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

I agree with this... I just have a hard time taking championships from way back in the day seriously. To me, championships in the 50's and 60's are like the 4 championships that the comets won when the WNBA first started, I couldn't care less about any of them. Im not comparing early NBA championships to early WNBA championships, just saying I dont care about any of them. The NBA now seems like it would be much more difficult than in the past.

 

If you are asking whether if the old Celtics time-traveled to play in today's league could survive, the answer is definitely NO. They would get destroyed by even a mediocre team today.

Today's players are in general bigger, faster, more athletic, better trained, better fed, better conditioned, better coached, better taken care of medically, etc., not to mention all the modern equipment and computerized scouting and game preparation.

This is called progress. It is also similar to inflation. You can't say with the income people made in 1950, they couldn't have survived today's lifestyle. Of course not. But the dollar back then could buy a whole lot more than today.

Those teams played against each other. Boston won all those championships. Other teams didn't. So they were a great team. If they had the same resources today's teams have, they would be hanging with the today's contenders.

The only thing you can argue against them is that they had fewer teams to compete. So in that sense, the championships were "easier" back then.

 

Great post overall, but fewer teams meant each team could be a whole lot better. There were no Ryan Bowen type positions for people. If you have half as many teams, you have half as many total roster spots...

Imagine taking the worst half of each roster out of the NBA right now; combine, for instance the rosters of the spurs and rockets and take the best...

Okay, I'll give up now. I've said more than enough.

 

More seriously than the 70s when Dr. J played for the ABA.

 

the overriding factor in any of these discussions isn't athletes today vs. athletes back then, its race

 

It never, ever makes sense to try and compare athletes across eras. The modern athlete will always outperform the athletes of old because conditioning is better, there is more history and experience to lean on, better nutrition, the incentive of big money (and therefore a lifetime spent trying to get to the big leagues), and a million other factors.

Who knows how good Pete Maravich would have been if he'd have grown up in the 90's. Can you imagine Babe Ruth on steroids or HGH? (or for that matter, even in shape?)

The fact is that the best athletes from each era rose above their contemporaries and distinguished themselves above anyone else they were faced with given the technology of the day. The best of the best pushed the envelope and changed the game. Don't blame George Mikan that it was taboo to dunk in the old days or that Gatorade hadn't been invented yet.

He was still pretty darn good.

 

Wouldn't that theoretically make it harder as it would put more of the good players together?

If you did away with half of the teams in the NBA today, you would have substantially more talent on each team that was left.

 

You can't take them seriously? This is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

 

that's part of history and the evolution of the game.. back then they were the shiet!! gotta give 'em props!!

 

Cousy begat Maravich who begat Magic.

Don't diss Cousy. He was amazing for his time.

 

Not very much, the league was not exactly comprised of the best athletes back then, and the sport was hardly known.

It was so that one team could dominate for years....ala the Celts in the 60s......we will never see that again because the league has gotten to competitive.

Jordan was close with the Bulls but I doubt with Free Agency all the money and distractions that today's players have in front of them..that we will ever see a dynasty again.

Well...outside of the one in Houston for the next 5 years or so....that is.



DD

 

Serious....I am not one of the believers in the newer generations are all around superior players, especially in basketball, baseball, tennis, and hockey?


Players have evolved on average, but not as much as people would think, especially among the best players and teams.

Could Ted Williams not reach .400 in today's MLB? Could Hull, Howe, or Jacques make it on team in today's NHL? Yeah....

Let's see Mikan, Wilt, Bird, Magic, MJ, Barry, and others couldn't dominate or be great players in today's league?

As far as Wilt, I answered this in another post, could he not dominate today's centers? Wouldn't he almost be the best center by default, with his strength, will to score, and other worldly passing skills? The only centers again that I think he could give him a few fits are Howard, Duncan, and Yao, everyone else is too small, too soft, or simply not good enough defensively to stop him. His competition is Gasol, Bynum, Perkins, Obracio, Big Z, Okur, and etc. He is bigger than everyone of those players and he is far more skilled, just watch old video tapes.

Could Bird or Dr. J not be the best SF in the league now? In Bird's defense, what SF player has complete skill set, like does? If player, like Peja was all-star in this league a few years ago, Bird could still be the cream of the crop. Can't Dr. J jump as high and move just as well as Carter, T-Mac, and others can? The only player that could possibly be better than them is Lebron James.




