how ahead of their peers era were 60's all time greats?

[falcolombardi]

i thought about this after reading how great of a high school and college player Oscar robertson was as arguably the most nba ready player ever

before i thought bill russel and wilt Chamberlain had been the evolutionary leap of the 60's but now i wonder if baylor, west and Oscar were just so gamechanging compared to what came before

those 5 (maybe baylor a bit less?)were kinda clearly the best players of that decade by a fair Margin and they all seemed to be somewhat "unprecdented" in some ways

west and Oscar combo of hyper efficient volume scoring and strong playmaking seems to be unmatched for the era
baylor seems to be the first great "slashing do it all point forward of sorts" that players like lebron exemplify now

wilt was a unmatched combo of strenght, athletism amd size (until kareem and gilmore ?)

and russel seemed to just be in a level above every big drafted before him athletically and in "basketball IQ"

why does it seem like the nba made such a "evolutionary step" with players drafted in such a small period of time (56-60)

the only sudden influx of histórical talent comparable to this seems to be 80-84, those two half decades had like half of the all time top 25 players

what caused this? were the other comparable talented players before or st the time who didnt reach their potential for whatever reason?

how ahead of other players were they compared to modern superstars ? (was the difference between west/oscar and other all star guard bigger thsn curry/harden to other all stars in the 2010's for exsmple)

[dygaction]

When the overall baseline is lower, the anomaly appears as much larger. Think about Stephen Marbury's dominance in CBA with 3 championships after not having a job in NBA. The difference is Russell, Wilt, Big O, West, and Baylor were actually elite athletes regardless of era, so the comparison would be more like you put last year's Curry, Doncic, Kawhi, Giannis, and Jokic to NCAA. On top of that, the NCAA's teams can be highly unbalanced, so you see Curry/Giannis landing on Duke to win 8 years in a row and a few others here and there.

[penbeast0]

Wilt would have been a ridiculous outlier in any situation, Russell was actually as good or better, West and Russell were as revolutionary as Steph Curry with their monster combination of scoring and efficiency.

Baylor is not the outlier that those 4 were. Forwards in the 60s were stronger as a whole than guards and Pettit was probably 1A to Baylor's 1B until his final year (though Baylor was more exciting and played in a bigger market so he got more press). Even after Pettit, guys like Jerry Lucas and Rick Barry were competitive with Baylor. Baylor may have been the most impactful forward of the 60s considering his extra years over Pettit, but it wasn't a head and shoulders better situation like with Oscar and Jerry over the likes of Lenny Wilkens or Hal Greer (Frazier was closer to their level but came in right at the end of the decade).

Why is a tougher question. With Russell, I don't think he becomes as great without the challenge of Wilt to push his competitive nature to those heights. Arguably West is similarly forced up by Oscar (less clear but possible) but also this was the era in which the game changed as dramatically as any in history. Like the beginning of the 3 point revolution around 2015 or the introduction of the 24 second clock, drastic changes also forces evolutionary change to survive and thrive and some players will take greater advantage of it.

Or, could be just a coincidence.

[70sFan]

When the overall baseline is lower, the anomaly appears as much larger. Think about Stephen Marbury's dominance in CBA with 3 championships after not having a job in NBA. The difference is Russell, Wilt, Big O, West, and Baylor were actually elite athletes regardless of era, so the comparison would be more like you put last year's Curry, Doncic, Kawhi, Giannis, and Jokic to NCAA. On top of that, the NCAA's teams can be highly unbalanced, so you see Curry/Giannis landing on Duke to win 8 years in a row and a few others here and there.

The whole idea that average 1960s players sucked or were NCAA level is created by people who have no idea what the average 1960s player looked like.

[penbeast0]

When the overall baseline is lower, the anomaly appears as much larger. Think about Stephen Marbury's dominance in CBA with 3 championships after not having a job in NBA. The difference is Russell, Wilt, Big O, West, and Baylor were actually elite athletes regardless of era, so the comparison would be more like you put last year's Curry, Doncic, Kawhi, Giannis, and Jokic to NCAA. On top of that, the NCAA's teams can be highly unbalanced, so you see Curry/Giannis landing on Duke to win 8 years in a row and a few others here and there.

