I can make a team today to beat the 1992 Dream Team

[Guidry79]

And again, I am not suggesting that good D3 players today are better or as good as the legends. They aren't.

I am suggesting that the average players from that era (especially the early 60s when the greats were posting video game numbers) just weren't that good when compared to league average players today. The talent disparity makes the legends look better than they actually were (and they were great).

Yes, I agree with that. Same with Babe Ruth, of course. They do have inflated statistics because the competition was not as good. BUt: 1) the competition was not at D3 level, I assure you; that is simply incorrect -- there were 60 starters in the NBA at that time, and they were MUCH MUCH better than today's D3 players. I would venture to say not a single D3 player today could make the NBA in 1965. 2) Do not make the mistake of devaluing the legends because of the competition. Babe Ruth would be a superstar today. So would Wilt, Oscar, West, Baylor and Russell. The greats are relatively constant across the eras.

 

[tlance]

Yes, I agree with that. Same with Babe Ruth, of course. They do have inflated statistics because the competition was not as good. BUt: 1) the competition was not at D3 level, I assure you; that is simply incorrect -- there were 60 starters in the NBA at that time, and they were MUCH MUCH better than today's D3 players. I would venture to say not a single D3 player today could make the NBA in 1965. 2) Do not make the mistake of devaluing the legends because of the competition. Babe Ruth would be a superstar today. So would Wilt, Oscar, West, Baylor and Russell. The greats are relatively constant across the eras.

Not so sure.

Wilt's game transcends, but he would likely be used differently if in the league today.

There is literally a 0% chance Russell would be a superstar today. He was a great athlete/defender/winner and I would absolutely want him on my team, but my best guess would be that he would be some kind of hybrid between Ben Wallace and Draymond Green. A very good player, but no superstar. He simply didn't have the offensive skill.

O and Baylor are harder to figure. They would no doubt be very good today, but much of what made them elite was the fact that they were far superior athletically to their completion. They would not be today. Again, it is difficult to just assume they would be superstars because they wouldn't have the same advantages today as they had then.

By the same token, 50 years from now there will Be a 7-0, 290 pound wing player with a Curry like skill set. People will try to compare LeBron to him, but the reality is that the best players 50 years from now will certainly be better than the best from today.

 

[Guidry79]

Not so sure.

Wilt's game transcends, but he would likely be used differently if in the league today.

There is literally a 0% chance Russell would be a superstar today. He was a great athlete/defender/winner and I would absolutely want him on my team, but my best guess would be that he would be some kind of hybrid between Ben Wallace and Draymond Green. A very good player, but no superstar. He simply didn't have the offensive skill.

O and Baylor are harder to figure. They would no doubt be very good today, but much of what made them elite was the fact that they were far superior athletically to their completion. They would not be today. Again, it is difficult to just assume they would be superstars because they wouldn't have the same advantages today as they had then.

By the same token, 50 years from now there will Be a 7-0, 290 pound wing player with a Curry like skill set. People will try to compare LeBron to him, but the reality is that the best players 50 years from now will certainly be better than the best from today.

First, you ignored the D3 point so I assume you are giving up on that. Second, a paleontologist would tell you that the best of the species are constant, it is the constant winnowing of the worst that changes. Russell was a defensive savant. You give Wilt his kudos on offense but most observers of the era think Russell was the better player. His defensive gifts were so amazing. Ben Wallace, please. Draymond Green. You really never saw the man play. I saw both. No comparison. Russell dominated games. Read up on what Bill Bradley says about Russell. You are confusing the 1960s with the 1950s, when it was just a bunch of white guy hackers. This was only 50 years ago. You think Koufax would be a 5th start in today's rotations? Gibson? Same thing. Oscar and Baylor - you are simply judging them by their competition, which is unfair to them. The paleontologist -- and I have heard them on this subject -- wuld tell you you are wrong.

 

[tlance]

First, you ignored the D3 point so I assume you are giving up on that. Second, a paleontologist would tell you that the best of the species are constant, it is the constant winnowing of the worst that changes. Russell was a defensive savant. You give Wilt his kudos on offense but most observers of the era think Russell was the better player. His defensive gifts were so amazing. Ben Wallace, please. Draymond Green. You really never saw the man play. I saw both. No comparison. Russell dominated games. Read up on what Bill Bradley says about Russell. You are confusing the 1960s with the 1950s, when it was just a bunch of white guy hackers. This was only 50 years ago. You think Koufax would be a 5th start in today's rotations? Gibson? Same thing. Oscar and Baylor - you are simply judging them by their competition, which is unfair to them. The paleontologist -- and I have heard them on this subject -- wuld tell you you are wrong.

