OT: Cavs vs. Warriors (Who Wins the NBA Finals?)

1960Pats · Jun 7, 2016

Bartmac36 said:
They're both all-time talents but weren't there like 9 teams in the league when Russell and Chamberlain played?

I feel like that's an important thing that people are glossing over when talking about these players from yesteryear.

Even the best players these days have a 1/30 shot at the championship, that's a liiiiittle harder than 1/9 odds.

Perspective is needed big time if people wanna compare either of those players to someone like Lebron, or even Jordan for that matter.

That also means that the talent was less diluted when there were less teams.

realtime · Jun 7, 2016

1960Pats said:
That also means that the talent was less diluted when there were less teams.

Certainly the talent at the time was less diluted back then than it would have been with more teams. But there were fewer talented players back then as well.

I know it's impossible to watch old NBA footage because apparently there was no video equipment back in the 1960s, but if it somehow were possible, you might watch Game 7 of the 1962 NBA finals. The Lakers that year had two elite players who could play in any era -- Jerry West and Elgin Baylor. LaRusso and Selvy could maybe have been end of the bench guys on a few modern NBA teams. Then you have guys like Jim Krebs (who would have been laughed out of a Maine Red Claws tryout -- I won't say who he spent most of the game guarding) playing major minutes. I can only imagine the quality of the players who were riding the pine while he played.

RobertWeathers · Jun 7, 2016

realtime said:
Certainly the talent at the time was less diluted back then than it would have been with more teams. But there were fewer talented players back then as well.

I know it's impossible to watch old NBA footage because apparently there was no video equipment back in the 1960s, but if it somehow were possible, you might watch Game 7 of the 1962 NBA finals. The Lakers that year had two elite players who could play in any era -- Jerry West and Elgin Baylor. LaRusso and Selvy could maybe have been end of the bench guys on a few modern NBA teams. Then you have guys like Jim Krebs (who would have been laughed out of a Maine Red Claws tryout -- I won't say who he spent most of the game guarding) playing major minutes. I can only imagine the quality of the players who were riding the pine while he played.

Russ was a man amongst boys. There a a few full games on YouTube that you can watch.

realtime · Jun 7, 2016

robertweathers said:
Russ was a man amongst boys. There a a few full games on YouTube that you can watch.

I know . . . I was being facetious.

Russell is a beast. Sam Jones is phenomenal as well. That '62 Celtics team was much deeper than the Lakers. Apart from Russell and Jones, the C's had at least 4 or 5 players who would have been the Lakers 3rd best player after Baylor and West.

wolverinejoe80 · Jun 7, 2016

1960Pats said:
That also means that the talent was less diluted when there were less teams.

today's players are going up against much better competition.

1. we have more people in general. in 1960 USA's population was 180 million
1960 United States Census - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

today we have 320 million.

2. there are just much more dudes playing basketball now then 50 years ago. why? NBA is popular and it is money making machine. back then many players had 2nd jobs. they rode buses to play games. athletes' #1 choice is without a doubt NBA 1st NFL 2nd.

3. talent pool isn't limited to the U.S. NBA is very global. many great talents around the world want to play in the nba.

Deus Irae · Jun 7, 2016

wolverinejoe80 said:
today's players are going up against much better competition.

1. we have more people in general. in 1960 USA's population was 180 million
1960 United States Census - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

today we have 320 million.

2. there are just much more dudes playing basketball now then 50 years ago. why? NBA is popular and it is money making machine. back then many players had 2nd jobs. they rode buses to play games. athletes' #1 choice is without a doubt NBA 1st NFL 2nd.

3. talent pool isn't limited to the U.S. NBA is very global. many great talents around the world want to play in the nba.

Yeah, yeah... and if the guys from the earlier eras were playing today, they'd have better equipment, better workout regimens, better nutrition, and the like, while taking today's players back to the earlier eras means that they wouldn't be as maxed out physically, they wouldn't have the same tech and nutrition, and they'd have to play under the old school rules. That nonsense goes both ways.

Or, to put it another way...

Babe Ruth is Babe Ruth.

VrabelJr · Jun 7, 2016

wolverinejoe80 said:
today's players are going up against much better competition.

1. we have more people in general. in 1960 USA's population was 180 million
1960 United States Census - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

today we have 320 million.

2. there are just much more dudes playing basketball now then 50 years ago. why? NBA is popular and it is money making machine. back then many players had 2nd jobs. they rode buses to play games. athletes' #1 choice is without a doubt NBA 1st NFL 2nd.

3. talent pool isn't limited to the U.S. NBA is very global. many great talents around the world want to play in the nba.

You certainly get paid a lot more money to be average in the NBA.

