how good was elgin baylor?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CabinCreek44
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 16 Apr 2001
Posts: 3855

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 1:24 am    Post subject:

One need only ask the men who had to guard him as to how great Baylor was.

Agreed it's an unending argument as to yesterday and today. That said, it would be interesting to do a reverse time machine thing and put today's superior athletes back in the NBA of 40-50 years ago and see how they would fare when they wouldn't have the benefit of the referees constantly disregarding the rule book, having their heads taken off by a goon when they went to the basket for a dunk after posing following their previous one etc. They would also find the referees of that era completely unwilling to indulge their endless whining and crying following ever whistle.

Baylor suffered a catastrophic knee injury in 1965 and underwent the medieval reconstructive surgery of the day (the doctors certainly did the best they could with the techniques of the times). Yet he persevered and returned to have a few more very good seasons. Then he suffered a torn Achilles that limited him to 2 games during 1970-71.

He attempted a comeback in 1971-72, but struggled to fit in with new coach Bill Sharman's fast break attack. Sharman went to Baylor and asked him to accept a backup role to create more time for the younger and quicker scorer Jim McMillian. The proud Baylor didn't want to come off the bench and retired after 9 games. He was honored by the team and had his jersey retired immediately, appears in the official championship team photo, and was presented with a championship ring.

Baylor is unquestionably one of the greatest players ever to play the game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 31789
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 1:27 am    Post subject:

My dad is 74 and he has said that Elgin was the most talented player that he ever saw, up until a certain point (probably the 1980's).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
OregonLakerGuy
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 13207
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:02 am    Post subject:

I didn't start watching the Lakers until the year he retired, so I never saw him play. He gets mad respect from those who played with him and those who did watch him like Chick. He and Jerry got to the finals so often for a reason. They were great players. He belongs in the pantheon of basketball greats.

Someone mentioned earlier about the different rules of the day. They weren't kidding. Dribbling was far more restrictive. Almost any player today would get whistled for carrying (palming). That is part of why the players look so clumsy in the old tapes. These were great athletes trying to dribble and run when any time their hand slid down the side of a ball it was a violation. Try it sometime.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
mhan00
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32025

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:09 am    Post subject:

He was pretty good. Kyle Kuzma is better.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message ICQ Number Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:06 am    Post subject:

CabinCreek44 wrote:
Agreed it's an unending argument as to yesterday and today. That said, it would be interesting to do a reverse time machine thing and put today's superior athletes back in the NBA of 40-50 years ago and see how they would fare when they wouldn't have the benefit of the referees constantly disregarding the rule book, having their heads taken off by a goon when they went to the basket for a dunk after posing following their previous one etc. They would also find the referees of that era completely unwilling to indulge their endless whining and crying following ever whistle.


This particular argument doesn't strike me as persuasive. Over the last half century, players have become increasingly athletic and skilled. They pushed the limits of the rule book. What would happen if the referees snapped back to the way that old timers perceive (not altogether accurately) the game to have been called in the '60s? The players would adapt in short order. This already happened with the Olympics. I can remember people claiming that the NBA players would have all sorts of problems with international referees. Didn't happen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
CabinCreek44
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 16 Apr 2001
Posts: 3855

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:40 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
CabinCreek44 wrote:
Agreed it's an unending argument as to yesterday and today. That said, it would be interesting to do a reverse time machine thing and put today's superior athletes back in the NBA of 40-50 years ago and see how they would fare when they wouldn't have the benefit of the referees constantly disregarding the rule book, having their heads taken off by a goon when they went to the basket for a dunk after posing following their previous one etc. They would also find the referees of that era completely unwilling to indulge their endless whining and crying following ever whistle.


This particular argument doesn't strike me as persuasive. Over the last half century, players have become increasingly athletic and skilled. They pushed the limits of the rule book. What would happen if the referees snapped back to the way that old timers perceive (not altogether accurately) the game to have been called in the '60s? The players would adapt in short order. This already happened with the Olympics. I can remember people claiming that the NBA players would have all sorts of problems with international referees. Didn't happen.