No, I don't.

Baseball isn't the same. And you are making major leaps. I am not saying your guys wouldn't be very good players in today's league. I am saying they probably wouldn't be elite. Koufax and Gibson would be great today. They might not be Kershaw, but they would surely be aces.

And you are wrong about the paleontology argument. The best today are more athletic than the best then. That is fact. And if you want proof, look at sports like track and field where they race against the clock and you can accurately compare the best from prior eras to the best from today.

The first runner to officially break 10 seconds in the 100 meter dash didn't happen until 1968. 6 of 8 finalists broke 10 seconds in 2016, and the slowest time was 10.06 which would have been a world record before 1964.

You look at any track event and records fall because the top athletes are better than those who came before them.

I don't understand why people assume basketball is different. It isn't.

Yes, the quality of play in the NBA improved a ton from 1960 to 1970. I am thinking more early 60s and it sounds like you are thinking late 60s, which explains some of the disparity.

 

[Guidry79]

No, I don't.

Baseball isn't the same. And you are making major leaps. I am not saying your guys wouldn't be very good players in today's league. I am saying they probably wouldn't be elite. Koufax and Gibson would be great today. They might not be Kershaw, but they would surely be aces.

And you are wrong about the paleontology argument. The best today are more athletic than the best then. That is fact. And if you want proof, look at sports like track and field where they race against the clock and you can accurately compare the best from prior eras to the best from today.

The first runner to officially break 10 seconds in the 100 meter dash didn't happen until 1968. 6 of 8 finalists broke 10 seconds in 2016, and the slowest time was 10.06 which would have been a world record before 1964.

You look at any track event and records fall because the top athletes are better than those who came before them.

I don't understand why people assume basketball is different. It isn't.

Yes, the quality of play in the NBA improved a ton from 1960 to 1970. I am thinking more early 60s and it sounds like you are thinking late 60s, which explains some of the disparity.

I said originally my team was Chamberlain, Russell, Baylor, West and Oscar. They all started in the late '50's or 1960s and all lasted until the 1970s except Russell. They all played in the 1969 All-Star game. The NBA in 1969 was a far cry from 1960, primarily due to integration. I don't buy the difference between sports where people compete against one another versus against a clock. Are you seriously telling me Ali could not crush any heavyweight in the last 20 years? Jim Brown? Willie Mays? Gretzky started in 1980, where is he in out evolution argument? We're not talking 100 years here.

 

[tlance]

I said originally my team was Chamberlain, Russell, Baylor, West and Oscar. They all started in the late '50's or 1960s and all lasted until the 1970s except Russell. They all played in the 1969 All-Star game. The NBA in 1969 was a far cry from 1960, primarily due to integration. I don't buy the difference between sports where people compete against one another versus against a clock. Are you seriously telling me Ali could not crush any heavyweight in the last 20 years? Jim Brown? Willie Mays? Gretzky started in 1980, where is he in out evolution argument? We're not talking 100 years here.

Gretzky might be an outlier.

Boxing is almost dead today, and was a huge draw for great atheltes in the past, so basically the opposite of what happened in the NBA. Sure, Ali is better than current fighters.

As for baseball? Apples and oranges. Mays would surely be great today. But, I also think the gap between generational greats in baseball is less than that in basketball for a couple reasons. First, baseball was the primary sport in America for a long time and drew the best atheltes. Now, it is a distant 3rd behind basketball and football. Second, Skillsets for baseball players just match up better. If today's player is a little bigger or faster, that doesn't make as big a difference in baseball as it does in a sport like basketball or football. If a guy could hit then, he can hit now.

Jim Brown? Again, probably great, but probably not super elite. Atheltes today are superior.

And yeah, my clock argument is irrefutable fact. All you have is opinion. In fact, the clock argument and size/weight of players from each generation are the only facts in this discussion, and both tend to support my argument. Everything else is opinion.

 

[Guidry79]

Gretzky might be an outlier.

