Best player All-Time for the 1960s environment

[rand]

If you had your choice of any player at their peak in NBA history for a single season in the 1960s, who would you choose?

Note that if you choose a player from outside the 1960s they are transported unaltered from their selected time to the 60s but get to go through the entire NBA season including training camp, preseason and the regular season before they reach the playoffs.

Note also that the removal effect of choosing a player from the 1960s is to be disregarded. What I mean is that if you took a player from outside the 1960s, your team would still have to face Russell and Chamberlain but if you took one of the latter two you not only get arguably the best player in the league, you also deny all other teams the ability to have that player. This would be quite an advantage for taking Russell or Chamberlain and this advantage shouldn't be a factor in your selection.

[penbeast0]

Hard not to go for Russell when he actually did win every year but 67 with ridiculous defensive impact unless you are one of those people who feels that only scoring is really important.

[Djoker]

A great rim protector in the 60's was very likely by far the most valuable archetype of player because so many shots were taken close to the basket.

Don't see why I would go with anyone other than Russell himself.

[SNPA]

I feel like this question answered itself in the 60’s.

[Doctor MJ]

Hard not to go for Russell when he actually did win every year but 67 with ridiculous defensive impact unless you are one of those people who feels that only scoring is really important.

Yeah to me this is just a question of whether it's Russell or someone with a similar body type with better offensive touch like Olajuwon or Garnett or perhaps eventually Wemby.

[Doctor MJ]

Incidentally I was debating between the guys I mentioned and then realize Garnett wasn't even listed. I would strongly object to slower, physically and mentally, contemporary rivals of his getting mentioned and him not.

[Gregoire]

Peaks in order:
Jordan
Wilt (actual best player of 1960s)
Shaq
Kareem
Hakeem
Magic
Russell
Lebron
Duncan

also players, who would get benefits comparing to their actual eras:
Leonard
Barkley
Wade

[penbeast0]

Hard not to go for Russell when he actually did win every year but 67 with ridiculous defensive impact unless you are one of those people who feels that only scoring is really important.

Yeah to me this is just a question of whether it's Russell or someone with a similar body type with better offensive touch like Olajuwon or Garnett or perhaps eventually Wemby.

Russell adds better rebounding, and better passing than Hakeem. Add to his superior defense and is it enough? For me, yes. Again, hard to argue with that unreasonable level of success unless you feel you need scoring to be truly great in which case you might go with Gregoire's pick of Wilt. Too early to say Wemby. He could be the next Embiid or the next Walton or even the next Greg Oden. Way too early to tell.

[OhayoKD]

Giannis

KG/Hakeem/Lebron

Russell/Duncan

[Whiffyemperor]

Lebron is the only right answer greatest transition scorer in a high pace inflated era he would have 60ppg

[ice9]

The Admiral deserves some love here. GOAT tier rim protector, true 7 footer, solid passer for a center, and runs the floor like a gazelle so would do amazing in the fast paced environment.

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk

[rk2023]

It’s Russell, the guy who had the goat floor raising impact in NBA history in that era itself and rode historical defenses to 11 rings.

[tsherkin]

Russell adds better rebounding, and better passing than Hakeem. Add to his superior defense and is it enough? For me, yes.

Was his defense superior to Hakeem's as it would be in the 80s, or are you just inferring based on team impact? Also, was Russell's passing better, or did he have a higher assist output due to the system and pace and minutes played? It would be an interesting thing to see, really. Hakeem responded well to simplified offensive structure from Rudy T and Russell wasn't some savant playmaker, he just made good outlet passes most of the time and wasn't looking to overshoot in the halfcourt.

[penbeast0]

Russell adds better rebounding, and better passing than Hakeem. Add to his superior defense and is it enough? For me, yes.

Was his defense superior to Hakeem's as it would be in the 80s, or are you just inferring based on team impact? Also, was Russell's passing better, or did he have a higher assist output due to the system and pace and minutes played? It would be an interesting thing to see, really. Hakeem responded well to simplified offensive structure from Rudy T and Russell wasn't some savant playmaker, he just made good outlet passes most of the time and wasn't looking to overshoot in the halfcourt.