I find unpersuasive the notions of some modern day fans that yesterday's players, given all of the modern advancements and advantages that today's players enjoy, would not be able to compete in the modern era. Elgin Baylor certainly among them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MJST
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 26091

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:50 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
CabinCreek44 wrote:
Agreed it's an unending argument as to yesterday and today. That said, it would be interesting to do a reverse time machine thing and put today's superior athletes back in the NBA of 40-50 years ago and see how they would fare when they wouldn't have the benefit of the referees constantly disregarding the rule book, having their heads taken off by a goon when they went to the basket for a dunk after posing following their previous one etc. They would also find the referees of that era completely unwilling to indulge their endless whining and crying following ever whistle.


This particular argument doesn't strike me as persuasive. Over the last half century, players have become increasingly athletic and skilled. They pushed the limits of the rule book. What would happen if the referees snapped back to the way that old timers perceive (not altogether accurately) the game to have been called in the '60s? The players would adapt in short order. This already happened with the Olympics. I can remember people claiming that the NBA players would have all sorts of problems with international referees. Didn't happen.



Actually I think tbh the "illusion" of 'well today has MUCH BETTER ATHLETES AND MUCH MORE SKILLED PLAYERS" is a mirage. Know why it's a mirage? cause rules were different back then. No not in the "handcheck" way. Just look at this that was cited earlier in this thread.

'Players would adapt in short order'. I bet you they'd barely be able to get off a layup being only allowed to take 1.5 steps before it's a reinforced travel and or execute a crossover where palming the ball was illegal. If their hand touches anywhere but the top of the ball, it's a turnover. I'd love to see Westbrook breakdown his defender and get to the basket under those rules and see how many times he actually gets to execute a move before the whistle came. You read stuff like this...

Quote:

Second, the rules and the enforcement of them were entirely more restrictive to the ball-handler. It affects how players of that era could operate and to the naive eye, what they could be actually capable of doing with the rules of 1992, 2002, or today. Palming the ball on the dribble was illegal so the crossover dribble didn't exist. Running more than 1.5 steps to complete a dribble dribble was illegal and enforced, so getting airborne to showy dunks, hang-time feats, and skywalking was impossible. The jump-stop move of today - enabling a player to move a foot one more time after his perimitted dribble stop, was not permitted.


And then this

Quote:
OregonLakerGuy wrote:


Someone mentioned earlier about the different rules of the day. They weren't kidding. Dribbling was far more restrictive. Almost any player today would get whistled for carrying (palming). That is part of why the players look so clumsy in the old tapes. These were great athletes trying to dribble and run when any time their hand slid down the side of a ball it was a violation. Try it sometime.


Put Westbrook in that era and he doesn't make it past half court or get a step on a layup without being called for traveling.

Whereas put Elgin Baylor in today's era and let him palm the ball, carry, take 3.5 steps and have little to no restrictions on his dribble or footwork and watch what happens.

I think you'd be surprised how 'ordinary' today's "better athletes and skilled players" would look with the same restrictions on their dribble and footwork, and how much like today's Nba "better athletes" the old timers would look if they had the freedom of today's players.

Oscar Robertson could pin the ball to the near top of the backboard when he went for a block. That's pretty flipping athletic. Let a prime Oscar Robertson have the same freedom that today's ball handlers have in today's NBA and you may be shocked how "on par" he actually is.

I think the mirage of 'they are just far superior athletes and talents compared to back then' is a lot to do with the restrictions the old timers had to deal with and how many freedoms the players get today.

Like I said, put Oscar or Elgin, or West in their prime into TODAY'S NBA era under TODAY'S NBA dribble rules and you may be shocked.

CabinCreek44 wrote:


I find unpersuasive the notions of some modern day fans that yesterday's players, given all of the modern advancements and advantages that today's players enjoy, would not be able to compete in the modern era. Elgin Baylor certainly among them.


Heck it doesn't even have to only be Baylor.

If Wilt Chamberlain in his prime was in TODAY'S NBA.. he'd be the best player in the league, yes above LeBron, and he'd remain the best player in the league till his mid 30s.

