Joined: 25 Apr 2015 Posts: 31931 Location: Anaheim, CA
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:54 am Post subject:
Dr. Laker wrote:
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.
Don Nelson's shot that hit the heel and went straight up into the air and dropped in, that's what beat us. Unreal.
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.
Yeah, the talent level argument collapses as soon as you actually look at footage from the sixties. The reality is that the NBA needs to expand again because there is too much talent to fit on 30 teams.
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.
Yeah, the talent level argument collapses as soon as you actually look at footage from the sixties.
or you could constantly keep ignoring all the rule changes that were brought up in the thread as if they weren't even brought up which is why things were played as they were, particularly the dribbling rules.
But I guess ignoring everything that would hurt your argument is a thing. _________________ How NBA 2K18 failed the All-Time Lakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxMBYm3wwxk
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.
Yeah, the talent level argument collapses as soon as you actually look at footage from the sixties.
or you could constantly keep ignoring all the rule changes that were brought up in the thread as if they weren't even brought up which is why things were played as they were, particularly the dribbling rules.
But I guess ignoring everything that would hurt your argument is a thing.
That argument has been discussed at some length. I'm not sure what you're ranting about.
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.
Joined: 02 Jun 2009 Posts: 2415 Location: Far from home
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:45 am Post subject:
CabinCreek44 wrote:
activeverb wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Yeah, the talent level argument collapses as soon as you actually look at footage from the sixties. .
Sometimes when I look at footage of 1960s finals games, it reminds me of a pickup game at LA Fitness.
Fans 30-40 years from now will likely be saying the same things when they watch old LeBron highlights.
The naysayers forty years hence may find LeBron a tougher guy to tear down than in the Baylor example. LeBron has some stuff going for him than Baylor didn'.
LJ won NBA titles, MVP awards, and received recognition as having defended at an elite level for years. LeBron took over a lot of games, as did Baylor. While Baylor carried some teams into the NBA Finals with Jerry West's help as well, I don't think LeBron has played with anyone whose game at the time seems likely to stand up for twenty years or so as the game's greatest shooting guard the way West's legacy played out. LeBron will be a tougher guy to assail. _________________ “These GOAT discussions are fun distractions while sitting around waiting for the pizza to be served.”
Yeah, the talent level argument collapses as soon as you actually look at footage from the sixties. .
Sometimes when I look at footage of 1960s finals games, it reminds me of a pickup game at LA Fitness.
This video may not change your mind but it refutes your perception.
I'm talking about watching the actual games; not the highlight reels. Everyone always looks great in highlight reels. Heck, a highlight reel from those LA Fitness games would look damn impressive too.
Last edited by activeverb on Wed Jul 26, 2017 11:57 am; edited 1 time in total
Yeah, the talent level argument collapses as soon as you actually look at footage from the sixties. .
Sometimes when I look at footage of 1960s finals games, it reminds me of a pickup game at LA Fitness.
Fans 30-40 years from now will likely be saying the same things when they watch old LeBron highlights.
The naysayers forty years hence may find LeBron a tougher guy to tear down than in the Baylor example. LeBron has some stuff going for him than Baylor didn'.
LJ won NBA titles, MVP awards, and received recognition as having defended at an elite level for years. LeBron took over a lot of games, as did Baylor. While Baylor carried some teams into the NBA Finals with Jerry West's help as well, I don't think LeBron has played with anyone whose game at the time seems likely to stand up for twenty years or so as the game's greatest shooting guard the way West's legacy played out. LeBron will be a tougher guy to assail.
You're talking about a different thing: The success (rings, MVPs) that a player experienced during his own era. Lebron blows Elgin away there.
But that's different than analyzing the quality of play during an era.
I have no idea how today's style of play will look to people in 2067. Maybe Lebron will still look impressive, or maybe people will laugh how easy it had it without the 12-foot-tall baskets and the 5-point line that extended to midcourt.
