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
Dr. Laker
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Apr 2002
Posts: 17065

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:03 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
High volume, mediocre efficiency shooter . . . But Barkley was better player at his peak and had a lot more good years.


Poor lens you are looking through - you cannot compare numbers across different eras because the game - and the rules - were different. Looking at Baylor in 1961-62 and saying his .428 FG% meant "chucker" ignores the fact that the league FG% was only .426.

It also ignores the fact that Baylor was on active duty in the military during that season, almost never practiced with the team and had to drive or CATCH THE BUS to games from the Army base where he was stationed only when he could get a weekend pass!

Look at players in the context of their era, and as was pointed out earlier, remember that for most of the guys in the 50s through the mid-60s, the NBA was a part-time job.

Baylor DOMINATED his era and - but for Bill Russell - would be sporting 4-5 rings.
_________________
On Lakersground, a concern troll is someone who is a fan of another team, but pretends to be a Lakers fan with "concerns".
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 8:51 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
TooMuchMajicBuss wrote:
Elgin Baylor would have been great in any era. Question is - how great? Unfortunately his best era was at a time when tv coverage was in the stone ages. We'll never get agreement on this. IMO - Not Magic/Jordan/Lebron/Kobe great, but on the flip side no way would I rank someone like Charles Barkley as good as Elgin Baylor.


True. It all depends on how you feel about players from the '60s, especially the guys who posted silly numbers in the early '60s. Some of you are going to rate Baylor a lot higher than I do, and I can't say that you're wrong. I just have a hard time reconciling all of the fawning comments about Baylor from old timers with the fact that he was a 43% career shooter in an era with no three pointers. His career TS% was .494. Yet the old timers tell us that he was unstoppable.

Anyway, ESPN ranked Baylor at 24 and Barkley at 18. That sounds about right to me. I know some people would flip them, but that's the fun part of these discussions, right?

Elgin was way more acrobatic in his shot-taking, both outside shooting and driving toward the basket, than Barkley could dream of. That, and driving into the likes of Russell, Chamberlain, Walt Bellamy and Nate Thurmond caused a lot of misses. There were only 9 teams in the league in his prime and Baylor would most times be facing an enforcer at the rim. Baylor was great at 2nd and 3rd chance put-backs when the first one didn't go in. Did anyone say he was "unstoppable" or is that more generic hyberbole?

Please don't take ME out of context this time. I'm not saying Baylor was unstoppable. I'm not just trying to defend an old-time player. I won't say who was better in what era. I will say that Baylor seems vastly underrated by those who haven't seem him or can't remember well. I can and do remember him well. He was on equal footing with the Logo.
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 9:34 am    Post subject:

TooMuchMajicBuss wrote:
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.


I am kind of talked out on this subject, but I'll give you three quick responses.

1. On the "barefoot" issue, the problem with your argument is that you assume that measurements from the old days are more reliable than modern measurements. It is stated as an article of faith by some people that all of the players from the fifties and sixties were measured barefoot and that all of the reported measurements are accurate. It should be obvious that this is not likely to be true. Just like modern times, teams listed whatever height the player wants. Dwight Howard is not 6' 11", and Hakeem Olajuwon is not 7' 0". Why would you assume that the listed heights from the fifties and sixties are more accurate? I can remember hearing commentators talk about this in the seventies. It's nothing new.

2. I am part of the older generation of Laker fans. Few if any members of this board are old enough to have a meaningful recollection of the players of the early sixties. If you were 18 years old in 1962, you're 73 years old today. Perhaps more importantly, you're drawing on memories from 55 years ago.

3. Anyway, when I talk about fawning comments, I am talking about the players from that era. They will all tell you how under-appreciated they were and how everyone from that era was the greatest ever. You can find that in any sport.
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 9:43 am    Post subject:

Dr. Laker wrote:
Poor lens you are looking through - you cannot compare numbers across different eras because the game - and the rules - were different. Looking at Baylor in 1961-62 and saying his .428 FG% meant "chucker" ignores the fact that the league FG% was only .426.

It also ignores the fact that Baylor was on active duty in the military during that season, almost never practiced with the team and had to drive or CATCH THE BUS to games from the Army base where he was stationed only when he could get a weekend pass!