The whole idea that average 1960s players sucked or were NCAA level is created by people who have no idea what the average 1960s player looked like.

Take the big 4 out of the 60s and a similar top group out of the 70s (Kareem, Cowens, Gilmore, Julius, and an equivalent amount of others to reflect expansion) and the 60s teams will seem stronger top to bottom than the 70s. Some time in the 80s, the league's depth probably catches up to expansion but the 60s had a lot of great players not well known to the casual fan and they were spread over a very few teams for at least the first half of the decade when the players from the OP were establishing their reputations.

[kcktiny]

before i thought bill russel and wilt Chamberlain had been the evolutionary leap of the 60's but now i wonder if baylor, west and Oscar were just so game changing compared to what came before

The four years before Chamberlain ever stepped into the NBA Bob Pettit lead the NBA in most FGM, rebounds, points scored, and was 2nd in FTM. He was the league's dominant player.

Then over the next 5 seasons even with both Chamberlain and Russell in the league Pettit still scored the 3rd most points, had the 2nd most FTM, and grabbed the 3rd most rebounds.

When he retired (after the 1964-65 season) he was the NBA's all-time leader in points scored, rebounds, FTAs, FGAs, and was 2nd in FGM and FTM.

Pettit was every much an evolutionary leap as any of the players you quoted.

[dygaction]

When the overall baseline is lower, the anomaly appears as much larger. Think about Stephen Marbury's dominance in CBA with 3 championships after not having a job in NBA. The difference is Russell, Wilt, Big O, West, and Baylor were actually elite athletes regardless of era, so the comparison would be more like you put last year's Curry, Doncic, Kawhi, Giannis, and Jokic to NCAA. On top of that, the NCAA's teams can be highly unbalanced, so you see Curry/Giannis landing on Duke to win 8 years in a row and a few others here and there.

The whole idea that average 1960s players sucked or were NCAA level is created by people who have no idea what the average 1960s player looked like.

The whole idea that NCAA level sucks more than 1960s NBA removed from some of the top talents is a myth.
You put 3rd team all-nba from last year to 60s, Paul George, Jimmy Butler, Kyrie Irving, Bradley Beal, Rudy Gobert, they would all end up in HOF and disrupt that era. What players do you have after the 2nd team from 60s? Not sure you can form an 8-man rotation to play today for a playoff spot.

[Doctor MJ]

i thought about this after reading how great of a high school and college player Oscar robertson was as arguably the most nba ready player ever

before i thought bill russel and wilt Chamberlain had been the evolutionary leap of the 60's but now i wonder if baylor, west and Oscar were just so gamechanging compared to what came before

those 5 (maybe baylor a bit less?)were kinda clearly the best players of that decade by a fair Margin and they all seemed to be somewhat "unprecdented" in some ways

west and Oscar combo of hyper efficient volume scoring and strong playmaking seems to be unmatched for the era
baylor seems to be the first great "slashing do it all point forward of sorts" that players like lebron exemplify now

wilt was a unmatched combo of strenght, athletism amd size (until kareem and gilmore ?)

and russel seemed to just be in a level above every big drafted before him athletically and in "basketball IQ"

why does it seem like the nba made such a "evolutionary step" with players drafted in such a small period of time (56-60)

the only sudden influx of histórical talent comparable to this seems to be 80-84, those two half decades had like half of the all time top 25 players

what caused this? were the other comparable talented players before or st the time who didnt reach their potential for whatever reason?

how ahead of other players were they compared to modern superstars ? (was the difference between west/oscar and other all star guard bigger thsn curry/harden to other all stars in the 2010's for exsmple)

Great question, though I'd tweak the premise. I don't think it was primarily about guys being ahead of their time, so much as it was that there happened to have been an unusual amount of extreme talents born in the late '30s that played basketball from a young age.