Yeah, the talent level argument collapses as soon as you actually look at footage from the sixties. .
Sometimes when I look at footage of 1960s finals games, it reminds me of a pickup game at LA Fitness.
This video may not change your mind but it refutes your perception.
I'm talking about watching the actual games; not the highlight reels. Everyone always looks great in highlight reels.
Same as today. I've seen some pretty crappy final games in the "modern" age as well. I've seen some players in the recent past that look like they belonged in a pickup game. It was a different era back then so it looks different. I don't buy the argument that the great players of that era were less great than the great players in this era. And that is what this thread (re: Elgin Baylor) is all about.
Yeah, the talent level argument collapses as soon as you actually look at footage from the sixties. .
Sometimes when I look at footage of 1960s finals games, it reminds me of a pickup game at LA Fitness.
This video may not change your mind but it refutes your perception.
I'm talking about watching the actual games; not the highlight reels. Everyone always looks great in highlight reels.
Same as today. I've seen some pretty crappy final games in the "modern" age as well. I've seen some players in the recent past that look like they belonged in a pickup game. It was a different era back then so it looks different. I don't buy the argument that the great players of that era were less great than the great players in this era. And that is what this thread (re: Elgin Baylor) is all about.
I agree that Wilt, Russell and Baylor were great because they excelled against the competition of their time, which is all anyone can do.
I don't believe that, overall, the players of the 60s had anywhere near the same skill or athleticism of players today. However, I believe some of the best players from those days could still compete effectively in later eras.
Yeah, the talent level argument collapses as soon as you actually look at footage from the sixties. .
Sometimes when I look at footage of 1960s finals games, it reminds me of a pickup game at LA Fitness.
This video may not change your mind but it refutes your perception.
I'm talking about watching the actual games; not the highlight reels. Everyone always looks great in highlight reels.
Same as today. I've seen some pretty crappy final games in the "modern" age as well. I've seen some players in the recent past that look like they belonged in a pickup game. It was a different era back then so it looks different. I don't buy the argument that the great players of that era were less great than the great players in this era. And that is what this thread (re: Elgin Baylor) is all about.
I agree that Wilt, Russell and Baylor were great because they excelled against the competition of their time, which is all anyone can do.
I don't believe that, overall, the players of the 60s had anywhere near the same skill or athleticism of players today. However, I believe some of the best players from those days could still compete effectively in later eras.
I generally agree. I do believe that in the 60s most players had a better grasp of certain fundamentals such as footwork and had a slightly bigger arsenal of moves and shots. They didn't have the three point line and many were not as athletic so they had to rely on footwork and post moves. Most players of today have more of an AAU, AND1, ISO background as well as 3-point chucking. They could add much to their game by focusing on old-school fundamentals.
Yeah, the talent level argument collapses as soon as you actually look at footage from the sixties. .
Sometimes when I look at footage of 1960s finals games, it reminds me of a pickup game at LA Fitness.
This video may not change your mind but it refutes your perception.
I'm talking about watching the actual games; not the highlight reels. Everyone always looks great in highlight reels.
Same as today. I've seen some pretty crappy final games in the "modern" age as well. I've seen some players in the recent past that look like they belonged in a pickup game. It was a different era back then so it looks different. I don't buy the argument that the great players of that era were less great than the great players in this era. And that is what this thread (re: Elgin Baylor) is all about.
I agree that Wilt, Russell and Baylor were great because they excelled against the competition of their time, which is all anyone can do.
I don't believe that, overall, the players of the 60s had anywhere near the same skill or athleticism of players today. However, I believe some of the best players from those days could still compete effectively in later eras.
They could add much to their game by focusing on old-school fundamentals.
That gets into a different topic. I think "old school fundamentals" are vastly overrated by fans. If that stuff really had much value, players would learn it by the time they got established in the NBA. AAU may not teach it, but if it created a competitive advantage and helped guys make money, they'd learn it.