Joker · Jun 7, 2016

just a touch of REALISM instead of the sub-mongoloidal Michigan garbage being puked up in this thread.

and BTW, when I say I SAW Wilt and Russ play, I mean IN PERSON...at least a dozen times. So shove THAT piece of snark up your punkazz also.

Jackson 2 · Jun 7, 2016

Joker said:
just a touch of REALISM instead of the sub-mongoloidal Michigan garbage being puked up in this thread.

and BTW, when I say I SAW Wilt and Russ play, I mean IN PERSON...at least a dozen times. So shove THAT piece of snark up your punkazz also.

Yes, I remember when I was a little kid that there were occasional NBA doubleheaders on Sunday afternoons at the old Rhode Island Auditorium. The Celtics would play one game and then 2 different teams would play the other game.

supafly · Jun 7, 2016

Jackson 2 said:
Yes, I remember when I was a little kid that there were occasional NBA doubleheaders on Sunday afternoons at the old Rhode Island Auditorium. The Celtics would play one game and then 2 different teams would play the other game.

That must have been great to experience. Forgive me if my memory is incorrect, but didn't you also attend some of the 1960 season when they played at Nickerson Field (if it was even called Nickerson field at the time)?

supafly · Jun 7, 2016

VrabelJr said:
You certainly get paid a lot more money to be average in the NBA.

Yep, I'd happily be one of those crazy ass white guys with the tattoos and mohawks (I have neither) who "bring character to the game."

Joker · Jun 7, 2016

The 76ers won ONE title in the 60's as the C's dominated. THis ****in' idiotic garbage about the C's being so talented with all stars and Philly having nobody but Wilt is just pure idiotic little punk know-it-all never seen nothing rubbish. The C's had Sam Jones...the 6ers had HAL FREAKIN' GREER...the C's had "all star" KC Jones, who couldn't make a FG if he tried to throw it in the ocean, the 6er's had Wali Jones known as instant offense, the C's had Heinsohn, a slow footed hack and Sanders, a non shooting hack at forward, the 6ers had 6'9 rebounding machine Luke Jackson and lights out shooter Chet Walker. The C's had Havlicek on the bench the Sixers had Billy Cunningham at 6'7", Matt Goukas, the Saint Joe's prodigy at 6'5" and backup PG Bill Melchionni, another deadly shooter. The Celts had Don Nelson and Bailey Howell, two ultra slow, set shot white guys on the bench..oh, and the immortal floor burn kid Larry Siegfried.

I saw ALL the games these teams played through the decade. Don't try to tell me the C's were loaded and the Sixers only had Wilt...if anything the reverse was true. The C';s record and Bill's legacy remain intact no matter how many pinheads born decades later think the opposite.

Tony2046 · Jun 7, 2016

Deus Irae said:
Yeah, yeah... and if the guys from the earlier eras were playing today, they'd have better equipment, better workout regimens, better nutrition, and the like, while taking today's players back to the earlier eras means that they wouldn't be as maxed out physically, they wouldn't have the same tech and nutrition, and they'd have to play under the old school rules. That nonsense goes both ways.

Or, to put it another way...

Babe Ruth is Babe Ruth.

I freaking love this post. Winner x 10

Tom meets Kaepernick · Jun 8, 2016

Comparing era's and players from each era never leads anywhere. Teams in the 1960s shot the ball more, on average, 103 to 83 . Teams in the 1960s routinely averaged around 5400 rebounds compared to the 3500 or so rebounds teams get today. The pace of the game today is much slower than that of previous eras so the stats of that era reflect it. All stats are skewed in this way. Teams today shoot more 3's than ever recorded since the institution of the 3 pt line in the 1979-1980 season. Each era is so different the lengths people go to defend players they grew up with or played for their team seems pointless.

Jackson 2 · Jun 8, 2016

supafly said:
That must have been great to experience. Forgive me if my memory is incorrect, but didn't you also attend some of the 1960 season when they played at Nickerson Field (if it was even called Nickerson field at the time)?

Yes, just the first game of the season against the Broncos, which Denver won 13-10. It was on a Friday night. Since the other games were on Sunday, it was the first AFL game ever played.

1960Pats · Jun 8, 2016

Joker said:
The 76ers won ONE title in the 60's as the C's dominated. THis ****in' idiotic garbage about the C's being so talented with all stars and Philly having nobody but Wilt is just pure idiotic little punk know-it-all never seen nothing rubbish. The C's had Sam Jones...the 6ers had HAL FREAKIN' GREER...the C's had "all star" KC Jones, who couldn't make a FG if he tried to throw it in the ocean, the 6er's had Wali Jones known as instant offense, the C's had Heinsohn, a slow footed hack and Sanders, a non shooting hack at forward, the 6ers had 6'9 rebounding machine Luke Jackson and lights out shooter Chet Walker. The C's had Havlicek on the bench the Sixers had Billy Cunningham at 6'7", Matt Goukas, the Saint Joe's prodigy at 6'5" and backup PG Bill Melchionni, another deadly shooter. The Celts had Don Nelson and Bailey Howell, two ultra slow, set shot white guys on the bench..oh, and the immortal floor burn kid Larry Siegfried.