I used to be skeptical about this, but now I see it largely as randomness. The quality of the average NBA player from year to year, and era to era, doesn't randomly change. When it goes up - and it mostly goes up - it's a gradual process of more talents and more sophisticated techniques that do it. But the superstars? They are gifts from the basketball gods.

You mention 80-84, yup, great era for new players too. And there's the nadirs.

There's a big gap between Oscar/West & Kareem. Why was that? Partially luck, partially the NBA blacklisting a bunch of players - Connie Hawkins being the great talent of that generation - and forever crippling what that generation would do. Later you have issues with drugs, but then there are also times when you just don't get great new draft classes for no reason.

I'll note as a tennis fan, we've been waiting to see great tennis players come of age in the post Federer/Serena/Nadal/Djokovic era for a long time, and it's just not happening. Some of this is about players not reaching their potential, and some of it is likely also due to a dwindling talent pool as the sport loses popularity, but some of it is just luck.

I will say that from my perspective we're only talking about 4 super-outliers. Baylor doesn't belong on the list, nor should he be seen as being the equal of Bob Pettit or George Mikan. He's a super-outlier in how physically impressive he looked, but not in his ability to play basketball ultra-effectively. At his best he deserved to be seen as an MVP candidate, but he shouldn't have been seen as a guy who was Top 5 every year for a decade the way the other 4 (when healthy and engaged) were.

For the other guys, you're just talking about insane talents. 3 geniuses with great physical attributes, and 1 ultra-outlier physical specimen.

Re: Oscar NBA readiness. This is a bit different. Russell was likely the last person to come into the NBA already as the best defensive player in the world, and Oscar the last to do it as the best offensive player in the world. There you have the combination of a less mature league plus the fact that these guys were 4 years out of high school when they joined the league, along with their extremely precious intelligence.

[70sFan]

When the overall baseline is lower, the anomaly appears as much larger. Think about Stephen Marbury's dominance in CBA with 3 championships after not having a job in NBA. The difference is Russell, Wilt, Big O, West, and Baylor were actually elite athletes regardless of era, so the comparison would be more like you put last year's Curry, Doncic, Kawhi, Giannis, and Jokic to NCAA. On top of that, the NCAA's teams can be highly unbalanced, so you see Curry/Giannis landing on Duke to win 8 years in a row and a few others here and there.

The whole idea that average 1960s players sucked or were NCAA level is created by people who have no idea what the average 1960s player looked like.

The whole idea that NCAA level sucks more than 1960s NBA removed from some of the top talents is a myth.
You put 3rd team all-nba from last year to 60s, Paul George, Jimmy Butler, Kyrie Irving, Bradley Beal, Rudy Gobert, they would all end up in HOF and disrupt that era. What players do you have after the 2nd team from 60s? Not sure you can form an 8-man rotation to play today for a playoff spot.

That just shows your ignorance for your era, not the problem with 1960s talent. Just because you don't recognise some players doesn't mean they sucked, you know?

Not so long ago, we had an all-nba project and we picked 3 teams for 1960-65 and 1966-70 periods. Here are the results:

1966-70 All-NBA First Team

G: 1965/66 Jerry West
G: 1965/66 Oscar Robertson
F: 1966/67 Rick Barry
F: 1969/70 Connie Hawkins
C: 1966/67 Wilt Chamberlain

1966-70 All-NBA Second Team

G: 1969/70 Walt Frazier
G: 1965/66 Sam Jones
F: 1967/68 John Havlicek
F: 1968/69 Willis Reed
C: 1965/66 Bill Russell

1966-70 All-NBA Third Team

G: 1969/70 Earl Monroe
G: 1966/67 Hal Greer
F: 1967/68 Elgin Baylor
F: 1969/70 Billy Cunningham
C: 1969/70 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

1961-65 All-NBA First Team

G: 1964/65 Jerry West
G: 1963/64 Oscar Robertson
F: 1962/63 Elgin Baylor
F: 1962/63 Bob Pettit
C: 1964/65 Bill Russell