Look at players in the context of their era, and as was pointed out earlier, remember that for most of the guys in the 50s through the mid-60s, the NBA was a part-time job.

Baylor DOMINATED his era and - but for Bill Russell - would be sporting 4-5 rings.


Again, I'll be quick because I'm talked out on the subject. I talked about contemporary shooting percentages in the part of my post that you snipped. Depending on the season, Baylor shot right around the league average. One year he was considerably higher, a couple years he was considerably lower.

I'm would call Baylor a chucker in '62 because he look 33 shots per game and shot about the league average.

I would not give anyone bonus points for military service or playing in an era in which guys had to find off-season jobs. We can only evaluate guys based on what they actually did.

Baylor dominated his era? He wasn't even the best player on his own team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dr. Laker
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Apr 2002
Posts: 17065

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:00 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Dr. Laker wrote:
Poor lens you are looking through - you cannot compare numbers across different eras because the game - and the rules - were different. Looking at Baylor in 1961-62 and saying his .428 FG% meant "chucker" ignores the fact that the league FG% was only .426.

It also ignores the fact that Baylor was on active duty in the military during that season, almost never practiced with the team and had to drive or CATCH THE BUS to games from the Army base where he was stationed only when he could get a weekend pass!

Look at players in the context of their era, and as was pointed out earlier, remember that for most of the guys in the 50s through the mid-60s, the NBA was a part-time job.

Baylor DOMINATED his era and - but for Bill Russell - would be sporting 4-5 rings.


Again, I'll be quick because I'm talked out on the subject. I talked about contemporary shooting percentages in the part of my post that you snipped. Depending on the season, Baylor shot right around the league average. One year he was considerably higher, a couple years he was considerably lower.

I'm would call Baylor a chucker in '62 because he look 33 shots per game and shot about the league average.

I would not give anyone bonus points for military service or playing in an era in which guys had to find off-season jobs. We can only evaluate guys based on what they actually did.

Baylor dominated his era? He wasn't even the best player on his own team.


1. You can't see the difference between a guy who was working another job in-season vs. a guy who has the luxury of doing nothing but work on b-ball or at b-ball 365 days/year?

2. Baylor was the best player on his team up until his knee injury at age 30. Even Jerry West admits that.
_________________
On Lakersground, a concern troll is someone who is a fan of another team, but pretends to be a Lakers fan with "concerns".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kobeandgary
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 6339
Location: Virginia

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:03 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


NBA athleticism back then is so overrated. You can see just how overrated by just watching the paint play. You don't see guys backing down and destroying their opponents under the rim, you don't see guys windmilling the ball with their head at the rim, you see a bunch of guys who are barely dunking most of the time. Elgin is a forward that shot 43% without the three ball there to drag his percentage down, that is pretty telling.

I don't think Wilt would be very successful in today's NBA, if he was truly as great as people thought, he would have more rings to show for it. I think Wilt would struggle for post position, get double teamed into frustration thanks to zone defense and resort to a lot of flip style finger rolls that he might make 1-3 of on a good day.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:07 am    Post subject:

Dr. Laker wrote:
1. You can't see the difference between a guy who was working another job in-season vs. a guy who has the luxury of doing nothing but work on b-ball or at b-ball 365 days/year?


I don't see a difference that is relevant to this discussion. Baylor was playing against other guys in similar circumstances. We judge him by what he did, not by what he might have done if athletes were paid better in the old days.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
oldlakerfan
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 May 2001
Posts: 2146
Location: Tega Cay, South Carolina

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:09 am    Post subject:

Barkley isn't even in the same zip code of Baylor. He was the 2nd best player in the league behind Wilt who is probably the best of all time. He was a gem and I glad I got to watch him play.

Baylor to Magic my 2 favorite Lakers of all time.
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 10:10 am    Post subject:

Lakers#1Team wrote:
Elgin was way more acrobatic in his shot-taking, both outside shooting and driving toward the basket, than Barkley could dream of. That, and driving into the likes of Russell, Chamberlain, Walt Bellamy and Nate Thurmond caused a lot of misses. There were only 9 teams in the league in his prime and Baylor would most times be facing an enforcer at the rim. Baylor was great at 2nd and 3rd chance put-backs when the first one didn't go in. Did anyone say he was "unstoppable" or is that more generic hyberbole?