One of the old time baseball managers (John McGraw, I think) insisted that his outfielders catch the ball with two hands. He would pull a guy out of the game if he made a one handed catch (except when a two handed catch was impracticable, of course). That is the fundamentally correct way to catch a fly ball. Of course, you almost never see anyone do it today.
I read about that when I was a kid, and it stuck with me. I think about it whenever I hear old timers in whatever sport complain about how kids these days don't learn the fundamentals. You hear some variation of it in every sport.
In the case of the NBA, the players are so much more athletic, trained, and skilled in the modern era that old school fundamentals don't have a lot of meaning. Players don't focus on that stuff because you need a different skill set to succeed.
They could add much to their game by focusing on old-school fundamentals.
That gets into a different topic. I think "old school fundamentals" are vastly overrated by fans. If that stuff really had much value, players would learn it by the time they got established in the NBA.
Had to stop you right there. How many players have made the NBA with still needing to add basic fundamental things to their game that are essential to take their game to the next level? Stuff like a jump shot, a post game, change of direction, handles, etc etc etc
Many have, and then needed to work on those things to excel at the next level. So stop playing it like if it mattered that these guys would come into the league with it. It's needed in some way shape or form either before or when they get to the league in order to take their game to another level. _________________ How NBA 2K18 failed the All-Time Lakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxMBYm3wwxk
They could add much to their game by focusing on old-school fundamentals.
That gets into a different topic. I think "old school fundamentals" are vastly overrated by fans. If that stuff really had much value, players would learn it by the time they got established in the NBA.
Had to stop you right there. How many players have made the NBA with still needing to add basic fundamental things to their game that are essential to take their game to the next level? Stuff like a jump shot, a post game, change of direction, handles, etc etc etc
Many have, and then needed to work on those things to excel at the next level. So stop playing it like if it mattered that these guys would come into the league with it. It's needed in some way shape or form either before or when they get to the league in order to take their game to another level.
We're talking about "old school fundamentals," not jump shots and a post game. I agree that AAU and the like encourages a style of play that often retards development of basic skills, but that's a different matter.
They could add much to their game by focusing on old-school fundamentals.
That gets into a different topic. I think "old school fundamentals" are vastly overrated by fans. If that stuff really had much value, players would learn it by the time they got established in the NBA.
Had to stop you right there. How many players have made the NBA with still needing to add basic fundamental things to their game that are essential to take their game to the next level? Stuff like a jump shot, a post game, change of direction, handles, etc etc etc
Many have, and then needed to work on those things to excel at the next level. So stop playing it like if it mattered that these guys would come into the league with it. It's needed in some way shape or form either before or when they get to the league in order to take their game to another level.
We're talking about "old school fundamentals," not jump shots and a post game. I agree that AAU and the like encourages a style of play that often retards development of basic skills, but that's a different matter.
Old school fundamentals is the same as what you call basic skills. What did you think I was talking about? Shooting free throws granny style? Not what I meant.
Kobe and Duncan had what I would call "old school" fundamentals. Proper footwork both on offense and defense. A post-up game. Being able to use either hand effectively. Being selective and disciplined so it is the other team that makes the first mistake. Having your timing down on fast-breaks and layups. Looking at many of the youngsters that come up, there are many of these things lacking. It's called old-school because AAU doesn't teach it well enough.
Old school fundamentals is the same as what you call basic skills. What did you think I was talking about? Shooting free throws granny style? Not what I meant.
Kobe and Duncan had what I would call "old school" fundamentals. Proper footwork both on offense and defense. A post-up game. Being able to use either hand effectively. Being selective and disciplined so it is the other team that makes the first mistake. Having your timing down on fast-breaks and layups. Looking at many of the youngsters that come up, there are many of these things lacking. It's called old-school because AAU doesn't teach it well enough.
If that's what you meant, fine. I wouldn't call that stuff "old school fundamentals," though. It's just "fundamentals." AAU doesn't teach fundamentals very well. Guys used to learn that stuff in college, but now they get paid millions to learn it on their rookie contracts.