1961-65 All-NBA Second Team

G: 1962/63 Hal Greer
G: 1964/65 Sam Jones
F: 1964/65 Bailey Howell
F: 1964/65 Jerry Lucas
C: 1961/62 Wilt Chamberlain

1961-65 All-NBA Third Team

G: 1960/61 Larry Costello
G: 1961/62 Richie Guerin
F: 1960/61 Cliff Hagan
F: 1962/63 Tom Heinsohn
C: 1964/65 Walt Bellamy

I'm pretty sure we can make a contender team out of these players. I'm also pretty sure that Bradley Beal wouldn't dominate that era.

[Doctor MJ]

before i thought bill russel and wilt Chamberlain had been the evolutionary leap of the 60's but now i wonder if baylor, west and Oscar were just so game changing compared to what came before

The four years before Chamberlain ever stepped into the NBA Bob Pettit lead the NBA in most FGM, rebounds, points scored, and was 2nd in FTM. He was the league's dominant player.

Then over the next 5 seasons even with both Chamberlain and Russell in the league Pettit still scored the 3rd most points, had the 2nd most FTM, and grabbed the 3rd most rebounds.

When he retired (after the 1964-65 season) he was the NBA's all-time leader in points scored, rebounds, FTAs, FGAs, and was 2nd in FGM and FTM.

Pettit was every much an evolutionary leap as any of the players you quoted.

So, my take is this:

I do think that if you're including Baylor on a list, you should be including Pettit, who I'd easily rank ahead of Baylor.

But as good as Pettit was right from the jump, I don't think he was anywhere near as good as rookie Oscar on offense or rookie Russell on defense. I think the most impressive thing about Pettit truly is the fact that he kept getting better in the face of a rapidly improving league. For many all-timers, this just isn't the case.

[dygaction]

The whole idea that average 1960s players sucked or were NCAA level is created by people who have no idea what the average 1960s player looked like.

The whole idea that NCAA level sucks more than 1960s NBA removed from some of the top talents is a myth.
You put 3rd team all-nba from last year to 60s, Paul George, Jimmy Butler, Kyrie Irving, Bradley Beal, Rudy Gobert, they would all end up in HOF and disrupt that era. What players do you have after the 2nd team from 60s? Not sure you can form an 8-man rotation to play today for a playoff spot.

That just shows your ignorance for your era, not the problem with 1960s talent. Just because you don't recognise some players doesn't mean they sucked, you know?

Not so long ago, we had an all-nba project and we picked 3 teams for 1960-65 and 1966-70 periods. Here are the results:

1966-70 All-NBA First Team

G: 1965/66 Jerry West
G: 1965/66 Oscar Robertson
F: 1966/67 Rick Barry
F: 1969/70 Connie Hawkins
C: 1966/67 Wilt Chamberlain

1966-70 All-NBA Second Team

G: 1969/70 Walt Frazier
G: 1965/66 Sam Jones
F: 1967/68 John Havlicek
F: 1968/69 Willis Reed
C: 1965/66 Bill Russell

1966-70 All-NBA Third Team

G: 1969/70 Earl Monroe
G: 1966/67 Hal Greer
F: 1967/68 Elgin Baylor
F: 1969/70 Billy Cunningham
C: 1969/70 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

1961-65 All-NBA First Team

G: 1964/65 Jerry West
G: 1963/64 Oscar Robertson
F: 1962/63 Elgin Baylor
F: 1962/63 Bob Pettit
C: 1964/65 Bill Russell

1961-65 All-NBA Second Team

G: 1962/63 Hal Greer
G: 1964/65 Sam Jones
F: 1964/65 Bailey Howell
F: 1964/65 Jerry Lucas
C: 1961/62 Wilt Chamberlain

1961-65 All-NBA Third Team

G: 1960/61 Larry Costello
G: 1961/62 Richie Guerin
F: 1960/61 Cliff Hagan
F: 1962/63 Tom Heinsohn
C: 1964/65 Walt Bellamy

I'm pretty sure we can make a contender team out of these players. I'm also pretty sure that Bradley Beal wouldn't dominate that era.

