Please tell me about the 1970's

[penbeast0]

It was also one of the few eras with no dominant team; no one won more than 2 titles or went to more than 3. Fast paced highlight era basketball . . . but it was a weak era in terms of talent diffusion; they probably had slightly less superstars than the 60s which had at least 4 top 20 players of all time (really only Kareem and Julius were on that level) and the talent they had was spread over 3 times as many teams which made for the most really crappy teams in league history and inflated some stats and SRS ratings. But, yeah, that was my era too. I grew up shooting skyhooks and following Wes, Elvin, and the Bullets.

Rick Barry, Walt Frazier, Bill Walton say hello.

Top 20 players of all time?

[Johnlac1]

You can make a good case for all three. Barry and Erving were the clear top two sfs from the seventies and in the top five best players from the seventies. Frazier and Barry are a little difficult to place in decades teams because both played two or three seasons in the sixties. But they both had great years in both the sixties and the seventies.
Barry was easily the best sf in the league by his second year supplanting Baylor. If he had stayed in SF and they had acquired a decent pg to go with him, Thurmond, and Mullins, they would have challenged the Knicks and the Lakers for dominance.
Frazier I only rate slightly below West and Robertson for greatest guard honors from the late sixties through the first half of the seventies.
Walton's place is a little shakier based on two tremendous years, and even the second great year was cut short by injuries.
But at his peak, Walton is in the top five of greatest centers ever.
My view is that there is no hard and fast top 25 playerss of all time with a clear demarcation between the numbers. There are probably 50 players past and present who you could make an excellent case for being in the top 25.

[Owly]

You can make a good case for all three. Barry and Erving were the clear top two sfs from the seventies and in the top five best players from the seventies. Frazier and Barry are a little difficult to place in decades teams because both played two or three seasons in the sixties. But they both had great years in both the sixties and the seventies.
Barry was easily the best sf in the league by his second year supplanting Baylor. If he had stayed in SF and they had acquired a decent pg to go with him, Thurmond, and Mullins, they would have challenged the Knicks and the Lakers for dominance.
Frazier I only rate slightly below West and Robertson for greatest guard honors from the late sixties through the first half of the seventies.
Walton's place is a little shakier based on two tremendous years, and even the second great year was cut short by injuries.
But at his peak, Walton is in the top five of greatest centers ever.
My view is that there is no hard and fast top 25 playerss of all time with a clear demarcation between the numbers. There are probably 50 players past and present who you could make an excellent case for being in the top 25.

I'll try to get the tone of this right because I think I know what you're trying to say ... but ...

Fifty players can't have an excellent case for top 25. One could maybe argue under different criteria for that type of thing, but if talking about top 25 guys, and you've got fifty of them then it's misleading and defeats the point of talking about top 25 guys.

And moreso the onus is on you in this instance, since someone else was talking about a number of top twenty guys and you specifically bring up three names like penbeast forgot them or was unaware of them.

I think one could have argued with stuff that was said about the 70s (ABA meant that there were many teams from the mid-60s on, and indeed contracted in the late-seventies, and the earlier sixties still likely had racial quotas so the talent pool dilution comments versus the sixties comments might not have given the full picture) but I really wouldn't have raised those three players, as I'd struggle to see a case for top 20.

[Johnlac1]

You can make a good case for all three. Barry and Erving were the clear top two sfs from the seventies and in the top five best players from the seventies. Frazier and Barry are a little difficult to place in decades teams because both played two or three seasons in the sixties. But they both had great years in both the sixties and the seventies.
Barry was easily the best sf in the league by his second year supplanting Baylor. If he had stayed in SF and they had acquired a decent pg to go with him, Thurmond, and Mullins, they would have challenged the Knicks and the Lakers for dominance.
Frazier I only rate slightly below West and Robertson for greatest guard honors from the late sixties through the first half of the seventies.
Walton's place is a little shakier based on two tremendous years, and even the second great year was cut short by injuries.
But at his peak, Walton is in the top five of greatest centers ever.
My view is that there is no hard and fast top 25 playerss of all time with a clear demarcation between the numbers. There are probably 50 players past and present who you could make an excellent case for being in the top 25.

