Rank Decades

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

ty 4191
Veteran
Posts: 2,598
And1: 2,017
Joined: Feb 18, 2021
   

Re: Rank Decades 

Post#21 » by ty 4191 » Fri Jul 14, 2023 8:34 pm

70sFan wrote:I actually agree with that, but I feel the same about Russell and Kareem.


Wilt was a different species the Russell and Kareem, physically. Bench pressed 465 at age 59, Arnold said he was "By far the strongest person I ever met, he picked me up with one arm like I was nothing!". And, Arnold spent his entire life around the biggest, strongest people on the planet, mind you. This is a guy bench pressing 600 lbs in his prime, and squatting 750.

Russell I have zero concerns about because he'd bulk up (as would Kareem, for sure). Russell was also #2 in the US in 1956 in the high jump, number 7 in the world, but chose basketball because he wasn't allowed to play more than one sport, and

Russell also played all 5 positions on offense, frequently. I have basically zero concerns about him transposed into later eras.

kcktiny
Pro Prospect
Posts: 900
And1: 673
Joined: Aug 14, 2012

Re: Rank Decades 

Post#22 » by kcktiny » Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:37 am

I have the 50 & 70’s as the weakest


7. 1970s


The 1970s were massively weakened by expansion but that wasn't the only factor weakening play.


I wonder how many of you were actually alive and watching the NBA in the 1970s. It was a great decade for the league, made even greater with expansion and then the influx of ABA talent.

When NBA games were on TV (which was not very often, not compared to today, and not even compared to the 80s when cable came around) we never missed a game, and the action was exciting, outstanding, and the talent was great. This idea that the league got weaker with expansion is complete nonsense.

There was so much talent in the country that another league formed not once but twice (the ABL in the 60s and then the ABA in the 60s/70s), and in the span of just two decades the number of NBA teams almost tripled - from 8 in 1959-60 to 22 in 1978-79 - because of all the high level talent.

The decade of the 70s started off with excellent talent - holdovers from the 60s - like Chamberlain, Jabbar, Hayes, Frazier, Thurmond, Lenny Wilkens, Goodrich, Hudson, Love, Havlicek, and a host of others. And in the span of just a few years the league added the likes of Cowens, Lanier, Maravich, Tiny, McAdoo, Walton, and others. Connie Hawkins jumped over, Spencer Haywood jumped over, as did Rick Barry, and George McGinnis. Then came the merger and we got to see Erving, David Thompson, Gilmore, Moses, Gervin, Issel, Bobby Jones, Maurice Lucas, Larry Kenon, Don Buse, and more.

There was a boatload of talent in the NBA in the 70s. Anyone saying there wasn't clearly did not watch the league at the time.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,301
And1: 9,865
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: Rank Decades 

Post#23 » by penbeast0 » Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:50 am

kcktiny wrote:
I wonder how many of you were actually alive and watching the NBA in the 1970s. It was a great decade for the league, made even greater with expansion and then the influx of ABA talent.

When NBA games were on TV (which was not very often, not compared to today, and not even compared to the 80s when cable came around) we never missed a game, and the action was exciting, outstanding, and the talent was great. This idea that the league got weaker with expansion is complete nonsense.

...

There was a boatload of talent in the NBA in the 70s. Anyone saying there wasn't clearly did not watch the league at the time.


Actually I was at my most fanatic fandom at that point starting at the end of the 60s. The Capitols and Rick Barry came to Washington briefly which made me an early ABA fan, the Bullets were on channel 48 (?) from Baltimore, and once they moved to Washington they were actually competitive for most of the decade. The only time in their long, sorry, history you could say that. So, I could have picked the name 70sFan too and it would have been true.

But looking back, I'm realistic. The Wiz weren't a strong champion (though a good story), despite being in 3 finals during the decade. Kareem was a great individual player but didn't seem to make his teammates great the way other greats before and after him did and there seemed to be far more showboats that put up empty numbers like Maravich, John Drew, and the Wizards' own Truck Robinson (one of my favorite players along with Mitch Kupchak . . . I identified with the bench guys). Team had less depth of talent, the top end talent other than Kareem (and Doc in the ABA) wasn't as special as the 60s, and there were too many teams that didn't play like teams. So, I was there, and a big fan, but I don't agree with you at all.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
User avatar
wojoaderge
Analyst
Posts: 3,092
And1: 1,677
Joined: Jul 27, 2015

Re: Rank Decades 

Post#24 » by wojoaderge » Sat Jul 15, 2023 3:09 am

kcktiny wrote:
I have the 50 & 70’s as the weakest


7. 1970s


The 1970s were massively weakened by expansion but that wasn't the only factor weakening play.


I wonder how many of you were actually alive and watching the NBA in the 1970s. It was a great decade for the league, made even greater with expansion and then the influx of ABA talent.

When NBA games were on TV (which was not very often, not compared to today, and not even compared to the 80s when cable came around) we never missed a game, and the action was exciting, outstanding, and the talent was great. This idea that the league got weaker with expansion is complete nonsense.