I saw ALL the games these teams played through the decade. Don't try to tell me the C's were loaded and the Sixers only had Wilt...if anything the reverse was true. The C';s record and Bill's legacy remain intact no matter how many pinheads born decades later think the opposite.

I didn't get to see as many games as I would have liked to see, but I saw enough to know that Bill Russell was the greatest basketball player who ever played.

letekro · Jun 8, 2016

Just watched 23 minutes of footage of the 62 finals game 7. The one that has been held up here as Russell's signature game, at least offensively. Now, I'm not claiming to have the knowledge that Joker gleaned from watching multiple games in person, but just my opinion based on a few minutes of action....

Russell's offensive game is embryonic. Clearly, he can't shoot and has very limited post moves. He is sort of the anti Kevin McHale. He is playing against one of those 6' 7" unathletic white guys I mentioned in a previous post (OK, maybe he is 6' 8").

Russell was fantastically athletic for his time--he would be one of the most athletic big men even today, 50 years later. I think, as someone else mentioned, his 1960s self would step right in and be a DeAndre Jordan type force on defense in today's NBA. Offensively, I think he would be similar too (maybe a little better), although he was certainly a better passer than Jordan.

The Celtics team overall is so much better than the Lakers its not even funny. No wonder they won so many championships. To attribute all of that to Russell is nonsense. Russell, Sanders and Sam Jones are all tremendous athletes who wouldn't look out of place in today's NBA. Cousy is a marvel, like Steve Nash on speed. Baylor and West are certainly legit, but the rest of the Lakers are a sad bunch.

Deus Irae · Jun 8, 2016

letekro said:
Just watched 23 minutes of footage of the 62 finals game 7. The one that has been held up here as Russell's signature game, at least offensively. Now, I'm not claiming to have the knowledge that Joker gleaned from watching multiple games in person, but just my opinion based on a few minutes of action....

Russell's offensive game is embryonic. Clearly, he can't shoot and has very limited post moves. He is sort of the anti Kevin McHale. He is playing against one of those 6' 7" unathletic white guys I mentioned in a previous post (OK, maybe he is 6' 8").

Russell was fantastically athletic for his time--he would be one of the most athletic big men even today, 50 years later. I think, as someone else mentioned, his 1960s self would step right in and be a DeAndre Jordan type force on defense in today's NBA. Offensively, I think he would be similar too (maybe a little better), although he was certainly a better passer than Jordan.

The Celtics team overall is so much better than the Lakers its not even funny. No wonder they won so many championships. To attribute all of that to Russell is nonsense. Russell, Sanders and Sam Jones are all tremendous athletes who wouldn't look out of place in today's NBA. Cousy is a marvel, like Steve Nash on speed. Baylor and West are certainly legit, but the rest of the Lakers are a sad bunch.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a consistently lamer troll than yourself.

letekro · Jun 8, 2016

Deus Irae said:
I'm not sure I've ever seen a consistently lamer troll than yourself.

It's my opinion. Sorry if you don't like it. Many basketball experts have noted Russ's phenomenal defense and lack of offensive skill. In fact, I would say (outside of Boston) it is the majority view.

Compare Russell with someone like Kareem, who was (as a young man) just as athletic, taller, just as smart, yet in possession of tremendous offensive skill. Add to that that Kareem continued to dominate after his athleticism waned (while Russell retired) and I don't see how Russell can compete.

Deus Irae · Jun 8, 2016

letekro said:
It's my opinion. Sorry if you don't like it. Many basketball experts have noted Russ's phenomenal defense and lack of offensive skill. In fact, I would say (outside of Boston) it is the majority view.

You're a troll. That's what you do. I don't mind trolls. You just suck at it. I wish you didn't, because a good troll can be very amusing. The problem is that your trolling is consistently stupid, almost never amusing, and generally either completely wrong or half-assed.

Troll better. That's all I ask.

OT: Cavs vs. Warriors (Who Wins the NBA Finals?)

Who Wins the NBA Finals?

Cavs

Warriors

PatsFans.com Supporter

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

2nd Team Getting Their First Start

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Eff you, Shula

Eff you, Shula

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Third String But Playing on Special Teams

PatsFans.com Supporter

PatsFans.com Supporter

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club

Similar threads