I have read all of the posts that refer to the Celtic titles of the late '50's through 1969 as having been won when the league was "in it's infancy".........actually that is not the case.....it seems that the modern NBA began at several different periods in time, depending on the age of the poster.......so, did the modern era began with the" Jordon years"?.....or with the "Magic/Bird Era"?....did it begin with the NBA/ABA merger?.......actually the modern NBA began with the advent of the 24 second shot clock and several other rules changes....before this occurred the  NBA was quite a different league.......with no shot clock teams could freeze the ball....before the rule changes after a basket was made there was a jump ball.....the new rules that changed the league  included limiting the number of fouls a team was allowed....the games that followed ushered in a new brand of basketball....I decided to look at the league's list of the top 50 players of the first 50 years.....now, we know that there will probably be an updated list and many names from the last decade will be added.....but looking at the list I found some interesting names....if you take a look at players who were in the league up to 1960 the number is 14:

Paul Arizon
Elgin Baylor
Wilt Chamberlain
Bob Cousey
Hal Greer
Sam Jones
George Mikan (only name on the list that did not play in the modern era)
Bob Petit
Oscar Robertson
Bill Russell
Dolph Schayes
Bill Sharmon
Jerry West
Lenny Wilkins

From 1961-1969 12 more were added:

Dave DeBusscher
John Havlicek
Jerry Lucas
Nate Thurmond
Willis Reed
Rick Barry
Billy Cunningham
Dave Bing
Walt Frazier
Earl Monroe
Elvin Hayes.
Wes Unseld

That means that during the time the Celtics won their first 11 titles, from '57  to  '69, over half the players on the list played in this era.....many others were added during the '70's & '80's.....

I believe this shows the strength and stability of the NBA before the league was expanded and, ultimately watered down.....and yes, I know the league is an international one now....but, top to bottom, the rosters were deeper and the brand of basketball played was better than we see today......I'm well aware that some on this board will disagree with me.....we are all entitled to our opinions right?

As a follow up to my last post, there are many out there that don't think Bill Russell would have fared well against today's centers.....but look at the names on this list that he, in fact, excelled against:

Wilt Chamberlain
Nate Thurmond
Willis Reed
Elvin Hayes
Wes Unseld

A few excellent pivot men not on the list has to include Walt Bellamy, Zelmo Beaty, and Walter Dukes....am I missing anyone?

Many of the players mentioned here I saw play. Many of those players would still be great players in this era.
    A quote from the movie Cobb, played by Tommy Lee Jones. In reno NV. a night club entertainer invites Ty Cobb from the audience to talk to him on stage. The entertainer asks Cobb. What batting average do you think you would have if you played against todays players? Ty Cobb replied " oh about 290." The entertainer replied, " why only 290?" Because I'm 70 years old you dumb ------.

Funny man......you know, today's athletes are bigger and stronger with all of the supplements and weight training....but they don't play basketball very well....sure they can run and dunk but the rules aren't enforced any more...I hate the 3 point shot....I think it's a gimmick and I don't believe a lucky shot from around half court should win a game by one point at the end....get the 3 pointer out of the game...just my opinion.....

There you go, Duke.

Thanks Dottie......you are a doll!!!!!

Great thread, Duke, and all's well that ends well, eh.

Lots of history there in your lists and it's wonderful to read those names and conjure up some images from old film I have seen.  I think you are right in many respects.  Even though only about 400? players are good enough for the NBA today, that's twice as many as when the number was under 200.  Of course there has been a watering down of talent even as there has been advances in nutrition and training.

And didn't the player of bygone eras have a natural dislike for players on other teams because they were fighting for the money and were not a fraternity of multi-millionaires.

You are absolutely right my friend.....these guys were fighting for championship prestige AND championship money back in the day.....the play was unbelievably physical especially in the mid to late '50's....Wilt Chamberlain was physically abused his rookie year and only his mild mannered temperament kept him from literally knocking an apponent out....thanks again for your help pal!!

Looking back at the centers Russ faced back in the '60's....they beat the hell out of the (very few) top centers of this league today....I mean really...take a look at the top flight, well rounded, everyday big men.....how many are there right now?  .....not as many as in Big Bills day....