Since they were in different systems and different time periods, inferring is all we can do. The best numbers that we have for defensive impact (out of a bunch of admittedly imperfect ones) are team drtg relative to league. Hakeem at his peak is in the same neighborhood as Russell but was only at that level for a couple of years and Russell did it for the whole decade pretty much while turning over the entire rotation of players around him.

For passing, the answer is similar. Neither were A level passers, both started as pretty raw at that level (for Russell, most of his raw years were in the 50s). We don't know for sure and both clearly got better over time, but Russell seemed to get to the good passer level faster and stayed there longer it appears.

For that matter, relative to league, Russell is the more efficient scorer early on (mainly in the 1950s though) but I'd have Hakeem clearly better to a whole lot better and at greater volumes throughout the 60s though again, the systems and eras are different.

Garnett I have as a better passer and more valuable scorer than either, but he lacks the great rim protection that Russell and Hakeem bring.

[penbeast0]

Lebron is the only right answer greatest transition scorer in a high pace inflated era he would have 60ppg

OR, he'd be a healthy Elgin Baylor in the more crowded era of the pre-3 pointer league that didn't allow the kind of ballhandling and consistent travel with the ball. They actually rewrote the rules to try to make the kind of walking the refs were allowing LeBron and other stars of his era more legal, with gather steps and the like. LeBron was probably the most consistently egregious at doing so even before the rule change in the league, we used to call him LeTravel on the Wiz board where he was beating us every year in the playoffs early on (back when the Wiz would actually make the playoffs most years).

[tsherkin]

Since they were in different systems and different time periods, inferring is all we can do. The best numbers that we have for defensive impact (out of a bunch of admittedly imperfect ones) are team drtg relative to league.

But that's a poor starting point because potential for impact is different between the mid/late 80s and 90s vs the late 50s and 60s, right? League relative impact means only so much when you're not afforded the same ability to impact the game. And of course, team quality also matters, and that favors Russell more than Olajuwon from the defensive side of things as well.

This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, so league-relative stuff is only so useful.

[penbeast0]

Since they were in different systems and different time periods, inferring is all we can do. The best numbers that we have for defensive impact (out of a bunch of admittedly imperfect ones) are team drtg relative to league.

But that's a poor starting point because potential for impact is different between the mid/late 80s and 90s vs the late 50s and 60s, right? League relative impact means only so much when you're not afforded the same ability to impact the game. And of course, team quality also matters, and that favors Russell more than Olajuwon from the defensive side of things as well.

This isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, so league-relative stuff is only so useful.

AS I said, the best we have, but far from perfect.

[tsherkin]

AS I said, the best we have, but far from perfect.

Yeah, but "best we have" doesn't always mean "useful," you know what I mean?

[penbeast0]

AS I said, the best we have, but far from perfect.

Yeah, but "best we have" doesn't always mean "useful," you know what I mean?

Well, I could do what some of our more obnoxious posters do and just say, "Russell is clearly a much better defender and passer and Hakeem's scoring is badly overrated." But, I don't find that sort of post valuable at all, just annoying. We use what we have.

[tsherkin]

Well, I could do what some of our more obnoxious posters do and just say, "Russell is clearly a much better defender and passer and Hakeem's scoring is badly overrated." But, I don't find that sort of post valuable at all, just annoying. We use what we have.

I guess what I'm saying is if you're looking at impact and trying to compare two guys, you need a stable foundation for that comparison. And the differences in the league were significant between their eras. Russell's level of defense was also surprising and innovative relative to the way the league had operated to that point, so that lent it a degree of impact beyond what playing the regular mold will do, too. So when you're talking about taking Hakeem back into the 60s, he's going to benefit from that as well. And like I said before, there were large differences in team defensive quality around Russell vs. Hakeem, so again, looking at league-relative stuff escapes a great deal of context.