You could take any version of LeBron in today's NBA and he wouldn't be a better player than a prime Wilt Chamberlain with the advantage of today's rules. ESPECIALLY in this 'small ball' era. Wilt would have a field day
_________________
How NBA 2K18 failed the All-Time Lakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxMBYm3wwxk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:45 am    Post subject:

MJST wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:

This particular argument doesn't strike me as persuasive. Over the last half century, players have become increasingly athletic and skilled. They pushed the limits of the rule book. What would happen if the referees snapped back to the way that old timers perceive (not altogether accurately) the game to have been called in the '60s? The players would adapt in short order. This already happened with the Olympics. I can remember people claiming that the NBA players would have all sorts of problems with international referees. Didn't happen.



Actually I think tbh the "illusion" of 'well today has MUCH BETTER ATHLETES AND MUCH MORE SKILLED PLAYERS" is a mirage. Know why it's a mirage? cause rules were different back then. No not in the "handcheck" way. Just look at this that was cited earlier in this thread.

'Players would adapt in short order'. I bet you they'd barely be able to get off a layup being only allowed to take 1.5 steps before it's a reinforced travel and or execute a crossover where palming the ball was illegal. If their hand touches anywhere but the top of the ball, it's a turnover. I'd love to see Westbrook breakdown his defender and get to the basket under those rules and see how many times he actually gets to execute a move before the whistle came. You read stuff like this...


Yeah, we see this sort of argument from time to time. I consider it to be a big, hot steaming bowl of BS served up by old timers. Compared to modern players, the athleticism and skill of players from the sixties was laughable. Some of the guards couldn't even dribble with both hands. A few years ago, the guy who produces the Wilt Chamberlain highlight reels insisted that players from the sixties were just as big as modern players. Yeah, like we can't watch the footage from that era and see exactly what the players looked like and what their skills were.

So right, Russell Westbrook would be a scrub in the good old days! He couldn't even dribble under the rules, and he couldn't make a layup without traveling! Riiiiiight.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:50 am    Post subject:

CabinCreek44 wrote:
I find unpersuasive the notions of some modern day fans that yesterday's players, given all of the modern advancements and advantages that today's players enjoy, would not be able to compete in the modern era. Elgin Baylor certainly among them.


It depends on what you mean. If you mean that Elgin Baylor could have made it in the modern NBA if he had been born in this era, well, who knows? He is definitely too small to play forward in the modern game. At 6' 5", he'd be about an average SG. He would have needed to adapt his game quite a bit. His shooting percentage on twos is about what the top players are making on threes today. However, if you have the determination and mindset to make it in one era, I tend to think that you would have the determination and mindset to make it in a different era.

If you mean that Elgin Baylor would make it in the modern NBA if we transported him from 1965 via a time machine, then no, I don't buy it. The athletic progression dictates otherwise. Imagine Roger Federer playing Rod Laver, or the Belichick Patriots playing the Lombardi Packers. It's not that there is anything wrong with Rod Laver or the Lombardi Packers -- it's that the world has moved on. Athletes progress.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TooMuchMajicBuss
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Posts: 21064
Location: In a white room, with black curtains near the station

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:23 am    Post subject:

MJST wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
CabinCreek44 wrote:
Agreed it's an unending argument as to yesterday and today. That said, it would be interesting to do a reverse time machine thing and put today's superior athletes back in the NBA of 40-50 years ago and see how they would fare when they wouldn't have the benefit of the referees constantly disregarding the rule book, having their heads taken off by a goon when they went to the basket for a dunk after posing following their previous one etc. They would also find the referees of that era completely unwilling to indulge their endless whining and crying following ever whistle.


This particular argument doesn't strike me as persuasive. Over the last half century, players have become increasingly athletic and skilled. They pushed the limits of the rule book. What would happen if the referees snapped back to the way that old timers perceive (not altogether accurately) the game to have been called in the '60s? The players would adapt in short order. This already happened with the Olympics. I can remember people claiming that the NBA players would have all sorts of problems with international referees. Didn't happen.



