How seriously do you take championships from the 50's-60's?

Weren't there like two teams back then? Those early Celtics championships are garbage.

 

No.

Not when the other team has Wilt Chamberlain, Elgin Baylor and Jerry West.

Are you an idiot or what.

 

The league expanded because there were more good players available. When the game became more popular, more young people would aspire to play in the league. Thus the talent pool became bigger, not to mention the influx of international players.

I am not saying that the league is not over-expanded, because I believe it is. But the dilution of talent is not as serious as some people think. It is a fact that there were fewer good players back then. So in that sense, the competition was easier.

Also, I think player movement plays a great role about the lack of true dynasty in the modern era.

 

So lets erase all records before 90s, because the league was starting

And the lakers would have less titles too, if you only count since the magic lakers titles.

Its called evolution, things keep getting better everytime.

And by your point of view, how seriously you take the first presidents, they are less people so, you have more chance to be president, right?

 

I don't doubt that the stars of the past would still be successful, particularly because I believe in the mental side of sports just as much as the physical. Obviously, in our fantasy scenario, they'd have access to the latest and greatest training methods, nutrition, coaching, etc. But to believe that they'd reach the same unreachable plateaus of stats would be completely nonsense.

It's quite curmudgeonly to disregard how much sports have evolved over time, and discount how much more important athleticism, scouting and specialization have become to sports.

I totally disagree with anyone who says that the fundamentals of the game have gone down; haven't we all seen enough YouTube videos of players practicing shooting today to realize that these guys are on another level? Sure, expansion has made the league talent pools flatter, but I believe that you'd be a fool to discount how much the league has grown in its demands for size and wingspan across the board. Even defensive strategies have become more sophisticated now; if you think about Wilt, he would be Hack-a-Shaqed constantly, doubled without the ball, and be the victim of flops and poor refereeing. Players hire offseason shooting coaches now, and work on their form relentlessly, or have it fixed early in HS.

In baseball, Ruth, Ott and Foxx and anyone pre-Jackie racked up their stats playing in a watered down league that barred many of the best in the business from playing (potentially the only old-time sports argument I will accept). Teddy Ballgame got his .406 against pitchers conditioned to play for the complete game, often facing the same guy 3 or 4 times, even when he was dead tired at the end of a game. Today's hitters will face a starter maybe twice, then a specialist and finish against a flamethrowing, fresh closers whose only job is to get 3 outs. Let's not even mention the defense that is being played now, along with the smaller ballparks which leave less ground to cover.

Back on topic, I agree with the general sentiment that this is a rather thinly veiled excuse to further prop up the Rockets' Chips and diminish the accomplishments of the most accomplished and storied franchise in the league. You can't unwrite history. The Rockets will never be considered one of the "old guard", and really, it shouldn't bother anyone. The number I care about is 2, and I'll defend those against anyone.

 

I guess some man or kid in 50 years will talk about value of todays basketball championship.

They have been around for so long time and NBA keeps about it tradition, Celtics were there just in right time.

 

Any team who can endure the psychological burden of the Communist thread abroad, and still win, has my utmost respect.


In honesty, -shrugs-.

 

I agree to a point, but don't you often hear and see how jump shooting in general wasn't as good as it was 70s through 90s.

When you talk about how sports has evolved, it has. But to the point of being much more superior players....I would have to disagree.

Wilt being compared to Shaq is a good example (because Wilt was freak of nature). Even with today's rules, he would still have shot at averaging 30 ppg. He would still have most complete offensive set skills than any center in the league and remember this man is like 7,3 - 275 to 300 pds. Wilt wasn't a good FT shooter at all. Still, I will venture to say he was more skilled than Shaq was. He had wider shooting range, better passer (lead league once in assist), more agile, better defender, and possibly stronger (he didn't seem to have alot of fat on his body). Besides, Hack-a-Shaq doesn't always work, it slows the game down. But, generally it is not good strategy to use, if you want all of your guys in foul trouble. Being doubled without the ball wouldn't matter as much either, Shaq still averaged in high 20s and low 30s, even with the new rules in place. Besides, what centers do you think actually challenge Wilt in peak form right now?

he was an avid track and field athlete: as a youth, he high jumped 6 feet, 6 inches, ran the 440 yards in 49.0 seconds and the 880 yards in 1:58.3, put the shot 53 feet, 4 inches, and broad jumped 22 feet (Don Pearson, Sporting News)

Average wingspan is about the same as it was 20 years ago. People seem to think that you automatically get taller and taller with generation, not necessarily...it's genetics that goes into height. They are also environmental factors that effect a person's height. Also in NBA Basketball, the average height has not exploded as much as you would think. The tallest year for the average player was actually in 1987. It has went down every year, since.

http://www.nba.com/news/survey_2006.html/

Baseball is difficult sport to measure, but I will say it is very much skill based sport. You don't necessarily need outstanding speed or outstanding athleticism to be great unless you play in outfield.

The smaller parks, pretty much says that home run totals to that are somewhat overexaggerated, because if you hit the ball a little deeper it's a home run. Which in older parks might have been just a single or pop out? They favors the old timers who were known for putting balls out of the park.

The pitchers, though are kind hard to measure. Because, pitchers did play longer in past, but remember they were conditioned to play 9 innings every other day. Most pitchers now are taken out of the game, if they start huff or give up too many runs. You are right in sense that they are more specialist and a bigger variety of pitchers. At the same token, there are generally more bad pitchers out there, because of more teams and more players. The best talent is not concentrated to a few select teams.

Also, the old timers are going to be seeing the same pitches and even the same speed of pitches. Hand-eye coordination (and reaction) is probably the most aspect of baseball, like Golf (where Jack Nickaluas and Bobby Jones) could come in and not find a big drop off. For some old baseball players, some of them has some of greatest of all time. Athleticism and hand-eye coordination are almost to different things that's why MJ didn't do so well in baseball.

Again, it is not only small parks....there are better bats, more nutritional supplements (legal - energy pills and illegal - HGH), lower mounds, and again the aspect of having 30 something teams versus 8 or 10. The worst players on the worst teams wouldn't even be in the league, if they were less teams. If Ruth had superhuman strength in 20s, could you imagine what he would have nowadays with all of the training and drugs involved.

Finally, I don't think all old leagues are necessarily less competitve. Because remember smaller league and smaller (lower) salaries meant you had to stay at your to stay on the team. In today's game, you can be on the decline or underperforming and still find work because they are so many teams.

 

Actually, the more teams you have, the more watered-down the rosters become. If you only had 8 teams in today's NBA ... then how incredible would the rosters be? Only the very best of the best of the best could make a team.

Matt Maloney back then would be exactly where he is now -- not in the NBA. It's only because of the diluted talent level with the current 31 (is it 31?) teams that he ever had a quick visit.