Please don't take ME out of context this time. I'm not saying Baylor was unstoppable. I'm not just trying to defend an old-time player. I won't say who was better in what era. I will say that Baylor seems vastly underrated by those who haven't seem him or can't remember well. I can and do remember him well. He was on equal footing with the Logo.


I acknowledged the differences in styles in an earlier post. Barkley is still the most analogous player I can think of -- an undersized SF who rebounded a lot. His offensive style was probably more like Adrian Dantley.
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 10:11 am    Post subject:

kobeandgary wrote:
I don't think Wilt would be very successful in today's NBA, if he was truly as great as people thought, he would have more rings to show for it. I think Wilt would struggle for post position, get double teamed into frustration thanks to zone defense and resort to a lot of flip style finger rolls that he might make 1-3 of on a good day.


I think Wilt would be successful. Imagine a bigger version of DeAndre Jordan with better athleticism and much better offensive skills.
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: Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:34 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
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.


Yes, the end products would likely be different than the ones seen in real time. It's difficult to have discourse on this stuff without sharing some real clarity on the skill development path and of the player's age.

For example, I used to be one of the guys who'd say that moving Westbrook back forty years (or whoever for how many years) would cripple his ability to operate.

But what that type of perspective ignores is the undefined nature of Westbrook himself: which version of Westbrook do we move to another era ? Would we be talking about the mature one we see today or perhaps was it meant to be the thirteen year old one who's just started hard work on his game, or perhaps did the poster mean to move the Russell Westbrook in his early pro career, at the moment he just had his knee blow out and was needing to have a Baylor-like surgery in Baylor's time ?

Wiggly stuff.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kobeandgary
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 6339
Location: Virginia

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 9:15 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
kobeandgary wrote:
I don't think Wilt would be very successful in today's NBA, if he was truly as great as people thought, he would have more rings to show for it. I think Wilt would struggle for post position, get double teamed into frustration thanks to zone defense and resort to a lot of flip style finger rolls that he might make 1-3 of on a good day.


I think Wilt would be successful. Imagine a bigger version of DeAndre Jordan with better athleticism and much better offensive skills.


People can say wilt had better athleticism but i don't see it. Look at what DeAndre Jordan does in the paint, it's unbelievable. Now watch Wilt and the difference is laughable. Maybe Wilt had all these athletic gifts and just didnt want to use them who knows, but from what i seen he seems closer to a Kwame Brown with better hands and skills.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Reply with quote
A Mad Chinaman
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 07 Apr 2005
Posts: 6121

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:19 am    Post subject:

Fascinating discussion where there will be no right answer(s)

One might consider the views of others that are acclaimed for their talent assessments, like Jerry West and others that clearly stated that Elgin was way before his time with very few peers throughout the history of the NBA that can match his basketball abilities.

Baylor Rules were far harder than Jordan Rules because they could get away with a lot more (physically) and the quality of bigs during that time were far greater in numbers and ability in the paint. Teams were "loading up" on him but teams were told not to double team him because he was such a good passer

Re: Wilt
IMHO - there is no comparison to DeAndre Jordan who is just a great defensive player (ala Mutumbo). Wilt (the volleyball player /
) is Kwame Brown with much better hands, offensive moves, outstanding passing abilities, endurance (he usually played all the games and many times was on the court throughout the entire game, talent to dribble to the front court (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmBc8NX_oL8), quicker (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B22U73v7kAA) and the ability to impose his presence on both sides of the court.
Some things people might know about Wilt (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT_f3kYi7-w/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM64y9nTtTg)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MJST
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 26085

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 2:52 am    Post subject:

kobeandgary wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
kobeandgary wrote:
I don't think Wilt would be very successful in today's NBA, if he was truly as great as people thought, he would have more rings to show for it. I think Wilt would struggle for post position, get double teamed into frustration thanks to zone defense and resort to a lot of flip style finger rolls that he might make 1-3 of on a good day.


I think Wilt would be successful. Imagine a bigger version of DeAndre Jordan with better athleticism and much better offensive skills.