Actually I think tbh the "illusion" of 'well today has MUCH BETTER ATHLETES AND MUCH MORE SKILLED PLAYERS" is a mirage. Know why it's a mirage? cause rules were different back then. No not in the "handcheck" way. Just look at this that was cited earlier in this thread.

'Players would adapt in short order'. I bet you they'd barely be able to get off a layup being only allowed to take 1.5 steps before it's a reinforced travel and or execute a crossover where palming the ball was illegal. If their hand touches anywhere but the top of the ball, it's a turnover. I'd love to see Westbrook breakdown his defender and get to the basket under those rules and see how many times he actually gets to execute a move before the whistle came. You read stuff like this...

Quote:

Second, the rules and the enforcement of them were entirely more restrictive to the ball-handler. It affects how players of that era could operate and to the naive eye, what they could be actually capable of doing with the rules of 1992, 2002, or today. Palming the ball on the dribble was illegal so the crossover dribble didn't exist. Running more than 1.5 steps to complete a dribble dribble was illegal and enforced, so getting airborne to showy dunks, hang-time feats, and skywalking was impossible. The jump-stop move of today - enabling a player to move a foot one more time after his perimitted dribble stop, was not permitted.


And then this

Quote:
OregonLakerGuy wrote:


Someone mentioned earlier about the different rules of the day. They weren't kidding. Dribbling was far more restrictive. Almost any player today would get whistled for carrying (palming). That is part of why the players look so clumsy in the old tapes. These were great athletes trying to dribble and run when any time their hand slid down the side of a ball it was a violation. Try it sometime.


Put Westbrook in that era and he doesn't make it past half court or get a step on a layup without being called for traveling.

Whereas put Elgin Baylor in today's era and let him palm the ball, carry, take 3.5 steps and have little to no restrictions on his dribble or footwork and watch what happens.

I think you'd be surprised how 'ordinary' today's "better athletes and skilled players" would look with the same restrictions on their dribble and footwork, and how much like today's Nba "better athletes" the old timers would look if they had the freedom of today's players.

Oscar Robertson could pin the ball to the near top of the backboard when he went for a block. That's pretty flipping athletic. Let a prime Oscar Robertson have the same freedom that today's ball handlers have in today's NBA and you may be shocked how "on par" he actually is.

I think the mirage of 'they are just far superior athletes and talents compared to back then' is a lot to do with the restrictions the old timers had to deal with and how many freedoms the players get today.

Like I said, put Oscar or Elgin, or West in their prime into TODAY'S NBA era under TODAY'S NBA dribble rules and you may be shocked.

CabinCreek44 wrote:


I find unpersuasive the notions of some modern day fans that yesterday's players, given all of the modern advancements and advantages that today's players enjoy, would not be able to compete in the modern era. Elgin Baylor certainly among them.


Heck it doesn't even have to only be Baylor.

If Wilt Chamberlain in his prime was in TODAY'S NBA.. he'd be the best player in the league, yes above LeBron, and he'd remain the best player in the league till his mid 30s.

You could take any version of LeBron in today's NBA and he wouldn't be a better player than a prime Wilt Chamberlain with the advantage of today's rules. ESPECIALLY in this 'small ball' era. Wilt would have a field day


Agree MJST - watching tapes doesn't do justice to how athletic the likes of Balyor, Robinson, and especially Wilt Chamberlain really were in their prime. Interesting observation on how Wilt would have fit in today's 'small ball' era. I agree, Wilt in particular would have thrived with his speed, strength, endurance, with tremendous scoring, leaping, and passing abilities and a pretty decent bbiq. As for Elgin Baylor, he would have been spectacular to watch if he were allowed do what Westbrook does with a basketball.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TooMuchMajicBuss
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Posts: 21064
Location: In a white room, with black curtains near the station

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:40 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
CabinCreek44 wrote:
I find unpersuasive the notions of some modern day fans that yesterday's players, given all of the modern advancements and advantages that today's players enjoy, would not be able to compete in the modern era. Elgin Baylor certainly among them.


