What kinds of early players would be (almost)as great today?

[Fencer reregistered]

Basketball 30-55 years ago was essentially the same game as today's, but with a lot of differences even so. Biggies include:

* 3-pt shooting
* Much more athleticism and size
* More sophisticated dribbling
* More sophisticated defenses
* Less banging

So how does that help us decide which of yesteryear's greats would flourish today, and which would be at least somewhat outmoded? Some thoughts include:

* Guys who were great outside shooters then would be even more valuable in that regard today -- e.g. West, Havlicek, Maravich.
* Guys who were great shotblockers would be even more valuable for that today -- e.g., Russell.
* Guys who were questionable defenders then would be disasters defensively today -- e.g., Maravich, Barry, Cousy.
* The difference between good and great post defenders then -- e.g. , Wilt vs. Thurmond -- might not be so important today because post scorers are lame anyway.
* Guys who were great 2/3 defenders then would still be great today, size permitting -- e.g., Hondo.
* I'm not sure about guys who were great PG defenders then -- could West say in front of one of today's great dribble-penetrators?
* Great mid-range scorers then might be somewhat less valuable today because of the quickness and length of the defenses -- e.g. Big O, Gervin, Baylor.

How am I doing?

[TrueLAfan]

You're pretty far off in many of your assumptions.

Actually, there's no difference in size between older players and now. NBA players reached their current height levels in about 1965. The average NBA player in 1964 measured 6'6" barefoot and weighed 211 pounds. The average NBA player in 2007-8 measured 6'7" in shoes and weighed 221 pounds. And athleticism is a by product of style of play--older players were incredibly athletic. To be able to run at the pace they did for 38-40 minutes a game...modern players would have to drop a good 5-10% of their body weight to keep up without having constant injuries (or, in some cases, having a coronary).

I'm not sold on the "sophistication" idea either. As I study more movies of older NBA play, I find that defenses often are very good when the 24 second clocks gets down below 8 or so. But that happened much less frequently in the NBA prior to about 1972. Faster pace, more fast break basketball...having a "sophisticated" defense would actually be a negative since you wouldn't have time to set up. Shots were often taken in the first half of the 24 second clock. Man defenses dominated. It wasn't because it was "simpler" or "less sophisticated"--it was simply a choice of how to play. Again, the stylistic differences of play is the major factor in perceived changes in abilities.

[penbeast0]

Three point shooting is the huge difference, that and the opening of lanes allowing flashing to the hoop much more effectively (partially due to the 3 point shot, partially to refereeing differences, partially due to the lack of great centers, and partially due to shoes/equipment/steroids/athleticism).

There isn't that much less banging in terms of big men establishing post position (just watch a Shaq game, lol); the big difference is that refs/culture aren't allowing the undercutting of slashers/dunkers.

Defense isn't a lot more sophisticated, just has the option of zone now; if anything it is less sophisticated due to the much increased use of isolation offenses leaving more straight up man d.

Dribbling isn't more sophisticated, just fancier (and far worse fundamentals). Refs allow carries which they didn't used to . . . watch any NBA player bringing the ball up, they are carrying the damn thing half the time, even when not pressured. Sure, if you can do that you can go between the legs/behind the back/crossover more easily and . . . the other big difference . . . coaches allow it now where it used to get you a seat on the bench or cut.

As for size, the average height in the NBA has gone up less than an inch since the 1960s. There are a few more 7' plus guys balanced by a few more under 6' guys (more open game allows small men with speed or outside shooting more of a role) but the average height of a player is virtually the same. Weight is probably up a bit due to increased weightlifting (and probably widespread steroid use . . . NBA ignores it but I'd guess over half the league uses steroids . . . I certainly would at that level where a slight edge can mean millions of dollars). You are deceived by the fact that they starting listing players height in shoes during the late 70s or so plus they used to just list players' college weight (Walt Bellamy 225 pounds? He was Shaq/Stanley Roberts sized)

Similarly, weightlifting (again, with a strong assist from steroids) are probably the main reason for increased athleticism such as it is. The main secondary reason is equipment. Better shoes with padding and support v. the old canvas converse things allow higher jumping and more importantly, greater confidence that you won't turn ankles or blow out knees with acrobatic moves. There hasn't been a sudden evolutionary jump or anything.

Your final set of conclusions isn't bad. Less emphasis on post scoring deemphasizes post defense. More small, superquick guards present a challenge to even top defenders like West that was much less common in the era of big guards. Midrange scorers without 3 point range are (and always have been) the most inefficient scorers as a rule thus it used to be all about post up scorers (which includes Oscar and Magic btw) with jump shooters necessary to prevent packing in on the big men. Now the 3 point shot forces more extension in a defense. Not thrilled with your examples though. Oscar and Elgin were both superathletic guys who could take you to the hoop a la LeBron (though Oscar had the midrange game that LeBron is still learning), Gervin was not only one of the great slashers (the finger roll baby) but when his coach expressed scepticism about the utility of the 3 point shot, he stepped out on the court and sunk 20 in a row . . . he didn't use the 3 point shot that much but that's because at 6'7 with explosive speed to the hoop, he didn't need to (it's taken 30 years for coaches to recognize it's greater efficiency). It's guys like Havlicek that might not make the conversion well to 3 point shooting. Good range isn't always the same as 3 point range.

