"The Tradition"...Right

[mosslost]

A lot of people agree with you, including Bob Ryan, whom I also like and who's considered a basketball expert. You look at it like this: The 1950 NBA Champion Minneapolis Lakers would probably lose to today's 76ers. You see modern development in athleticism, training, and physical superiority over athletes from fifty or sixty years ago. If you took Jim Thorpe and plunked him down on an NFL field today, he might struggle. Maybe. But first, I don't think Bob will agree with you about the Celts' opponents. The Hawks, Warriors, Sixers and Lakers had really, really good teams back then. And, everybody hated us, especially Red, and they wanted to beat us just as bad as everybody in the NFL wants to beat the Pats today.

More importantly, when you're considering a contest between teams of different eras, you need to start with this hypothesis: All things being equal. So, if everybody's playing on an even field or court, the guys from the past are enjoying all of the benefits and advantages of whatever modern culture, society, and physical evolution there is, if they're playing today. Conversely, the players from today get to deal with whatever existed during the time their opponents were playing, if they're going back.

That's how I look at it.

There've been several subsequent teams who've dominated the league in a given season, and they're very impressive. I've been playing and watching basketball all my life, and I've not seen any team better than the Celtics of the sixties. There's one more aspect I should point out. On paper, there is simply no way the US Olympic hockey team belonged on the same sheet of ice as the Soviets, in Squaw Valley or Lake Placid. Yet, they won the gold both times. There is just too much more to competion than statistics and accomplishments on paper, or flashy talent, can measure. It's often referred to as intangibles.

The 80's Celtics, Lakers, SIxers, Bucks, all would have destroyed them for the reasons you mention. The 60's Celtics really have no advantage at any data point. Not Even Red Auerbach, who though before his time, did none of the advanced scheming and tactics you now see in the evolved game. He was an incredible motivator though, and was a master of the fundamentals of the game of basketball and the team concept of it. I personally consider basketball to be the team sport of all time.

Playing the 60's Celtics against the 80's Celtics would be like asking the 9th grade team to play the 12th grade team. They simply would be extremely over matched.

I watch alot of those old celtic laker 60's title games on youtube also. One thing I am always struck by is how terrible the shooting was, back and forth, back and forth, if you did not get a lay up from a fast break (which was also too easy to happen, for either team, another obvious weakness), the teams just missed so many shots. Heck all the misses partly explained the rediculous number of rebounds Russell would get, though in today's standards he would just be average height and jumping ability. The rest of the players were all "short" 6 to 6-5... Russell dominated at 6-8. Cedric Maxwell could have been a HOF if he played at that time.

 

[mosslost]

Or, with all the talent concentrated within fewer teams, it was harder to win, and repeat. It wasn't a bad league at all.

On the other hand, the NBA of the last quarter century is watered down, with the presence of two stars being enough to elevate a team to the top.

You are simply way off on this argument. It is not a defendable position you are taking.