It depends on what you mean. If you mean that Elgin Baylor could have made it in the modern NBA if he had been born in this era, well, who knows? He is definitely too small to play forward in the modern game. At 6' 5", he'd be about an average SG. He would have needed to adapt his game quite a bit. His shooting percentage on twos is about what the top players are making on threes today. However, if you have the determination and mindset to make it in one era, I tend to think that you would have the determination and mindset to make it in a different era.

If you mean that Elgin Baylor would make it in the modern NBA if we transported him from 1965 via a time machine, then no, I don't buy it. The athletic progression dictates otherwise. Imagine Roger Federer playing Rod Laver, or the Belichick Patriots playing the Lombardi Packers. It's not that there is anything wrong with Rod Laver or the Lombardi Packers -- it's that the world has moved on. Athletes progress.


6'5" barefoot translates well to forwards in today's league. Measuring players with 'shoes on' heights didn't start until about 1973.

And - given everything else being equal I'd take Lombardi over Belicheck. Training progresses. Playing techniques and strategies progress. Genetics - not nearly fast enough to make one iota of difference between 1967 and 2017. If Elgin Baylor was a fantastic player in the 1960's, I think it's likely he'd be a fantastic player in this era, and far more appreciated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:54 am    Post subject:

TooMuchMajicBuss wrote:
6'5" barefoot translates well to forwards in today's league. Measuring players with 'shoes on' heights didn't start until about 1973.

And - given everything else being equal I'd take Lombardi over Belicheck. Training progresses. Playing techniques and strategies progress. Genetics - not nearly fast enough to make one iota of difference between 1967 and 2017. If Elgin Baylor was a fantastic player in the 1960's, I think it's likely he'd be a fantastic player in this era, and far more appreciated.


We went through the "barefoot" stuff in a thread a few years ago. Right, all of the players from the sixties are really bigger than they appear to be, because all of the measurements back then were scientific. Okay, if you want to believe that, there isn't much I can say.

As for Lombardi and Belichick, the whole point is that everything is not equal. Any modern NFL team would flatten the Lombardi era Packers. I am including the Cleveland Browns. In fact, I doubt that the Lombardi era Packers would win the SEC. For example, Jerry Kramer played right guard at 245 lbs. The size and speed of modern NFL players is just insane.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
70sdude
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 05 Feb 2009
Posts: 4567

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:02 am    Post subject:

I try to resist projecting how an athlete from one era might project to perform in one thirty, forty, fifty or sixty years earlier - or later. I used to enjoy the banter about this stuff but no longer.

The skill development paths are just too unique and are just too different to guys separated by large time spans. We just don't gain much perspective in the discussion exercise. Slide a fifteen year old Elgin ahead fifty years or move a sixteen year old Steph Curry back sixty years, what can we say with much certainty ? Not much. It is just enough to make us look silly to try to make serious sense of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:10 am    Post subject:

70sdude wrote:
I try to resist projecting how an athlete from one era might project to perform in one thirty, forty, fifty or sixty years earlier - or later. I used to enjoy the banter about this stuff but no longer.

The skill development paths are just too unique and are just too different to guys separated by large time spans. We just don't gain much perspective in the discussion exercise. Slide a fifteen year old Elgin ahead fifty years or move a sixteen year old Steph Curry back sixty years, what can we say with much certainty ? Not much. It is just enough to make us look silly to try to make serious sense of it.


I agree with that. At some level, all of the truly great players are freaks. I expect that anyone with the drive and determination to succeed in one era would find a way to succeed in another era, but as you say, the skill development paths are essentially unique. The end product would likely be different.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LALgamer
Rookie
Rookie


Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:22 pm    Post subject:

One thing overlooked in this discussion is that today's league talent is somewhat watered down. There are now about twice as many teams with more players on the roaster than when Elgin played. Today's best players have more opportunity to shine against watered down overall talent. Conversely this means that Elgin's numbers were even more impressive lending even more weight to the thought that Elgin would be a great player in today's NBA.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
OregonLakerGuy
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 13207
Location: Oregon

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:34 pm    Post subject:

These discussions always break down and there is never any consensus. Eras defy comparison in any real sense. I didn't see the sixties that some want to dismiss, but I started in the very early seventies. I have seen tons of basketball since then. I would put the greats of each era on par with the greats of any other if you equalize for training, medical, and equipment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TooMuchMajicBuss
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Posts: 21064
Location: In a white room, with black curtains near the station

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:35 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
TooMuchMajicBuss wrote:
6'5" barefoot translates well to forwards in today's league. Measuring players with 'shoes on' heights didn't start until about 1973.