Boxing is almost dead today, and was a huge draw for great atheltes in the past, so basically the opposite of what happened in the NBA. Sure, Ali is better than current fighters.

As for baseball? Apples and oranges. Mays would surely be great today. But, I also think the gap between generational greats in baseball is less than that in basketball for a couple reasons. First, baseball was the primary sport in America for a long time and drew the best atheltes. Now, it is a distant 3rd behind basketball and football. Second, Skillsets for baseball players just match up better. If today's player is a little bigger or faster, that doesn't make as big a difference in baseball as it does in a sport like basketball or football. If a guy could hit then, he can hit now.

Jim Brown? Again, probably great, but probably not super elite. Atheltes today are superior.

And yeah, my clock argument is irrefutable fact. All you have is opinion. In fact, the clock argument and size/weight of players from each generation are the only facts in this discussion, and both tend to support my argument. Everything else is opinion.

Gretzky is an outlier because...you say so. Wilt Chamberlain is not an outlier. Nor is Jim Brown, apparently. I guess not Babe Ruth. Perhaps we want to discuss the impact of transcontinental travel. Or integration. Maybe steroids. Track and field -- perhaps you'd like to discuss equipment, training, coaching, drugs, money? Facts. What a laugh. It's all opinion, my friend. If you think you can find an irrefutable fact in the land of sports, then that is the biggest delusion you have of them of all.

 

[tlance]

Gretzky is an outlier because...you say so. Wilt Chamberlain is not an outlier. Nor is Jim Brown, apparently. I guess not Babe Ruth. Perhaps we want to discuss the impact of transcontinental travel. Or integration. Maybe steroids. Track and field -- perhaps you'd like to discuss equipment, training, coaching, drugs, money? Facts. What a laugh. It's all opinion, my friend. If you think you can find an irrefutable fact in the land of sports, then that is the biggest delusion you have of them of all.

Training, coaching and science are large parts of why current guys are better. You are correct there.

 

[Guidry79]

Training, coaching and science are large parts of why current guys are better. You are correct there.

I don't think the human body evolves at the rate you suggest. The training, coaching, etc. have combined with montrous (and incentivizing) contracts and integration to give the illusion that athletes today are much better than they were "then." This is true of all sports, not just track. The reality is that the competition has improved for many reasons, but the guys who were ahead of the curve then are pretty much the same as the guys who are at the top now. I doubt 50 years from now natural evolution will lead to a 7'4" guy who combines Kareem with Shaq and Steph. He would be an "outlier." I'll still take my guys over yours, but, if pressed, it would be a very close game, not a blowout.

 

[trojanfan12]

I don't think the human body evolves at the rate you suggest. The training, coaching, etc. have combined with montrous (and incentivizing) contracts and integration to give the illusion that athletes today are much better than they were "then." This is true of all sports, not just track. The reality is that the competition has improved for many reasons, but the guys who were ahead of the curve then are pretty much the same as the guys who are at the top now. I doubt 50 years from now natural evolution will lead to a 7'4" guy who combines Kareem with Shaq and Steph. He would be an "outlier." I'll still take my guys over yours, but, if pressed, it would be a very close game, not a blowout.

I'm as much of a "old guys rule" person as anyone on here. @tlance will no doubt vouch for me on that. However, I disagree re: how well the guys you mentioned would compete. I started following the NBA in 1970, so I've seen all of those guys play for most of their careers and today's players for all of theirs.

These types of comparisons are usually done in what I call a "Hot Tub Time Machine" type of way. Meaning that you are taking the guys from the past and dropping them into today's game just as they were back then...or taking today's players and dropping them into a past era just as they are today.

Doing that type of comparison gives a huge advantage to today's players. The advances in training, nutrition, medicine, coaching and just the fact that players today can work on their games year round while the guys back then often had regular off-season jobs, means that the players you listed simply wouldn't have the ability to compete nearly as well as you claim. Remember, back then, even weightlifting was considered detrimental to basketball because they didn't know how to isolate muscles like they do now.

I don't think it would be quite the curbstomping that tlance says it would, after all, these are still all time great players. But it also wouldn't be as close as you claim either.

Now, if you are talking about these same players competing with the players of the past having access to what today's players have...or limiting today's players to only what was available to players back then, the outcome may change fairly significantly.