People can say wilt had better athleticism but i don't see it. Look at what DeAndre Jordan does in the paint, it's unbelievable. Now watch Wilt and the difference is laughable. Maybe Wilt had all these athletic gifts and just didnt want to use them who knows, but from what i seen he seems closer to a Kwame Brown with better hands and skills.


lol you think Wilt wasn't athletic? -_-




(dude dunked the ball so hard it hit and broke a man's foot.. that's scary)

(how quick he gets off the ground for his second jumps)




Hope this enlightens you a bit on just how strong and athletic Wilt was.

here's something Bill Russell could do as well



So yeah...
_________________
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
TooMuchMajicBuss
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


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

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2017 6:14 am    Post subject:

MJST wrote:
kobeandgary wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
kobeandgary wrote:
I don't think Wilt would be very successful in today's NBA, if he was truly as great as people thought, he would have more rings to show for it. I think Wilt would struggle for post position, get double teamed into frustration thanks to zone defense and resort to a lot of flip style finger rolls that he might make 1-3 of on a good day.


I think Wilt would be successful. Imagine a bigger version of DeAndre Jordan with better athleticism and much better offensive skills.


People can say wilt had better athleticism but i don't see it. Look at what DeAndre Jordan does in the paint, it's unbelievable. Now watch Wilt and the difference is laughable. Maybe Wilt had all these athletic gifts and just didnt want to use them who knows, but from what i seen he seems closer to a Kwame Brown with better hands and skills.


lol you think Wilt wasn't athletic? -_-




(dude dunked the ball so hard it hit and broke a man's foot.. that's scary)

(how quick he gets off the ground for his second jumps)




Hope this enlightens you a bit on just how strong and athletic Wilt was.

here's something Bill Russell could do as well



So yeah...


Yeah this is a 7'1" center who also ran a quarter mile in 49 seconds, winning High Jump and running titles at a collegiate level. He had ridiculous leaping ability, and according to several NBA coaches and assistants (including Tex Shram) who saw him in the gym away from the cameras, said he could pluck quarters off the top of the backboard, and needed 3 steps to slam dunk taking off from the free throw line. Tex was not the 'storyteller' type. Wilt led the NBA in assists the year his coach asked him to share the ball. As a center.

But Kwame Brown I guess. I mean, other than that he wasn't all that athletic. Yeah...
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: Fri Jul 21, 2017 6:29 am    Post subject:

^^^^

You have to take the Wilt Chamberlain Archives stuff with a grain of salt. One of those clips is the one where is claims that Wilt blocked a shot 13 feet up. As discussed in prior threads in this forum, that's a load of BS. It's just the camera angles. The guy who makes those videos also got called out for monkeying with the speed of the video to make the players look faster.

Having said all of that, I'm not sure that the other poster was serious when he said that DAJ is more athletic than Wilt and that Wilt is Kwame Brown with better hands. He might just be yanking your chain.
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: Fri Jul 21, 2017 6:43 am    Post subject:

^He probably was.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MJST
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 26085

PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:14 pm    Post subject:

TooMuchMajicBuss wrote:
^He probably was.


I really hope so.
_________________
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
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470

PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:33 pm    Post subject:

oldlakerfan wrote:
Barkley isn't even in the same zip code of Baylor. He was the 2nd best player in the league behind Wilt .


I think Barkley and Elgin are pretty comparable in how they were regarded during their eras.

Barkley won an MVP award and different years he finished 2nd, 4th (twice), and 6th (four times) in the voting. He made 11 all-NBA teams (5 1st, 5 2nd, 1 3rd)

He probably ranked fourth for his era behind Jordan, Hakeem, and Karl Malone or 6th (if you count Magic and Bird in his era.)

In MVP voting, Elgin finished 2nd, 3rd (three times), 4th, 5th (twice), and 6th. He made 10 all-NBA first teams.

I'd say he probably ranked 5th in his era behind Wilt, Russell, Oscar and West.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Mike@LG
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA

PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:38 pm    Post subject:

Wilt showed his NCAA level speed in transition in a 3 second stint.

It was only 3 seconds because his strides were so long and he ran so fast, he was already at the rim.



DAJ never ran like that. Ever.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.

https://lakersdraft.substack.com/

I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470

PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:06 pm    Post subject:

LALgamer wrote:
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. .