And - given everything else being equal I'd take Lombardi over Belicheck. Training progresses. Playing techniques and strategies progress. Genetics - not nearly fast enough to make one iota of difference between 1967 and 2017. If Elgin Baylor was a fantastic player in the 1960's, I think it's likely he'd be a fantastic player in this era, and far more appreciated.


We went through the "barefoot" stuff in a thread a few years ago. Right, all of the players from the sixties are really bigger than they appear to be, because all of the measurements back then were scientific. Okay, if you want to believe that, there isn't much I can say.

As for Lombardi and Belichick, the whole point is that everything is not equal. Any modern NFL team would flatten the Lombardi era Packers. I am including the Cleveland Browns. In fact, I doubt that the Lombardi era Packers would win the SEC. For example, Jerry Kramer played right guard at 245 lbs. The size and speed of modern NFL players is just insane.


We're definitely talking past each other. 70sdude was spot on a couple posts ago, and I agree with your response to him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
RJ_LA
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 20 May 2016
Posts: 121

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:39 pm    Post subject:

TooMuchMajicBuss wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
CabinCreek44 wrote:
I find unpersuasive the notions of some modern day fans that yesterday's players, given all of the modern advancements and advantages that today's players enjoy, would not be able to compete in the modern era. Elgin Baylor certainly among them.


It depends on what you mean. If you mean that Elgin Baylor could have made it in the modern NBA if he had been born in this era, well, who knows? He is definitely too small to play forward in the modern game. At 6' 5", he'd be about an average SG. He would have needed to adapt his game quite a bit. His shooting percentage on twos is about what the top players are making on threes today. However, if you have the determination and mindset to make it in one era, I tend to think that you would have the determination and mindset to make it in a different era.

If you mean that Elgin Baylor would make it in the modern NBA if we transported him from 1965 via a time machine, then no, I don't buy it. The athletic progression dictates otherwise. Imagine Roger Federer playing Rod Laver, or the Belichick Patriots playing the Lombardi Packers. It's not that there is anything wrong with Rod Laver or the Lombardi Packers -- it's that the world has moved on. Athletes progress.


6'5" barefoot translates well to forwards in today's league. Measuring players with 'shoes on' heights didn't start until about 1973.

And - given everything else being equal I'd take Lombardi over Belicheck. Training progresses. Playing techniques and strategies progress. Genetics - not nearly fast enough to make one iota of difference between 1967 and 2017. If Elgin Baylor was a fantastic player in the 1960's, I think it's likely he'd be a fantastic player in this era, and far more appreciated.


Well put. Elgin was a freak athlete just like Lebron. If Elgin was in his prime today, Lebron would be his Larry Bird.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
mirak
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 5238

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:46 pm    Post subject:

55 wrote:
He was great, but let's not get carried away. He wasn't a Caruso.


Is Caruso the new Steve Black? He needs a new name.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
20,000
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 29999
Location: Likely nowhere near you

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:26 am    Post subject:

Fine poster. Not high numbers, but occasionally puts up a gem.
_________________
Courage doesn't always roar.
Sometimes courage is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying...'I will try again tomorrow.'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
ElginBaylor
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Posts: 10772
Location: Hoosier Nation

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:57 am    Post subject:

encina1 wrote:
Fine poster. Not high numbers, but occasionally puts up a gem.