When you have to make a 3rd team all-nba by assembling from a 5 years span, does it mean that era was 5x diluted? That's also indicating each year the nba was less than 10 elite player deep. You have to stagger them to have some players in the 3rd team, and even that, there is no top 75 player in the 61-65 3rd team.

[penbeast0]

When you have to make a 3rd team all-nba by assembling from a 5 years span, does it mean that era was 5x diluted? That's also indicating each year the nba was less than 10 elite player deep. You have to stagger them to have some players in the 3rd team, and even that, there is no top 75 player in the 61-65 3rd team.

There were 9 teams in the league in 61-65, there are 30 now. You are saying that if you remove the league's top 33 players you are going to be left with top 75 players all-time for your 3rd team created from 2016-2020? I would be interested in seeing your top 3 all-NBA teams for your chosen era.

[70sFan]

The whole idea that NCAA level sucks more than 1960s NBA removed from some of the top talents is a myth.
You put 3rd team all-nba from last year to 60s, Paul George, Jimmy Butler, Kyrie Irving, Bradley Beal, Rudy Gobert, they would all end up in HOF and disrupt that era. What players do you have after the 2nd team from 60s? Not sure you can form an 8-man rotation to play today for a playoff spot.

That just shows your ignorance for your era, not the problem with 1960s talent. Just because you don't recognise some players doesn't mean they sucked, you know?

Not so long ago, we had an all-nba project and we picked 3 teams for 1960-65 and 1966-70 periods. Here are the results:

1966-70 All-NBA First Team

G: 1965/66 Jerry West
G: 1965/66 Oscar Robertson
F: 1966/67 Rick Barry
F: 1969/70 Connie Hawkins
C: 1966/67 Wilt Chamberlain

1966-70 All-NBA Second Team

G: 1969/70 Walt Frazier
G: 1965/66 Sam Jones
F: 1967/68 John Havlicek
F: 1968/69 Willis Reed
C: 1965/66 Bill Russell

1966-70 All-NBA Third Team

G: 1969/70 Earl Monroe
G: 1966/67 Hal Greer
F: 1967/68 Elgin Baylor
F: 1969/70 Billy Cunningham
C: 1969/70 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

1961-65 All-NBA First Team

G: 1964/65 Jerry West
G: 1963/64 Oscar Robertson
F: 1962/63 Elgin Baylor
F: 1962/63 Bob Pettit
C: 1964/65 Bill Russell

1961-65 All-NBA Second Team

G: 1962/63 Hal Greer
G: 1964/65 Sam Jones
F: 1964/65 Bailey Howell
F: 1964/65 Jerry Lucas
C: 1961/62 Wilt Chamberlain

1961-65 All-NBA Third Team

G: 1960/61 Larry Costello
G: 1961/62 Richie Guerin
F: 1960/61 Cliff Hagan
F: 1962/63 Tom Heinsohn
C: 1964/65 Walt Bellamy

I'm pretty sure we can make a contender team out of these players. I'm also pretty sure that Bradley Beal wouldn't dominate that era.

When you have to make a 3rd team all-nba by assembling from a 5 years span, does it mean that era was 5x diluted? That's also indicating each year the nba was less than 10 elite player deep. You have to stagger them to have some players in the 3rd team, and even that, there is no top 75 player in the 61-65 3rd team.

I didn't have to do anything, I just posted the results of project run on this board. I could make all-nba 3rd teams for each season, but as you know they didn't do that back then.