I'll try to get the tone of this right because I think I know what you're trying to say ... but ...

Fifty players can't have an excellent case for top 25. One could maybe argue under different criteria for that type of thing, but if talking about top 25 guys, and you've got fifty of them then it's misleading and defeats the point of talking about top 25 guys.

And moreso the onus is on you in this instance, since someone else was talking about a number of top twenty guys and you specifically bring up three names like penbeast forgot them or was unaware of them.

I think one could have argued with stuff that was said about the 70s (ABA meant that there were many teams from the mid-60s on, and indeed contracted in the late-seventies, and the earlier sixties still likely had racial quotas so the talent pool dilution comments versus the sixties comments might not have given the full picture) but I really wouldn't have raised those three players, as I'd struggle to see a case for top 20.

While I've made personal lists for teams of different decades, I've never made a top ten or even top twenty-five all-time list as I considered it just too hard to determine it and leave off some great player. If I choose top fifty I at least make sure I'd get all the great players in.
But as I've stated, it can be a bit unfair to compare players from different eras. Virtually all the players now in the league would dominate the first ten years of the league. So would I then have to leave off Mikan, Cousy, etal? I'd hate to do that.

[penbeast0]

You can make a good case for all three. Barry and Erving were the clear top two sfs from the seventies and in the top five best players from the seventies. Frazier and Barry are a little difficult to place in decades teams because both played two or three seasons in the sixties. But they both had great years in both the sixties and the seventies.
Barry was easily the best sf in the league by his second year supplanting Baylor. If he had stayed in SF and they had acquired a decent pg to go with him, Thurmond, and Mullins, they would have challenged the Knicks and the Lakers for dominance.
Frazier I only rate slightly below West and Robertson for greatest guard honors from the late sixties through the first half of the seventies.
Walton's place is a little shakier based on two tremendous years, and even the second great year was cut short by injuries.
But at his peak, Walton is in the top five of greatest centers ever.
My view is that there is no hard and fast top 25 playerss of all time with a clear demarcation between the numbers. There are probably 50 players past and present who you could make an excellent case for being in the top 25.

I'll try to get the tone of this right because I think I know what you're trying to say ... but ...

Fifty players can't have an excellent case for top 25. One could maybe argue under different criteria for that type of thing, but if talking about top 25 guys, and you've got fifty of them then it's misleading and defeats the point of talking about top 25 guys.

And moreso the onus is on you in this instance, since someone else was talking about a number of top twenty guys and you specifically bring up three names like penbeast forgot them or was unaware of them.

I think one could have argued with stuff that was said about the 70s (ABA meant that there were many teams from the mid-60s on, and indeed contracted in the late-seventies, and the earlier sixties still likely had racial quotas so the talent pool dilution comments versus the sixties comments might not have given the full picture) but I really wouldn't have raised those three players, as I'd struggle to see a case for top 20.

While I've made personal lists for teams of different decades, I've never made a top ten or even top twenty-five all-time list as I considered it just too hard to determine it and leave off some great player. If I choose top fifty I at least make sure I'd get all the great players in.
But as I've stated, it can be a bit unfair to compare players from different eras. Virtually all the players now in the league would dominate the first ten years of the league. So would I then have to leave off Mikan, Cousy, etal? I'd hate to do that.

I look only at in era dominance and relative strength of era (both still pretty debatable). I don't have Walton close to my top 20, I struggle to say he's top 50, maybe top 100. He had ONE year that he made it to the postseason healthy as a starter (+1 as a reserve); it was a terrific year but that's not top 50 career value to me. Barry was a terrific offensive player with that magical playoff run in 75 (countered by his only ABA title which was accomplished with him injured) but his defense and ability to disrupt team cohesion are negatives which put him well back from the top 20 for me; top 50 seems reasonable but even there I'm not certain. Frazier I used to have in my top 20, he's the strongest case for me with 2 great playoff runs which resulted in titles. However, as players like LeBron, Dirk, etc. moved into the top 20, he fell back and I would now have him probably 25-35 with most others here having him a bit lower.