Very, although his avatar kinda sucks.
_________________
Not a legend
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Lakers#1Team
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 36360
Location: Nomad

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:16 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
TooMuchMajicBuss wrote:
6'5" barefoot translates well to forwards in today's league. Measuring players with 'shoes on' heights didn't start until about 1973.

And - given everything else being equal I'd take Lombardi over Belicheck. Training progresses. Playing techniques and strategies progress. Genetics - not nearly fast enough to make one iota of difference between 1967 and 2017. If Elgin Baylor was a fantastic player in the 1960's, I think it's likely he'd be a fantastic player in this era, and far more appreciated.


We went through the "barefoot" stuff in a thread a few years ago. Right, all of the players from the sixties are really bigger than they appear to be, because all of the measurements back then were scientific. Okay, if you want to believe that, there isn't much I can say.

As for Lombardi and Belichick, the whole point is that everything is not equal. Any modern NFL team would flatten the Lombardi era Packers. I am including the Cleveland Browns. In fact, I doubt that the Lombardi era Packers would win the SEC. For example, Jerry Kramer played right guard at 245 lbs. The size and speed of modern NFL players is just insane.

I respect your opinions, Aeneas, but your bias is showing. Responding to a specific fact with generalizing about how it was implied that "all of the players from the sixties are really bigger than they appear to be." That's not what was said or implied. And in another post you said " I consider it to be a big, hot steaming bowl of BS served up by old timers." Ok, riiiight, no overreaching there. smh

I saw Elgin play in his last good season at 35. I'm comfortable in saying that he was better than Barkley and equal to or better than Dr. J. No, I don't put him on par with an all-time starting five but he belongs on the all-time great team. I agree with your ultimate opinion that there's no good way to compare players of different eras. Yes, it's all our opinions. And none of our opinions are a "big, hot steaming bowl of BS."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:29 am    Post subject:

Lakers#1Team wrote:
I respect your opinions, Aeneas, but your bias is showing. Responding to a specific fact with generalizing about how it was implied that "all of the players from the sixties are really bigger than they appear to be." That's not what was said or implied.


You don't seem to know the context. This precise argument has been made in prior threads about players from the sixties. The argument is that players weren't really smaller back then, so that guys like Wilt and Russell were playing against guys who are just as big as modern players.

Lakers#1Team wrote:
And in another post you said " I consider it to be a big, hot steaming bowl of BS served up by old timers." Ok, riiiight, no overreaching there. smh


Again, you're missing the context. The big, hot steaming bowl of BS served up by old timers is the argument that modern players couldn't cut it if modern referees called the game the way that the old timers claim that they did.

Lakers#1Team wrote:
I saw Elgin play in his last good season at 35. I'm comfortable in saying that he was better than Barkley and equal to or better than Dr. J. No, I don't put him on par with an all-time starting five but he belongs on the all-time great team. I agree with your ultimate opinion that there's no good way to compare players of different eras. Yes, it's all our opinions. And none of our opinions are a "big, hot steaming bowl of BS."


Again, you are distorting the context of that comment. Anyway, I saw Elgin play at some point. I couldn't tell you what season it was, and I certainly won't claim to have a clear memory of it 50ish years later. I'm not sure that anyone could compare two players from twenty years apart based on memory, given that the backdrop changed so dramatically. At some point, you must either look at the stats or just rely on fawning comments from old timers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Lakers#1Team
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 36360
Location: Nomad

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:56 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Lakers#1Team wrote:
I respect your opinions, Aeneas, but your bias is showing. Responding to a specific fact with generalizing about how it was implied that "all of the players from the sixties are really bigger than they appear to be." That's not what was said or implied.


You don't seem to know the context. This precise argument has been made in prior threads about players from the sixties. The argument is that players weren't really smaller back then, so that guys like Wilt and Russell were playing against guys who are just as big as modern players.

Lakers#1Team wrote:
And in another post you said " I consider it to be a big, hot steaming bowl of BS served up by old timers." Ok, riiiight, no overreaching there. smh


Again, you're missing the context. The big, hot steaming bowl of BS served up by old timers is the argument that modern players couldn't cut it if modern referees called the game the way that the old timers claim that they did.