Guess what? There is no top 75 player in the 2022 team either. What is this supposed to prove? Cliff Hagan was definitely top 75 worthy. Heinsohn was 8 times champion, I thought you like rings. Bellamy posted some ridiculous stats. These were really good players, you simply don't recognise them so you think they were bad

[DQuinn1575]

When you have to make a 3rd team all-nba by assembling from a 5 years span, does it mean that era was 5x diluted? That's also indicating each year the nba was less than 10 elite player deep. You have to stagger them to have some players in the 3rd team, and even that, there is no top 75 player in the 61-65 3rd team.

The third team in the 60-65 era is hurt in the all-time rankings by having only two All-NBA teams instead of 3, and the dominance of the players being discussed here. West, Oscar, Baylor, and Wilt/Russell made virtually every 1st team, and Greer, Jones, Wilt/Russell made the 2nd team. Had there been a 3rd team All-NBA, guys in these teams would have some/a lot more All-NBA honors and be viewed more favorably. One or more of Hagan, Bellamy, Heinsohn might make an All-Time list if they had a lot more All-NBA honors - based on the politics and such, for the NBA 50/75 I would guess Heinsohn, but I'm not sure how Bellamy would be viewed if he had 4-5 All-NBA selections.

[dygaction]

When you have to make a 3rd team all-nba by assembling from a 5 years span, does it mean that era was 5x diluted? That's also indicating each year the nba was less than 10 elite player deep. You have to stagger them to have some players in the 3rd team, and even that, there is no top 75 player in the 61-65 3rd team.

There were 9 teams in the league in 61-65, there are 30 now. You are saying that if you remove the league's top 33 players you are going to be left with top 75 players all-time for your 3rd team created from 2016-2020? I would be interested in seeing your top 3 all-NBA teams for your chosen era.

That's why the competition is much higher now. Isn't nice to have two teams instead, then each year we have 50% of players getting a championship ring.

[70sFan]

When you have to make a 3rd team all-nba by assembling from a 5 years span, does it mean that era was 5x diluted? That's also indicating each year the nba was less than 10 elite player deep. You have to stagger them to have some players in the 3rd team, and even that, there is no top 75 player in the 61-65 3rd team.

There were 9 teams in the league in 61-65, there are 30 now. You are saying that if you remove the league's top 33 players you are going to be left with top 75 players all-time for your 3rd team created from 2016-2020? I would be interested in seeing your top 3 all-NBA teams for your chosen era.

That's why the competition is much higher now. Isn't nice to have two teams instead, then each year we have 50% of players getting a championship ring.

Let me know when the league included only two teams.

[dygaction]

That just shows your ignorance for your era, not the problem with 1960s talent. Just because you don't recognise some players doesn't mean they sucked, you know?

Not so long ago, we had an all-nba project and we picked 3 teams for 1960-65 and 1966-70 periods. Here are the results:

1966-70 All-NBA First Team

G: 1965/66 Jerry West
G: 1965/66 Oscar Robertson
F: 1966/67 Rick Barry
F: 1969/70 Connie Hawkins
C: 1966/67 Wilt Chamberlain

1966-70 All-NBA Second Team

G: 1969/70 Walt Frazier
G: 1965/66 Sam Jones
F: 1967/68 John Havlicek
F: 1968/69 Willis Reed
C: 1965/66 Bill Russell

1966-70 All-NBA Third Team

G: 1969/70 Earl Monroe
G: 1966/67 Hal Greer
F: 1967/68 Elgin Baylor
F: 1969/70 Billy Cunningham
C: 1969/70 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

1961-65 All-NBA First Team

G: 1964/65 Jerry West
G: 1963/64 Oscar Robertson
F: 1962/63 Elgin Baylor
F: 1962/63 Bob Pettit
C: 1964/65 Bill Russell

1961-65 All-NBA Second Team

G: 1962/63 Hal Greer
G: 1964/65 Sam Jones
F: 1964/65 Bailey Howell
F: 1964/65 Jerry Lucas
C: 1961/62 Wilt Chamberlain

1961-65 All-NBA Third Team

G: 1960/61 Larry Costello
G: 1961/62 Richie Guerin
F: 1960/61 Cliff Hagan
F: 1962/63 Tom Heinsohn
C: 1964/65 Walt Bellamy

I'm pretty sure we can make a contender team out of these players. I'm also pretty sure that Bradley Beal wouldn't dominate that era.