But in a "Hot Tub Time Machine" comparison...in a 7 game series, today's players win in a sweep and all 4 games are won by 10 or more points. The past era players keep it close for about 2.5-3 quarters, but just don't have the horses to compete for 4 quarters.

 

[Guidry79]

I'm as much of a "old guys rule" person as anyone on here. @tlance will no doubt vouch for me on that. However, I disagree re: how well the guys you mentioned would compete. I started following the NBA in 1970, so I've seen all of those guys play for most of their careers and today's players for all of theirs.

These types of comparisons are usually done in what I call a "Hot Tub Time Machine" type of way. Meaning that you are taking the guys from the past and dropping them into today's game just as they were back then...or taking today's players and dropping them into a past era just as they are today.

Doing that type of comparison gives a huge advantage to today's players. The advances in training, nutrition, medicine, coaching and just the fact that players today can work on their games year round while the guys back then often had regular off-season jobs, means that the players you listed simply wouldn't have the ability to compete nearly as well as you claim. Remember, back then, even weightlifting was considered detrimental to basketball because they didn't know how to isolate muscles like they do now.

I don't think it would be quite the curbstomping that tlance says it would, after all, these are still all time great players. But it also wouldn't be as close as you claim either.

Now, if you are talking about these same players competing with the players of the past having access to what today's players have...or limiting today's players to only what was available to players back then, the outcome may change fairly significantly.

But in a "Hot Tub Time Machine" comparison...in a 7 game series, today's players win in a sweep and all 4 games are won by 10 or more points. The past era players keep it close for about 2.5-3 quarters, but just don't have the horses to compete for 4 quarters.

Compete for 4 quarters? Avgminutes per game for their careers: Wilt/Russ/Oscar/West/Elgin = 42, Bird/Magic/Jordan/Hakeem/Malone = 37, LBJ/Durant/David/Harden/Stpeh = 36. I think the more recent guys are more likely to be huffing and puffing by the fourth quarter! I'll stick with my elites, in 6 games.

 

[tlance]

Compete for 4 quarters? Avgminutes per game for their careers: Wilt/Russ/Oscar/West/Elgin = 42, Bird/Magic/Jordan/Hakeem/Malone = 37, LBJ/Durant/David/Harden/Stpeh = 36. I think the more recent guys are more likely to be huffing and puffing by the fourth quarter! I'll stick with my elites, in 6 games.

They played more minutes for a few reasons.

First, as I have said before, the gap between truly elite players and league average was far greater than it is today. A dog tired Wilt was still a heck of a lot better option than his backup.

Second, one of the advances is sport science is the that we are now much more aware of the benefits of ample rest on both current and future performance.

Your 60s boys didn't play more minutes because they were better conditioned than today's athletes, they played more because their coaches didn't know any better.

 

[Guidry79]

They played more minutes for a few reasons.

First, as I have said before, the gap between truly elite players and league average was far greater than it is today. A dog tired Wilt was still a heck of a lot better option than his backup.

Second, one of the advances is sport science is the that we are now much more aware of the benefits of ample rest on both current and future performance.

Your 60s boys didn't play more minutes because they were better conditioned than today's athletes, they played more because their coaches didn't know any better.

Of course, my friend, I was joshing you. Predicting outcomes of a hypothetical series like this is kind of silly. I rest my case: these particular guys are as good as their counterparts today, as are the baseball dudes. Maybe not players 40-80, but the top 20, yes.

 

[Wamu]

Not so sure.

Wilt's game transcends, but he would likely be used differently if in the league today.

There is literally a 0% chance Russell would be a superstar today. He was a great athlete/defender/winner and I would absolutely want him on my team, but my best guess would be that he would be some kind of hybrid between Ben Wallace and Draymond Green. A very good player, but no superstar. He simply didn't have the offensive skill.

O and Baylor are harder to figure. They would no doubt be very good today, but much of what made them elite was the fact that they were far superior athletically to their completion. They would not be today. Again, it is difficult to just assume they would be superstars because they wouldn't have the same advantages today as they had then.

By the same token, 50 years from now there will Be a 7-0, 290 pound wing player with a Curry like skill set. People will try to compare LeBron to him, but the reality is that the best players 50 years from now will certainly be better than the best from today.

Russell could rebound & block shots. I agree he wouldn't be a superstar caliber player but I think he could be an All Star caliber player.