The league began to be watered down with the intro of the Wolves, Magic, Hornets and Heat. Not to say that those towns don't deserve teams, but the quality of the basketball goes down a little in my mind. 

In Response to Re: NBA's 50 Greatest List and the Celtics:


Elgin Baylor was on that lakers team!

Should have emphasized from the championship Minneapolis Laker teams. Elgin only played two seasons when the team was based in Minneapolis.

Although I haven't seen any stories in the last 25 years regarding Baylor's history of knee injuries, I remember reading of the teams plane doing a crash landing during a road trip.....the story said that Baylor laid down in the back of the plane rather that putting the seat belt on....he was quoted as saying "if I'm going to die I'm going to do it in style"....at least that's how I remember it....anyone else heard of this or am I getting delusional in my old age?

Hey, speaking of a fraternity of millionaires, wasn't Bob Cousey's big contract for $22,500 the largest of the day.  Wilt got scorned for refusing an offer of $25,000.

These guys worked in the off season as insurance men, salesmen, labors, farmers and what not.  They had more or less ordinary bodies and mainly worked on their conditioning for the running and endurance part of the game.

What would a Cousey, Russell, or Chamberlain be worth today, given the advances in training and nutrition and the opportunity to be full-time athletes:  they'd blow the lid off of any of these guy's contracts.

Good point "ski"....actually Wilt signed a new contract for $100,000 around 1965 or so.....in a really cool move, the Celtics signed Russ to a new contract of $100,001....one dollar more than Wilt's....they said they figured they owed it to Russ to pay him more than Wilt based on all the championships.....true story man!

I just happened to check out Worthy's profile.....one of my favorite posters....and...she is a "chick"?  ......Man, I am blown away....and sorry, I don't mean to sound like a chauvanist....I love babes...err....I mean girls.......um....women.......anyway.....RU.....you are absolutely among the best I've read from the left coast.....keep 'em coming.....you are my type of guy...err....well, you know what I'm sayin' right?  ....no disrespect intended....as I said.....your posts are fun, right on, and respectfull.......you da....oh never mind!!

In Response to Re: NBA's 50 Greatest List and the Celtics:


LOL

Glad I didn't offend you there.....all in good fun.....and your posts are excellent...

The list below, couldn't you substitute names like Tommy Heinsohn, for instance for some of those names as well as a few other who played in that time period?

Paul Arizon
Elgin Baylor
Wilt Chamberlain
Bob Cousey
Hal Greer
Sam Jones
George Mikan (only name on the list that did not play in the modern era)
Bob Petit
Oscar Robertson
Bill Russell
Dolph Schayes
Bill Sharmon
Jerry West
Lenny Wilkins

Comparing players from different eras is always fun but always suspect.

Rules, how rules are called, styles of play, racial barriers, income motivation, training programs, star calls, an international pool of talent, and skill sets, are different in different eras.

Since there is no objective way to compare teams and players from these eras, it is not clear that any concrete conclusions can be drawn from a subjective list.

I do agree that the exercise can be enjoyable.

In Response to Re: NBA's 50 Greatest List and the Celtics:

Oh absolutely, Heinny could be added....I just went off the official NBA Top 50 list celebrating 50 years of the NBA.....

In Response to Re: NBA's 50 Greatest List and the Celtics:



I thought Tommy Heinsohn was from that era.  He played from the mid 50's to the mid 60's.

Oh he was.....unfortunately he isn't on the official list....unless I missed something....Tommy-Gun was a great player....also a championship coach and a great ("homer") announcer that would make Johnny Most proud....

I wasn't around to see Heinshon play but Russell has said that the only forwards who could touch him were Elgin Baylor and Bob Petit.  Heinshon never got the really gaudy stats because the Celtics had such a balanced offense. 

There were a of of players who could have made that top 50 list.  For centers, I could see Artis Gilmore and Bob Lanier, for forwards besides Heinshon, I can see Bernard King and Dominique Wilkens, for guards, Maurice Cheeks, Dennis Johnson and Sidney Moncrief.

I'm sure that there are others.