[HarlemHeat37]

I actually find it funny that people on this forum have laughed at me for thinking that a number of posters here are more credible when it comes to comparing the actual players and leagues, compared to players, media and some coaches..

I've learned much more about players and previous eras on this forum than I would ever learn from hearing the media's opinion or other player's/coaches opinions(IMO)..this thread is a good example..

[fivas14]

Pete Maravich would be the best player in the NBA if he was playing now instead of earlier.

Would easily average 40 pts and 15 assts atleast

[thegreatblaze]

Pete Maravich would be the best player in the NBA if he was playing now instead of earlier.

Would easily average 40 pts and 15 assts atleast

Easily, huh?

[fivas14]

Pete Maravich would be the best player in the NBA if he was playing now instead of earlier.

Would easily average 40 pts and 15 assts atleast

Easily, huh?

That's why I said it.

[thegreatblaze]

Pete Maravich would be the best player in the NBA if he was playing now instead of earlier.

Would easily average 40 pts and 15 assts atleast

Easily, huh?

That's why I said it.

How many players ever have even had 40 points and 15 assists in a game? Let alone average it. "easily", no less....

[Warspite]

Pete Maravich would be the best player in the NBA if he was playing now instead of earlier.

Would easily average 40 pts and 15 assts atleast

Green font needs to be used with sarcasm.


IMHO Pistol is a player that would have 1 or 2 less TOs had he not been 10 yrs ahead of his time (he still would be a TO machine like Wade though). Magic had similar issues but Jud Heathcoat and Pat Riley emphasized that if the pass isnt caught then its the passers fault. With Pistol nothing at LSU was his fault.

Every Player after 1963 or 1964 that was 1st or 2nd team ALL NBA would have np making an allstar game today. IMHO alot of PFs from 60s and 70s would be pretty effective today becasue we are seeing a return to a 2 SF or a PF with less of a powergame that was more common in the 60s. I was watching Rudy La Rosuo sp?? of the Lakers playing the other night and he looked alot like a poor mans Dirk or a more physical Sheed.

The 1960-80 players that I truely believe would not do well are mid-range game players that have high user rates and enforcer type bigmen. Just about everyone of the 50 greatest would start somewhere if they were to be playing today. Only the pre shotclock players are of dubious value.

IMHO its much harder to transition from 2008 to 1968 than it is to come from 1968 to today.

As far as equipment goes:

Paul Arizen is the 1st player to master the jumpshot but since he played in ballrooms (ballroom dancing) with lower ceilings his shot was flatter than anything today.

I have worked for the Bulls and Suns and have played on there floors. The basketball court of an NBA arena is a jigsaw puzzle of connecting sections that are set above the floor by about 2 inches. The court is hollow underneath and players can jump at the right spots on the floor and get the bounce effect similar to a rubberband. Add in 3inches of shock absorbing heal and it gives you as much as 6inches of vert. Playing on an NBA court for the 1st time feels like a trampoline. I for one would love to see al these high flyers play in Chuck Taylors (along with Zelmo Beatty, Rick Mahorn and Laimbeer playing defense).

[Fencer reregistered]

Interesting point on the shoes. I completely forgot that today's much greater leaping could be due to equipment, custom, etc. more than to actual athletic ability.

As for the dribbling -- I was a Celtic fan in the 1980s, and hence screamed about Magic palming the ball on EVERY dribble. (Basically, he'd catch the ball in one hand, throw it at the floor, and repeat.) So I recognize that the fancy dribbling is due to rules much more than to differences in ability. (Ditto the dunking, actually, as per a couple of posts above.) Still, it's something the guys have to respond to. Shutting down dribble penetration is a lot more challenging that it used to be, whatever the reasons.

Judging who could have hit 3 pointers is hard when there was no benefit in doing so, except in rare cases. The Gervin story is very suggestive. So, of course, are the instances of West and Maravich actually hitting super-deep shots.

Good point above re superior conditioning. Russell and Wilt routinely played 48 minutes in a game. KG -- a modern-day Russell in style -- is limited to 32 when his coach can pull it off, and never plays over the low 40s. Pierce also was so gassed as to be severely limited at the end of several playoff games this year.

[NO-KG-AI]

I actually find it funny that people on this forum have laughed at me for thinking that a number of posters here are more credible when it comes to comparing the actual players and leagues, compared to players, media and some coaches..

I've learned much more about players and previous eras on this forum than I would ever learn from hearing the media's opinion or other player's/coaches opinions(IMO)..this thread is a good example..

That's because what you said had to do with not believing Kobe hype.

and lol at the OP "post scorers are lame" LOL

[Fencer reregistered]

and lol at the OP "post scorers are lame" LOL

I hope you're LOLing in agreement.

If not, please be so kind as to point out which post scorers in today's NBA -- other than Duncan -- you think come even close to Wilt, Jabbar, McHale, Hakeem, or a younger Shaq.

Al Jefferson? Shaq of today? Yao?