I think today's generation of players are fundamentally more flawed and the leagues in some instances are watered down: more teams equals more (flawed) players in the league as less teams equals more competition for roster spots and deeper talent pool on each team. Compare a league with 22 teams to league with 32 teams.

Just because you are more athletic or have betters athletes does that always make you a better, just look at a team, like the Jazz from the late 90s. Talent wise, they might have 4th to 6th best team in the west, They never had a deep roster, like Trailblazers, Lakers, Spurs, Supersonics, and Suns. Most of their team consisted of unathletic role players and superstars/all-stars in their mid 30s. They weren't nearly as athletic as team, like the Suns. But they dominated the West for good two or three season. Mostly, it's good passing, shooting, decision making, and defense. Fundamentals, again.

Again, do you think team like the 60s (Russell, Cousy, Havilcek, Jones) - 80s Celtics (Bird, McHale, Parish, Johnson, Ainge, and Maxwell) would get run off the floor by juggernauts team like the Grizzlies, Timberwolves, Heat, or Bobcats. Teams who can't even run one or two competent plays, shoot Fts, or even play half way decent defense beating an all-time great team. Very unlikely.

Could Spahn, Koufax, and Ford not pitch 40 years later in today's league? Could Mays, Banks, and Ruth not be home run hitters in today's league, even though they often knocked home runs out of the park with wider fences?

Ruth couldn't pile up home runs against teams with ERA over 5? Could the Cincinnati Reds of the 70s beat the modern day Reds? If you were building a franchise right now and wanted HR hitter would you take a prime McGwire, Sosa, or Canseco over Babe Ruth, Jimmie Foxx, or Mel Ott? Also, let me mention the later groups have higher career batting averages.

 

If we had Cousy right now playing for the Rockets, we wouldn't be talking about getting another pg.

Who would rather have as PG in 1954 or even 2009, Bob Cousy (in his 20s or 30s) compared to the likes of Rafer Alston, Mo Williams, Jason Williams, Tyron Lue, or even Derek Fisher?

 

Yeah, that does matter. But is not always the case. Less teams enter the playoffs and less players came into the league. Imagine this, which one is more difficult to make it in a league of 300 to 320 or league of 440 to 460? If they were less teams in NFL right now, do you think players, like Carr, Croyale, and others would be starting as QBs? Highly unlikely.

Even though, there were less teams in the league, then these are the teams Celtics beat for the championship.

St. Louis Hawks team lead by Bob Petite.
Los Angeles Lakers team that featured West and Baylor (later with Larusso, Chamberlain)
Warriors squads with Wilt Chamberlain
76ers squad with Wilt Chamberlain, Hal Greer, Chet Walker, and Billy Cunningham.

Those Celtic teams beat some really great teams for the Championship.


Let's move to 2000....the Los Angeles Lakers beat these teams for the Championship

Pacers with an aging Reggie Miller and Co.
76ers with pretty much just Allen Iverson
Nets withs Kidd, Jefferson, Martin, and few role players.


All three of those teams were near the top Eastern COnference, what does that say about the competition in modern era?

 

At least in the 3-point-line era, I'd say that the very best teams from the 80s - the '83 Sixers, the '85 and '87 Lakers, and the '86 Celtics - could still win the title in today's league. But those were the best of the best back then, (and some say the best teams ever in a non-watered-down league with X-number expansion teams) from a time when the game was played ulta-sound, with the 3-point line, illegal D rules, and players who had evolved with the game from the 60s and 70s.

 

It is like John Wooden's championships....it was an era when there were not that many great players, and the ones that were great all went to UCLA.....

DD

 

I understand your position, though. In that the league in general wasn't that competitive. I can even agree to that, most of it. You had the best 4 to 7 teams and then there was big drop off in talent afterwards. The teams became very much mediocre and pretty below average.

But, you are right in the saying that the league as whole got better, as 70s and 80s came, because it expanded in every area, from fans, teams, players, commercial popularity, training methods, and what nots.

Although, even as the rules evolved, it is hard to believe that the most talented players or teams from the late 50s to mid 70s wouldn't have effect on the game. Those areas had some players who were outstandingly sound in fundamentals, had great knowledge of the game, or were a freak of nature.