[Johnlac1]

I'll try to get the tone of this right because I think I know what you're trying to say ... but ...

Fifty players can't have an excellent case for top 25. One could maybe argue under different criteria for that type of thing, but if talking about top 25 guys, and you've got fifty of them then it's misleading and defeats the point of talking about top 25 guys.

And moreso the onus is on you in this instance, since someone else was talking about a number of top twenty guys and you specifically bring up three names like penbeast forgot them or was unaware of them.

I think one could have argued with stuff that was said about the 70s (ABA meant that there were many teams from the mid-60s on, and indeed contracted in the late-seventies, and the earlier sixties still likely had racial quotas so the talent pool dilution comments versus the sixties comments might not have given the full picture) but I really wouldn't have raised those three players, as I'd struggle to see a case for top 20.

While I've made personal lists for teams of different decades, I've never made a top ten or even top twenty-five all-time list as I considered it just too hard to determine it and leave off some great player. If I choose top fifty I at least make sure I'd get all the great players in.
But as I've stated, it can be a bit unfair to compare players from different eras. Virtually all the players now in the league would dominate the first ten years of the league. So would I then have to leave off Mikan, Cousy, etal? I'd hate to do that.

I look only at in era dominance and relative strength of era (both still pretty debatable). I don't have Walton close to my top 20, I struggle to say he's top 50, maybe top 100. He had ONE year that he made it to the postseason healthy as a starter (+1 as a reserve); it was a terrific year but that's not top 50 career value to me. Barry was a terrific offensive player with that magical playoff run in 75 (countered by his only ABA title which was accomplished with him injured) but his defense and ability to disrupt team cohesion are negatives which put him well back from the top 20 for me; top 50 seems reasonable but even there I'm not certain. Frazier I used to have in my top 20, he's the strongest case for me with 2 great playoff runs which resulted in titles. However, as players like LeBron, Dirk, etc. moved into the top 20, he fell back and I would now have him probably 25-35 with most others here having him a bit lower.

re: Barry...in '67 he and Thurmond took the Warriors to the finals against the greatest team in league history up to that time, the Chamberlain-led Sixers. Barry averaged 40 ppg during that series and the Warriors took the Sixers to six games. The Sixers beat the Celtics in five games in the EC finals. The Warriors lost one game in ot and game six by three pts. Barry had 44 pts in game six. Wilt put Barry on his all-time team.
And while not a great def. player, he was more than adequate. He was an excellent rebounder and always had a lot of steals. I think Barry gets a lot of negativity because of his on-court antics and his off-court statements. He didn't always act and say the nicest things. But he was a great player.

[70sFan]

One more player that should be in your video is Billy Cunningham. Really underrated and underappreciate nowadays, one of the greatest forwards in NBA history.

[Goudelock]

One more player that should be in your video is Billy Cunningham. Really underrated and underappreciate nowadays, one of the greatest forwards in NBA history.

I thought that he was more o a 60's legend than a 70's legend? I guess that I need to research him.

[penbeast0]

One more player that should be in your video is Billy Cunningham. Really underrated and underappreciate nowadays, one of the greatest forwards in NBA history.

I thought that he was more o a 60's legend than a 70's legend? I guess that I need to research him.

He was a hotshot rookie SMOY type in 67 and a very good player for the Sixers as Luke Jackson slipped in 68 and 69. But, he really came into his own as a star when he went to the ABA and was given more offensive responsibility as a playmaker as well as a finisher (like Havlicek in the 70s v. 60s). When he returned to the NBA, he was a more complete and dangerous player to face while still being a tough physical defender.