Old school fundamentals is the same as what you call basic skills. What did you think I was talking about? Shooting free throws granny style? Not what I meant.
Kobe and Duncan had what I would call "old school" fundamentals. Proper footwork both on offense and defense. A post-up game. Being able to use either hand effectively. Being selective and disciplined so it is the other team that makes the first mistake. Having your timing down on fast-breaks and layups. Looking at many of the youngsters that come up, there are many of these things lacking. It's called old-school because AAU doesn't teach it well enough.
If that's what you meant, fine. I wouldn't call that stuff "old school fundamentals," though. It's just "fundamentals." AAU doesn't teach fundamentals very well. Guys used to learn that stuff in college, but now they get paid millions to learn it on their rookie contracts.
I'd argue that individual fundamentals are much further ahead than they've ever been. There's an entire industry built around it. AAU is wildly misunderstood. It isn't supposed to be the place where skills are developed, it's a place for the best players in a region/nationally to go up against each other rather than the future accountants and insurance salesman that they're surrounded by in their respective High School leagues.
D-1 caliber prospects work with skills trainers, usually starting around 6am, for both strength and conditioning and individual skill development. The area where player development is really lacking is in a 5-on-5 sense, as there's no real place for them to play against comparable athletes in a 5-on-5 setting. The nature of AAU doesn't allow for that level of organization. But as individuals these kids are better, earlier than they've ever been.
That sounds plausible. What has been emphasized (and glorified) for youth today is dunking, ISO and 3-pointers. Individual skills for today's game. What's often missing is how to play together as a team. I certainly prefer to watch team basketball the way John Wooden coached it.
Yeah, the talent level argument collapses as soon as you actually look at footage from the sixties. .
Sometimes when I look at footage of 1960s finals games, it reminds me of a pickup game at LA Fitness.
Fans 30-40 years from now will likely be saying the same things when they watch old LeBron highlights.
The naysayers forty years hence may find LeBron a tougher guy to tear down than in the Baylor example. LeBron has some stuff going for him than Baylor didn'.
LJ won NBA titles, MVP awards, and received recognition as having defended at an elite level for years. LeBron took over a lot of games, as did Baylor. While Baylor carried some teams into the NBA Finals with Jerry West's help as well, I don't think LeBron has played with anyone whose game at the time seems likely to stand up for twenty years or so as the game's greatest shooting guard the way West's legacy played out. LeBron will be a tougher guy to assail.
I was thinking more just in the way that the athletes will continue to evolve. Tomorrow's athletes will almost certainly be bigger, stronger and faster than today's.
I'd argue that individual fundamentals are much further ahead than they've ever been. There's an entire industry built around it. AAU is wildly misunderstood. It isn't supposed to be the place where skills are developed, it's a place for the best players in a region/nationally to go up against each other rather than the future accountants and insurance salesman that they're surrounded by in their respective High School leagues.
D-1 caliber prospects work with skills trainers, usually starting around 6am, for both strength and conditioning and individual skill development. The area where player development is really lacking is in a 5-on-5 sense, as there's no real place for them to play against comparable athletes in a 5-on-5 setting. The nature of AAU doesn't allow for that level of organization. But as individuals these kids are better, earlier than they've ever been.
Obviously, you have a broader perspective on the issue than I do. However, #1 is right that a lot of kids seem to get to the NBA with holes in their games. It isn't just the teamwork stuff, either.
That said, I do agree with AH's point (if I am not missing it) that the play in the NBA in the early 60s was nowhere near what it is now and even in the late 60s going forward.
If you watch video of those games, you will see that honestly the shooting overall is atrocious compared to now.
Baylor was before my time and his numbers cannot be argued with in his era. But it gets trickier trying to project guys into the modern era, would George Mikan dominate now? I think not. _________________ Love, Laker Lanny
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