Lakers#1Team wrote:
I saw Elgin play in his last good season at 35. I'm comfortable in saying that he was better than Barkley and equal to or better than Dr. J. No, I don't put him on par with an all-time starting five but he belongs on the all-time great team. I agree with your ultimate opinion that there's no good way to compare players of different eras. Yes, it's all our opinions. And none of our opinions are a "big, hot steaming bowl of BS."


Again, you are distorting the context of that comment. Anyway, I saw Elgin play at some point. I couldn't tell you what season it was, and I certainly won't claim to have a clear memory of it 50ish years later. I'm not sure that anyone could compare two players from twenty years apart based on memory, given that the backdrop changed so dramatically. At some point, you must either look at the stats or just rely on fawning comments from old timers.

Fair enough.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TooMuchMajicBuss
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Sep 2008
Posts: 21064
Location: In a white room, with black curtains near the station

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:16 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Lakers#1Team wrote:
I respect your opinions, Aeneas, but your bias is showing. Responding to a specific fact with generalizing about how it was implied that "all of the players from the sixties are really bigger than they appear to be." That's not what was said or implied.


You don't seem to know the context. This precise argument has been made in prior threads about players from the sixties. The argument is that players weren't really smaller back then, so that guys like Wilt and Russell were playing against guys who are just as big as modern players.

Lakers#1Team wrote:
And in another post you said " I consider it to be a big, hot steaming bowl of BS served up by old timers." Ok, riiiight, no overreaching there. smh


Again, you're missing the context. The big, hot steaming bowl of BS served up by old timers is the argument that modern players couldn't cut it if modern referees called the game the way that the old timers claim that they did.

Lakers#1Team wrote:
I saw Elgin play in his last good season at 35. I'm comfortable in saying that he was better than Barkley and equal to or better than Dr. J. No, I don't put him on par with an all-time starting five but he belongs on the all-time great team. I agree with your ultimate opinion that there's no good way to compare players of different eras. Yes, it's all our opinions. And none of our opinions are a "big, hot steaming bowl of BS."


Again, you are distorting the context of that comment. Anyway, I saw Elgin play at some point. I couldn't tell you what season it was, and I certainly won't claim to have a clear memory of it 50ish years later. I'm not sure that anyone could compare two players from twenty years apart based on memory, given that the backdrop changed so dramatically. At some point, you must either look at the stats or just rely on fawning comments from old timers.


No no no Aneas - this is you TOTALLY missing the context. You're a smart guy, you and I both know that you know better than this.

Players are still measured barefoot, just like they were in the '60's. You can find these measurements online, they're just not the published heights anymore, because teams moved to in-shoes measurements. But they still exist. Apples to apples Aneas - YOU brought up the height argument, not me. I simply responded to what I consider a false argument. You can't honestly use 6'5" as an argument that Elgin couldn't play a forward position unless you factor this in.

I'm not sure what your commentary about Wilt's and Russell's opponents have to do with Elgin Baylor's height either. Sounds like your problem, stop putting words in my mouth. The subject is Elgin Baylor.

However, one thing that is clear is that you have a healthy amount of disrespect for the opinions of those old enough to have watched Elgin Baylor play, where you can't help but assume nobody on this board from that era, with an opinion different than yours, is capable of being a good judge of basketball talent, or having an accurate enough memory to piece together a comparison with any validity. Otherwise you wouldn't use the term 'fawning' to those who view Elgin favorably to Barkley or Dr. J.

I disagree with your conclusion on other posters. I also disagree with using disparaging terms like "big hot steaming bowl of BS served by old timers." You come across as hating on older generations of Laker fans when you use the terms you've been using.

If I look past the disrespectful tone of your posts, I can agree that the different rules would not preclude Westbrook from being a very good player under the restrictive rules of the '60's. He would not have been nearly as exciting to watch as he is now, but there's a good chance most players in the modern era would have done well back then too. You're not going to get people to agree with you by disparaging them, though. Please try a more civil discourse on this and when you see me post, don't read into it arguments I'm not making.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB