Bill Russell shouldn't be on anyone's top 10 list.

[True Lakers Fan]

This is why I'm not a fan of all time lists. Players from previous eras get downgraded because they didn't have the training, nutrition, coaching, money, etc. available to them that players have today.

Back then, they not only didn't have all of the other advancements, they also often had to have regular jobs in the off-season because they weren't paid enough to be able to just concentrate on basketball year round.

It's hard to know how well the players from the past would fare in todays game because they didn't have those advantages. It's also hard to know what today's players would look like if those advantages are removed.

Hell, you even pointed out Larry Bird would have two twelve packs of beers and then drop 25 points the next day. Imagine what he could have done with the proper nutrition and training

 

[desert heat]

Simple

Many of the HOFers would not have been HOFers in a deeper talent pool.

I am not sure what Russell would be today. But a fraction of the talent pool means fewer great players.

So as great as Chamberlain was, for example, he would not average 50 points a game in a more competitive league with more better player.

And you can bet there were many potential NBA athletes out there that did not have an opportunity or perhaps even the interest to play for various reasons.

today league is deeper but with 30 teams its more watered down, fewer stars per team. in the smaller 60's league, russell would face chamberlain alone 8 or 9 times during the regular season, as opposed to today's teams only playing each 2-4 times.

i'm seeing some pretty good names on this list.

The Best NBA Centers of the 1960s

 

[tlance]

today league is deeper but with 30 teams its more watered down, fewer stars per team. in the smaller 60's league, russell would face chamberlain alone 8 or 9 times during the regular season, as opposed to today's teams only playing each 2-4 times.

i'm seeing some pretty good names on this list.

The Best NBA Centers of the 1960s

Aside from the top 3, Most of those would be role players in today’s NBA.

Again, you are missing the point.

The talent is no watered down today.

There is a lot more talent to go around. Most of the guys in the NBA back then would not have made it today.

 

[desert heat]

Aside from the top 3, Most of those would be role players in today’s NBA.

Again, you are missing the point.

The talent is no watered down today.

There is a lot more talent to go around. Most of the guys in the NBA back then would not have made it today.

doesn't seem like you've watched much basketball from the 60's. walt bellamy was a beast. willis reed won a couple championships in the 70's, voted to the 50 greatest ever team. bob pettit was a legend also voted to the 50 greatest ever team, just to name a few. russell was playing against stars night in and night out.

nearly all the centers in today's nba look like role players.

 

[desert heat]

 

[tlance]

doesn't seem like you've watched much basketball from the 60's. walt bellamy was a beast. willis reed won a couple championships in the 70's, voted to the 50 greatest ever team. bob pettit was a legend also voted to the 50 greatest ever team, just to name a few. russell was playing against stars night in and night out.

nearly all the centers in today's nba look like role players.

Because of rule changes and style changes

I know my history.

The old school game revolves around the center position.

Bob Petit was a career 43.6% shooter. Do you honestly believe he is getting 40 + post touches and 20+ FGA with that efficiency in the modern era?

Walt Bellamy was more efficient.

But he averaged a career high 31.6 PPG and 19 rebounds as a rookie in 1962. He never had a major injury, yet his averages declined nearly every year.

By the prime years of his career in his late 20s, he was averaging more like 17 and 11.

Why? Because the quality of the average NBA athlete just was not up to par when he first broke into the league. By the late 60s it was better. Still not what it is today.

Look, Russell was great in his era. No disputing that. Basketball is almost an entirely different sport today though. You can’t compare.

 

[richig07]

Seriously. The guy played against midgets and failed to dominate offensively. If I played against a bunch of elementary school kids, I could dominate both offensively and defensively. I think fans should apply some reasoning before compiling their top 10 list, it would ensure some legitimacy to these lists instead of being the mockery they have become by including Russell. I’d don’t want to see any dissenting views in this thread either because it would be damn embarrassment to this board for any poster to endorse Russell as a top 10 player.

Oh, no! He was more physically gifted to play basketball than his competition? What an injustice!

Clearly, this means Jim Brown should be taken off of all "greatest football player of all-time" lists. Bunch of 230 pound lineman and 200 pound LB's he was playing against. While he was built like a modern day RB.

Urrrrgggghhh... how dare these bastards have the gall to be ahead of their time!

 

[richig07]

Look, Russell was great in his era. No disputing that. Basketball is almost an entirely different sport today though. You can’t compare.

The thing is that you also can't take players from today, have them be born in the 1940's and expect them to turn out to be the same freaks of nature that they are with modern day nutrition/fitness. It's a dumb argument... and to your point... you can't compare across generations for that reason. All you can look at is how a player dominated HIS era and the competition around him.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

I am just barely old enough to have watched him play. Greatest winner in American sports history and it's no accident that great teams followed him at every level he played. But with that said as dominant he was in 2 phases of the game I just can't put a guy who scored 15 points a game on the all time top 10 list.

 

[desert heat]

Because of rule changes and style changes

I know my history.

The old school game revolves around the center position.

Bob Petit was a career 43.6% shooter. Do you honestly believe he is getting 40 + post touches and 20+ FGA with that efficiency in the modern era?

Walt Bellamy was more efficient.

But he averaged a career high 31.6 PPG and 19 rebounds as a rookie in 1962. He never had a major injury, yet his averages declined nearly every year.

By the prime years of his career in his late 20s, he was averaging more like 17 and 11.

Why? Because the quality of the average NBA athlete just was not up to par when he first broke into the league. By the late 60s it was better. Still not what it is today.