When you have to make a 3rd team all-nba by assembling from a 5 years span, does it mean that era was 5x diluted? That's also indicating each year the nba was less than 10 elite player deep. You have to stagger them to have some players in the 3rd team, and even that, there is no top 75 player in the 61-65 3rd team.

I didn't have to do anything, I just posted the results of project run on this board. I could make all-nba 3rd teams for each season, but as you know they didn't do that back then.

Guess what? There is no top 75 player in the 2022 team either. What is this supposed to prove? Cliff Hagan was definitely top 75 worthy. Heinsohn was 8 times champion, I thought you like rings. Bellamy posted some ridiculous stats. These were really good players, you simply don't recognise them so you think they were bad

Guess what, you are really taking your half decade team to compare with 2021 single year team... I will also take the 2021 team 3rd all-nba over the half decade 61-65 second all-nba team.

[70sFan]

When you have to make a 3rd team all-nba by assembling from a 5 years span, does it mean that era was 5x diluted? That's also indicating each year the nba was less than 10 elite player deep. You have to stagger them to have some players in the 3rd team, and even that, there is no top 75 player in the 61-65 3rd team.

I didn't have to do anything, I just posted the results of project run on this board. I could make all-nba 3rd teams for each season, but as you know they didn't do that back then.

Guess what? There is no top 75 player in the 2022 team either. What is this supposed to prove? Cliff Hagan was definitely top 75 worthy. Heinsohn was 8 times champion, I thought you like rings. Bellamy posted some ridiculous stats. These were really good players, you simply don't recognise them so you think they were bad

Guess what, you are really taking your half decade team to compare with 2021 single year team... I will also take the 2021 team 3rd all-nba over the half decade 61-65 second all-nba team.

That was only an example, as I said I can make all-nba third team for any 1960s year but they don't exist. Besides, your point was that you wouldn't create a roster off these teams outside of two all-nba teams, not that modern teams are better.

Again, you would take your team because you have no idea who these players were, at all. I mean, what can you tell me about Cliff Hagan or Richie Guerin? What were strengths and weaknesses of Walt Bellamy?

[Dr Positivity]

I mean obviously the biggest difference is black players. The talent for white players in the 60s follows a pretty natural progression from 50s in my opinion.

I'm assuming basketball popularity continued to increase every decade leading up to the 60s which would have also influenced some athletes to go into it rather than other sports or become an athlete for a living at all.

[falcolombardi]

When you have to make a 3rd team all-nba by assembling from a 5 years span, does it mean that era was 5x diluted? That's also indicating each year the nba was less than 10 elite player deep. You have to stagger them to have some players in the 3rd team, and even that, there is no top 75 player in the 61-65 3rd team.

I didn't have to do anything, I just posted the results of project run on this board. I could make all-nba 3rd teams for each season, but as you know they didn't do that back then.

Guess what? There is no top 75 player in the 2022 team either. What is this supposed to prove? Cliff Hagan was definitely top 75 worthy. Heinsohn was 8 times champion, I thought you like rings. Bellamy posted some ridiculous stats. These were really good players, you simply don't recognise them so you think they were bad

Guess what, you are really taking your half decade team to compare with 2021 single year team... I will also take the 2021 team 3rd all-nba over the half decade 61-65 second all-nba team.

i dont think almost anyone would disagree than on average a all nba team from the 2010's is more talented than one from the 60's

hell most people here think a modern all nba team on average is above a 90's all nba team as player talent pools have grown so much particularly internationally

the disagreement seems to be with thinking that 3rs team~ all-nba talent of the 60's was not in the same general ballpark as its modern equivalent

is a 2022 3rd team better than a 1965 one? probably

is a 2022 hypothetical 4rd or 5th team clearly better than a 1965 3rd team? maybe not, specially if older players grew up with modern rules and style of play