]

This begs the question- is the number of championships the real test to determine who's the best?  Kareem had many more rings than Moses and better statistics for his career, but in '83 Moses dominated Kareem, outrebounding him 72-30 when the Sixers swept the Lakers.  There is no question Kareem accomplished more in his career, but how can you call him the best when Moses thoroughly outplayed him in a championship series?

Bueller?  Bueller?  Ferris are you there?  I don't think they will respond to you either rick.

rt Maybe if Moses managed to catch on with a better team sooner, say teaming up with Magic and Worthy et. al. would he have managed the same number of titles as Kareem?  If he had come to Phila. sooner, and Dr. J came to Phila. when he was younger (Julius was much, much better when he played with the Nets) We might very well be saying Moses was the best.

Longevity and talent around you are necessary to win a title. Even the best players need a supporting cast.  When Boston won everyone talked about Bird, McHale and Parrish, but it was Cedric Maxwell that won the series MVP in 81 against the Houston Rockets with Malone.

Exactly.  Kreams Lakers were 40-42 in 1975.  From 75-79 Kreams Lakers were not much above .500, save one year.  OTOH when Magic and James Worthy arrived they got better.

Some Celts squak about the turnaround after Bird arrived and indeed it was a great year with HOFs Bird at the start and Dave Cow at the finish of his career.  But Philly got them in the East Finals.  However the next year they added Bob Parrish and Kevin McHale for the Title.

[WayOutWest]

Bueller?  Bueller?  Ferris are you there?  I don't think they will respond to you either rick.

Of course the lemmings will let ONE series be the answer to everything.

[Reality]

One plus
Nate Thurmond '73 1st round ouster
Dave Cow 74
Mo Malone 83
Bob Parish healthy 84
Hakeem and Ralph 86
Bill Lamebeer 90

[WayOutWest]

One plus
Nate Thurmond '73 1st round ouster
Dave Cow 74
Mo Malone 83
Bob Parish healthy 84
Hakeem and Ralph 86
Bill Lamebeer 90

I didn't realize Mo Malone was on all those teams or are you spinning off into another tangent?

[Reality]

rick completely outlined why even the one year with Mo merits discussion.
Completely unfair you are avoiding his question.
I posted 6 different years and players that Kream got run in head to head, and 6 is not the career total.

You have your Kareem defensive undies on and all bunched up, and you don't need to.
He had a great career, won titles in beggining middle and end.  Granted some were in the weakest West Conf years ever, but still...And some of those losses were like the Wilt losses, the opponents team was better.  Yet you have Kareem as unstoppable, best ever.  Well he got stopped.

Your non answer is an answer that Kream is not hands down the best ever.  He can be considered but is by no means the absolute pick over Russel, Mo Malone, Olajuan, Bob Parish and others.

 

[Skandery]

One plus
Nate Thurmond '73 1st round ouster
Dave Cow 74
Mo Malone 83
Bob Parish healthy 84
Hakeem and Ralph 86
Bill Lamebeer 90

Reality, I appreciate you (sort of) helping me try to get WayOutWest to see the light but you've got to stop with the inaccuracies.  Kareem never met Bill Laimbeer in the 1990 Finals (it was the Trailblazers).  It was the 1989 Finals (his last year in the NBA at the age of 41) where he played ~23 minutes and averaged 10 points and 4.5 rebounds and I'm hardly going to blame him for the loss that year to Laimbeer and the Pistons. 

[Reality]

My adding Lambeer in 89 is simply part of the summarization to show that the "unstoppable" Kareem was stoppable.  I do not and did not blame him for the 89 Pistons win.  Just as i do not overprop Kareem for 87 and 88s wins.

One of Kareems best if not the best was 1985 after the Boston Massacre had the Celts up 1-0 and they gave plenty of smack talk on and off the court to the Lakers.  Kareem ordered a closed door practice that purportedly was nothing like previous soft Laker L.A. fashion boutique discussions.  Jack Wrinkleson fancied himself part of the Laker insider group and was actually going to sit in on the practice.  In one of his finest Laker moments Kareem ordered Wrinkleson to get out of the gym ASAP.  *Other language was actually used.

Still want to see if anyone addresses rt and my points.

[Lurker]

Still want to see if anyone addresses rt and my points.

It doesn't matter if anyone addresses your (mostly inaccurate) rantings.  Even if they got every former NBA player, coach, GM, media type, ballboy, owner and die hard fan to back up their point you would spin it to say something else and still claim that you weren't directly addressed.  Discussing (?) basketball with you is very similar to how it was with BBall Pro on the old MSNBC board.  It is a good way to pass a boring day at work but otherwise accomplishes nothing.

[Reality]

what a wimpy response.

[Lurker]

what a wimpy response.

I know...the truth hurts, doesn't it?

[WayOutWest]

It doesn't matter if anyone addresses your (mostly inaccurate) rantings.  Even if they got every former NBA player, coach, GM, media type, ballboy, owner and die hard fan to back up their point you would spin it to say something else and still claim that you weren't directly addressed.  Discussing (?) basketball with you is very similar to how it was with BBall Pro on the old MSNBC board.  It is a good way to pass a boring day at work but otherwise accomplishes nothing.

Exactly.  He tries to point out the Mo Malone was better than Kareem based on ONE series.  I dispute that so he changes the parameters of the debate and brings 7 other names into the fray.  It's pointless.  Did those guys out play Kareem?  It's possible, I saw Mark Eaton out play Kareem a few times but that doesn't make him better.  Overall IMO Kareem was better then the rest.

[Reality]

Exactly.  He tries to point out the Mo Malone was better than Kareem based on ONE series.  I dispute that so he changes the parameters of the debate and brings 7 other names into the fray.  It's pointless.  Did those guys out play Kareem?  It's possible, I saw Mark Eaton out play Kareem a few times but that doesn't make him better.  Overall IMO Kareem was better then the rest.

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.

I know...the truth hurts, doesn't it?

  "Am too are not"?
Truth of this discussion has been skirted wayy off by you two.