I am not sure how you measure the overall quality of talent in the league in the 1960s vs. today, but it's not as simple as counting the number of teams or players.

That assumes the talent pool that teams drawn from is the same size today as in 1960. But just as the number of teams has risen, so has the world's population.

In addition, more than a quarter of players today are from countries other than the US: in Elgin's time, the NBA talent pool was pretty much limited to North America. College scouting was nowhere near as good as today, so it was easier for talented players to be missed in the 60s compared to today, I could go on and on and on.

The notion that 1960s teams were filled with strong players from top to bottom while modern teams are water down doesn't make much sense to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
gblews
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 300

PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:13 pm    Post subject:

TooMuchMajicBuss wrote:
Elgin Baylor would have been great in any era. Question is - how great? Unfortunately his best era was at a time when tv coverage was in the stone ages. We'll never get agreement on this. IMO - Not Magic/Jordan/Lebron/Kobe great, but on the flip side no way would I rank someone like Charles Barkley as good as Elgin Baylor.

In fact, Chick used to say that film of Baylor when he was at his athletic peak are non-existent for the same reasons film of Wilt's 100 point game are non-existent. Chick used to go on and on about how athletic Baylor was before his first bad knee injury, about his leaping ability which was revolutionary in the NBA in the late 50's and early 60's.

I saw Elgin play live a few times starting in the '68-'69 season. First time I saw him it was a Lakers-Warriors playoff game in 69-69. I sneaked into the Forum because I couldn't afford a ticket. I walked through the tunnel on the loge level and on the floor were Baylor, West, Chamberlain, and two other Lakers who I hardly noticed because I was completely dumbstruck.

And I agree, comparing Baylor to Charles Barkley is utterly ridiculous. Elgin was a tranformational player when he came into the league. Where Charles was a good rebounder, Baylor was an astounding rebounder. There had never been anything like him in the NBA before. Back in those days, players with Baylor's "street game" and athleticism (read; Black), usually didn't make it to the NBA. Baylor was an anomally.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470

PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:32 pm    Post subject:

gblews wrote:
Where Charles was a good rebounder, Baylor was an astounding rebounder.



I'd say you're underestimating Barkley's reputation as a rebounder. When I see "greatest rebounders of all time" lists, Barkley and Baylor are generally ranked pretty close to one another, usually near the bottom of the top 10 or just outside it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470

PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:00 pm    Post subject:

Dr. Laker wrote:
Baylor DOMINATED his era and - but for Bill Russell - would be sporting 4-5 rings.


The Lakers often got out of the west because it was relatively weak in the 60s (we made the finals one year with a record of 33-39). The runner up in the East, usually the 76ers, often did well against the Lakers in the regular season. So, for all we know, if not for Bill Russell, we'd be talking about the 76ers dynasty.

You may be right, but 4-5 rings seems like the most rosy hypothetical outcome.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dr. Laker
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Apr 2002
Posts: 17065

PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:34 am    Post subject:

activeverb wrote:
Dr. Laker wrote:
Baylor DOMINATED his era and - but for Bill Russell - would be sporting 4-5 rings.


The Lakers often got out of the west because it was relatively weak in the 60s (we made the finals one year with a record of 33-39). The runner up in the East, usually the 76ers, often did well against the Lakers in the regular season. So, for all we know, if not for Bill Russell, we'd be talking about the 76ers dynasty.

You may be right, but 4-5 rings seems like the most rosy hypothetical outcome.


Baylor played in 8 NBA Finals:

69-70 - lost in 7 (Knicks)
68-69 - lost in 7 (Boston) (lost in LA)
67-68 - lost in 6 (Boston)
65-66 - lost in 7 (Boston)
64-65 - lost in 5 (Boston)
62-63 - lost in 6 (Boston)
61-62 - lost in 7 (Boston)
58-59 - lost in 4 (Boston)

4 of them went to Game 7. The number of 1 possession losses the Lakers suffered in the Finals were astounding. 3 of those Finals they had zero business losing.

Freaking leprechauns.
_________________
On Lakersground, a concern troll is someone who is a fan of another team, but pretends to be a Lakers fan with "concerns".
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 3 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