There was so much talent in the country that another league formed not once but twice (the ABL in the 60s and then the ABA in the 60s/70s), and in the span of just two decades the number of NBA teams almost tripled - from 8 in 1959-60 to 22 in 1978-79 - because of all the high level talent.

The decade of the 70s started off with excellent talent - holdovers from the 60s - like Chamberlain, Jabbar, Hayes, Frazier, Thurmond, Lenny Wilkens, Goodrich, Hudson, Love, Havlicek, and a host of others. And in the span of just a few years the league added the likes of Cowens, Lanier, Maravich, Tiny, McAdoo, Walton, and others. Connie Hawkins jumped over, Spencer Haywood jumped over, as did Rick Barry, and George McGinnis. Then came the merger and we got to see Erving, David Thompson, Gilmore, Moses, Gervin, Issel, Bobby Jones, Maurice Lucas, Larry Kenon, Don Buse, and more.

There was a boatload of talent in the NBA in the 70s. Anyone saying there wasn't clearly did not watch the league at the time.

Agreed
"Coach, why don't you just relax? We're not good enough to beat the Lakers. We've had a great year, why don't you just relax and cool down?"
kcktiny
Pro Prospect
Posts: 900
And1: 673
Joined: Aug 14, 2012

Re: Rank Decades 

Post#25 » by kcktiny » Sat Jul 15, 2023 4:04 am

The Wiz weren't a strong champion


Huh? The Bullets were a great team in the mid-to-late 70s. Had the most wins in the regular season for half a decade (74-75 to 78-79) and got to those 3 Finals in just 5 seasons with basically the same core - Hayes, Unseld, and Chenier.

In the 77-78 playoffs they beat one of the best teams in the league in the 76ers, then a great defensive Sonics team in the Finals.

You may be sour 'cause they lost 2/3 Finals but that doesn't take away from how they dominated the league for half a decade.

Heck the Utah Jazz never won a title but dominated the 90s (other than the Bulls), averaged 54 wins a season over the entire decade, including three 60+ win seasons. At least your Bullets got one title.

Kareem was a great individual player but didn't seem to make his teammates great


What are you talking about? He won a title in just his second season in the league, and his first five years in the league Milwaukee won more games than any NBA team, averaged 61 wins a season. Oscar was already the age of 32 most of his first season with the Bucks, was the ages of 33-35 the next few seasons. Care to guess how many others PGs that old were playing major minutes at that same time? Just two - West and Wilkens.

And his other "best" teammate those 5 years was likely Bobby Dandridge. That's it - his key support those 5 seasons where the Bucks won the most games in the league was an old Big O and Dandridge. That's it. Their other big minute players were who? Jon McGlocklin, Lucious Allen, Curtis Perry, and Greg Smith? How great could he have made those guys be? His next 4 years with the Lakers you know who played the most besides him? Don Ford, Norm Nixon, and Lucious Allen.

How many HOFers did Russell play with his first decade in the league compared to Kareem? Had a prime Russell played for the Bucks and Lakers in place of Jabbar they'd have been far worse.

the way other greats before and after him did


Like who?

and there seemed to be far more showboats that put up empty numbers like Maravich, John Drew


Don't forget "Super" John Williamson and Freddie "Mad Dog" Carter.

Team had less depth of talent, the top end talent other than Kareem (and Doc in the ABA) wasn't as special as the 60s


I don't see this at all. As a matter of fact, the 70s did not have a perennial doormat like some decades did. Of the teams that played at least half the decade the worst averaged 32 wins a season (New Orleans).

Yet in the 80s the Clippers averaged just 23 wins a season, in the 90s Dallas averaged just 25-26 wins a season.

And I already mentioned a lot of the top end talent that played in the 70s. They were as good as if not better than that in the 60s.

and there were too many teams that didn't play like teams


Again - like who?
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,301
And1: 9,865
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: Rank Decades 

Post#26 » by penbeast0 » Sat Jul 15, 2023 12:55 pm

kcktiny wrote:...


Hey, I liked the Mad Dog; he came up as a high energy bench dog with the Bullets and was a fan favorite before going to Philly.

Kareem is on everyone's list of the top 5 ever and individually dominated every night, again, because it was a weak league and/or because he was just that great.

And, for the 70s, Les Boulez were a very good team; with Bobby Dandridge as the 3rd best player. But if you look at them compared to the top team of the 60s (Boston), 80s (LA), 90s (CHI), 00s (SA), 10s (GS) etc. they don't come off well.

As for teams that played like they wanted a big ABA contract, think about the Hawks. Good talent, meh results. In the ABA, poster child for wasting talent due to big egos and poor team play is St. Louis. For details, it's one of the funniest chapters in "Foul Balls."

Finally, the worst teams might not have seemed as bad because there were multiple team expansions (or just out of expansion) to play against. That and (one of the strong points of the 70s), tanking wasn't really a thing. First time I remember it being a serious discussion was the Ralph Sampson draft when Houston was accused of deliberately losing a couple of games at the end of the season.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.

Return to Player Comparisons


cron