I don't think the talent in the league in the 1960's is greater than it is now, the total talent in the NBA has definitely increased over the decades, but it's not fair to compare the top 16% of teams now to say the top 36% of teams in 1969. There's no perfect way to measure how talent increased versus how expansion diluted it, and comparing by percentile of teams seems like a reasonable thing to do. I have Moses Malone in my top 15 players of all time, and I agree that he's a bit underappreciated, but perhaps that's because he's something like the 6th greatest center ever (behind Wilt, KAJ, Russell, Dream, Shaq), and people tend to remember the top 2-3 greatest players at each position.
Meh. Statistical dominance. You said contemporaries, which sticks to my category/criteria loophole theory. But in real life no way those chicken legs could stop Shaq AND nail 5 women per day. Just not possible.
I like running the triple post offense, and I don't know how well Hakeem would do at the apex of it, finding cutters. And Walton's 3.2 blocks and 14.4 rebounds per game in his championship year compare quite favorably to what Hakeem did while healthy. But it's just a personal preference. I'd start Russell, too, at PF. C: Walton PF: Russell SF: Bird G: Jordan G: Pippen Running the triangle? We'd kill it.
The talent wasn't more concentrated - there were far fewer people playing basketball either amateur-wise or professionally in that era, due to the relative obscurity of basketball on the sporting landscape, and the fact that there were just far fewer people, period. The pool of athletes from which NBA players are chosen today is far, far, far deeper and wider than it was back in 1960, which is why you don't see too many of the tiny front lines that Wilt faced off against.
News Flash -- There is a Magic Time Machine -- It's called television. It's possible to actually watch Bill Russell play basketball now in the 21st century. You simply roll the tape that was recorded on the magic magnetic strip. From this you can see who Russell had to box out to get a rebound, you can see the 5'10" white boy guards and 6'4" forwards who weak stuff he sent back. You can imagine Shaq easily backing him down for a slam or pushing him out of the way for a rebound like a Granville Waiters. Yes Virginia, there is a Magic Time Machine.
Like others have said in this thread, I think its unfair to assess Bill Russell by how we would compare with players of today. So maybe would should consider a slightly different question -- was he overrated for his time? Here are some of his contemporaries: Wilt Chamberlain Oscar Robertson Jerry West Bob Pettit Elgin Baylor If you were putting together a team in the 60s, and you needed to start with one, how many players would you pick before Russell?
The reason I think Russell is overrated is because if he could play in today's NBA or in the 90's he would have been overpowered and dominated by the likes of Dream, Shaq, Ewing, Robinson. He just didn't have the size or strength to hold those guys. Even Charlie Rosen, the biggest new school NBA hater of all time, said that Bill Russell didn't have the size or strength to guard Yao Ming or Shaq. Could he have guarded Dream or Ewing or Robinson? I seriously doubt it as all of the guys were considerably stronger than Russell and had multiple ways to score. Now take Kareem and put him in today's game and he would probably be the best player in the league. Take Wilt and put him into today's game and he would probably be a poor man's version of young Shaq.
Echoing what a lot of posters said, it is hard to compare athletes from different eras. Although many have decried the lack of fundamentals of the current crop of NBA players, one thing that is true is the overall increase in athleticism (speed, quickness, power and leaping ability) of NBAers. I suspect that if you took many of the "stars" of yesteryear, many of them would be solid NBA players, but not the "superstars" of today. For example, the 6'10" George Mikan was dominant in his day, but I suspect he'd have trouble in today's NBA. Similarly, there is no way 6' 10" Russell would average 22.5 rebounds per game in today's NBA. The players today are just too strong, quick and tall.
It's all about winning the big one. Someone who wins 11 championships in 13 years should never be considered overrated will always be in a discussion of top players no matter what the era was or what decade it was. Centers back then used to be judged, evaluated and scouted by their offensive skills and any defense that came along with it would be gravy. Then Bill Russell came along....Winning is winning...
None, I see no reasonings for either of them to be put above Russell due to all of their lack of team success.
The lack of fundamentals is another argument that is always interesting to me. The average shooting percentage of the entire league back then was around 38-44% - even on the best teams. While I agree to a certain extent with what you said, what is more fundamental to the game of basketball than shooting the damn ball? Ok, maybe dribbling?
Interesting stat! Anyone know what the percentages were in the 1980's? Those are the glory years, IMO, excepting our two championship seasons.
3-point percentage wasn't nearly as good, but overall efficiency from the field was higher. More fast breaking, better mid-range shooting, probably better passing, less sophisticated defensive schemes. It dipped a ton in the 90s and through the early 2000s. With the rule changes favoring guards, offensive efficiency is about as good now as its been in 15 years.
Keep in mind If Russell wasn't injured in their 1st Championship loss, He could have 12 in 13 here.....That's dominance and it's finest. 11 in 13 is already pure dominance, but 12 in 13.....
13/13 would be at his finest. It's interesting that many people consider the greatest team of that era to be the '67 Sixers.
Brizzle... That's probably the best POST i've ever read concerning Bill Russell.. Russell was a team player that played his ROLE and did what ever it took to win... Wilt was Wilt...
Russell lost his 2nd time in the NBA Finals because that was his 1st year as the player-coach. Can anybody imagining guys like Dwight Howard and LeBron James, not only play but coach? They would suck, as coaches.
On the first quote I bolded, it's certainly what I remember. If anything, you could have said that more strongly and I'd have nodded. High scoring games that were a heck of a lot of fun to watch. Tremendous individual defenders, but the schemes, as you say (and in general... there were some exceptions at times), not as sophisticated as we see today. The second bolded part I'd love to see the numbers on and a comparison to the 1980's. You should start a thread about it!
I posted a Basketball Prospectus article about it in NBA Dish about a year ago: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=155573