I think the Big O would do just fine in todays NBA. His skill set of scoring, rebounding & dishing the rock would still be effective.

Baylor. At 6-5 in todays NBA would he play his natural position of SF or be moved to SG? Was he a ball handler? Not knowing which position he'd play or the 2nd question tough to say what he'd do. Talented all time great though.

 

[Guidry79]

Russell could rebound & block shots. I agree he wouldn't be a superstar caliber player but I think he could be an All Star caliber player.

I think the Big O would do just fine in todays NBA. His skill set of scoring, rebounding & dishing the rock would still be effective.

Baylor. At 6-5 in todays NBA would he play his natural position of SF or be moved to SG? Was he a ball handler? Not knowing which position he'd play or the 2nd question tough to say what he'd do. Talented all time great though.

I honestly think you folks do not really understand Bill Russell. Or come close to it. Think Gretzky, or Tiger Woods in his prime, but on the defensive side of the ball. There is no modern analogy in the NBA. Russell was a defensive genius, a savant, and he would be a superstar today, with a skill set largely slanted on the defensive end -- though he did average 18 points per game as, essentially, the fifth option on the floor. When people ask me whether LeBron or Jordan is the best player ever, I answer "Russell." People always say he had great teammates. So did Wilt. Russell won NBA championships year in and year out.

 

[Guidry79]

I'm as much of a "old guys rule" person as anyone on here. @tlance will no doubt vouch for me on that. However, I disagree re: how well the guys you mentioned would compete. I started following the NBA in 1970, so I've seen all of those guys play for most of their careers and today's players for all of theirs.

These types of comparisons are usually done in what I call a "Hot Tub Time Machine" type of way. Meaning that you are taking the guys from the past and dropping them into today's game just as they were back then...or taking today's players and dropping them into a past era just as they are today.

Doing that type of comparison gives a huge advantage to today's players. The advances in training, nutrition, medicine, coaching and just the fact that players today can work on their games year round while the guys back then often had regular off-season jobs, means that the players you listed simply wouldn't have the ability to compete nearly as well as you claim. Remember, back then, even weightlifting was considered detrimental to basketball because they didn't know how to isolate muscles like they do now.

I don't think it would be quite the curbstomping that tlance says it would, after all, these are still all time great players. But it also wouldn't be as close as you claim either.

Now, if you are talking about these same players competing with the players of the past having access to what today's players have...or limiting today's players to only what was available to players back then, the outcome may change fairly significantly.

But in a "Hot Tub Time Machine" comparison...in a 7 game series, today's players win in a sweep and all 4 games are won by 10 or more points. The past era players keep it close for about 2.5-3 quarters, but just don't have the horses to compete for 4 quarters.

If you started watching the NBA in 1970, you have no idea what Chamberlain or Baylor looked like in their prime, you saw the tail end of West and Oscar, and you missed Bill Russell entirely.

 

[Wamu]

I honestly think you folks do not really understand Bill Russell. Or come close to it. Think Gretzky, or Tiger Woods in his prime, but on the defensive side of the ball. There is no modern analogy in the NBA. Russell was a defensive genius, a savant, and he would be a superstar today, with a skill set largely slanted on the defensive end -- though he did average 18 points per game as, essentially, the fifth option on the floor. When people ask me whether LeBron or Jordan is the best player ever, I answer "Russell." People always say he had great teammates. So did Wilt. Russell won NBA championships year in and year out.

What do you think I meant by his ability to rebound & block shots? His defense is the main reason I think he could play (and @ a high level) in todays NBA.

 

[Guidry79]

What do you think I meant by his ability to rebound & block shots? His defense is the main reason I think he could play (and @ a high level) in todays NBA.

Yes but you said he would not be a superstar today. A "high level" is not that. He would dominate on defense.

 

[Wamu]

Yes but you said he would not be a superstar today. A "high level" is not that. He would dominate on defense.

Personally I have always hated trying to compare players from different eras. No doubt he'd dominate on the defensive end though. It's his career FG% that would concern me a bit, .440 isn't good for a post player.

 

[Guidry79]

Personally I have always hated trying to compare players from different eras. No doubt he'd dominate on the defensive end though. It's his career FG% that would concern me a bit, .440 isn't good for a post player.

Russell defies stats. You don't need him for O.