Look, Russell was great in his era. No disputing that. Basketball is almost an entirely different sport today though. You can’t compare.

basketball was a team game in the 1960's and is still a team game today. chamberlain couldn't carry a team to a championship in the 60's and no center could do it today.

players peak years are generally in their 20's. players slowing down as they approach their 30's still happens.

personally, i don't think the current teams are that great. physical talent seems to have leveled off since the 1980's. i'd take the 1980's lakers teams over any of the more recent championship teams in about 5 games.

 

[tlance]

basketball was a team game in the 1960's and is still a team game today. chamberlain couldn't carry a team to a championship in the 60's and no center could do it today.

players peak years are generally in their 20's. players slowing down as they approach their 30's still happens.

personally, i don't think the current teams are that great. physical talent seems to have leveled off since the 1980's. i'd take the 1980's lakers teams over any of the more recent championship teams in about 5 games.

Nah.

Humans tend to get better at things over time.

Today’s scientists know more than scientists did in the 80s

Today’s teachers have better techniques than teachers from 40 years ago

All fields progress over time.

Athletics are no different.

 

[desert heat]

Nah.

Humans tend to get better at things over time.

Today’s scientists know more than scientists did in the 80s

Today’s teachers have better techniques than teachers from 40 years ago

All fields progress over time.

Athletics are no different.

knowledge, technology, and athleticism are to different things.

of the players over the last decade or so, lebron might make the all time team, that's about it. and even selecting him over larry bird would not be a difficult choice.

 

[trojanfan12]

knowledge, technology, and athleticism are to different things.

Not necessarily.

While I agree that talent and technology/knowledge are different things. You are ignoring the ability of technology/knowledge to enhance talent.

Back in the 60's, there wasn't much, if any, weight training among basketball players. It was believed that it would give them too much bulk and they would lose the dexterity/flexibility that basketball players need as well as slow them down.

Then, trainers, etc. learned how to isolate muscles and muscle groups and how to increase strength without adding bulk. Now, weight training is a big part of what NBA players do.

 

[desert heat]

Not necessarily.

While I agree that talent and technology/knowledge are different things. You are ignoring the ability of technology/knowledge to enhance talent.

Back in the 60's, there wasn't much, if any, weight training among basketball players. It was believed that it would give them too much bulk and they would lose the dexterity/flexibility that basketball players need as well as slow them down.

Then, trainers, etc. learned how to isolate muscles and muscle groups and how to increase strength without adding bulk. Now, weight training is a big part of what NBA players do.

i said physical talent since the 80's has leveled off. i think statistics will show that.

 

[tlance]

i said physical talent since the 80's has leveled off. i think statistics will show that.

Simply not true.

 

[desert heat]

Simply not true.

the players today aren't any taller, might be a little fatter.

If we take a look at the average height of NBA players during the history of the league we can see that basketball players in 1952 were almost 3 inches smaller than today! After that, players continuously grew taller until the apex was reached in 1987 at 6’7″ tall(201.2cm). Since then there were only slight fluctuations from year to year, but it seems as if a plateau was reached around 6’7″.

https://www.thehoopsgeek.com/average-nba-height/

 

[tlance]

the players today aren't any taller, might be a little fatter.

If we take a look at the average height of NBA players during the history of the league we can see that basketball players in 1952 were almost 3 inches smaller than today! After that, players continuously grew taller until the apex was reached in 1987 at 6’7″ tall(201.2cm). Since then there were only slight fluctuations from year to year, but it seems as if a plateau was reached around 6’7″.

https://www.thehoopsgeek.com/average-nba-height/

That is because the center position is dying.

Not because there aren’t 7 footers out there, but because most of the 7 footers aren’t Agile enough to defend in the modern NBA that is ruled by ball screens and floor spacing.

Bill Russell would have been great defensively in the modern era. Thurmond probably too. Wilt was good enough offensively it would not have mattered too much.

The rest?

Not so sure.

Which is why I say they would be role players.

And why the average height is declining.

The reason for declining height is that players are faster and more skilled.

And suggesting players today are fatter?

Seriously?

Muscle weighs more than fat dude. And a quick glance at players today vs. players in the 80s and before it is pretty obvious they aren’t “fatter”. LOL.

 

[desert heat]

That is because the center position is dying.

Not because there aren’t 7 footers out there, but because most of the 7 footers aren’t Agile enough to defend in the modern NBA that is ruled by ball screens and floor spacing.

Bill Russell would have been great defensively in the modern era. Thurmond probably too. Wilt was good enough offensively it would not have mattered too much.

The rest?

Not so sure.

Which is why I say they would be role players.

And why the average height is declining.

The reason for declining height is that players are faster and more skilled.

And suggesting players today are fatter?

Seriously?

Muscle weighs more than fat dude. And a quick glance at players today vs. players in the 80s and before it is pretty obvious they aren’t “fatter”. LOL.

humans just have their limitations, even with roids. physical improvements have definitely leveled off. apparently russell and chamberlain didn't play against midgets. the average height of centers today is only about an inch taller.

i realized the nba today is more watered down compared to the 80's, but the current nba compared to the 80's just seems boring. the play, outside of the warriors, just doesn't to flow as well.

an all 80's team would kill the current all decade team.

 

[tlance]

humans just have their limitations, even with roids. physical improvements have definitely leveled off. apparently russell and chamberlain didn't play against midgets. the average height of centers today is only about an inch taller.

i realized the nba today is more watered down compared to the 80's, but the current nba compared to the 80's just seems boring. the play, outside of the warriors, just doesn't to flow as well.

an all 80's team would kill the current all decade team.

Nope.

Not a chance.

 

[desert heat]

Nope.

Not a chance.

lol. having magic at the point is kind of cheating. it would be a track meet, inside and out.

lets go 60's. i'll put chamberlain, russell, big O, west, baylor/pettit on the floor. is there a line up from the current decade that could stop them?