"If bill russell"

[Soundwave]

The "NBA" didn't even exist until 1946... the league integrated almost immediately as far as its own timescale goes, it actually was ahead of the civil rights curve in how quickly it integrated. And basketball has been around in various forms since the 1890's, and teams were often race, or ethnicity-built. Barnstorming semi-pro teams of Irish vs Italians, vs blacks etc. Why do you think there is a Boston "Celtics" team? It is rooted in how teams used to be built.

Also NBA scouts scouted everywhere. There were prominant black players playing on white campuses in the 1950's (Wilt, Robertson, Russell, Baylor are the most prominent names) but how do you suppose players like Willis Reed were drafted? He played for grambling, which was a "black"school... why didn't they overlook him? Because the scouts were everywhere... the NBA wanted the best players on the planet, period. NBA team scouts went wherever they needed to go to get them.

I suggest you watch:

"on the shoulders of giants" and "black magic" documentaries on blacks and early basketball, and their impact on the NBA.

The way you guys make it seem is like the NBA integrated in 1950 and it was all good after that (even though it would take almost 18 years for the league to be majority black) and everyone was cool, etc. etc. I think that's just laughably glossing over what things were actually like at that time.

The fact that it took so long and that things like a black starting five are notable achievements shows there was resistance.

Even a player like Russell, who should have been beloved in Boston was the target of many ugly racist incidents ... if the best black player in the game is being degraded like that, how many guys looked at that and said "f*ck that NBA nonsense". More than a few I would imagine, if LeBron James existed in the 60s and look at that and said "no thanks, I'm going to choose a different profession" I can't say I'd blame him per se.

This isn't the 80s/90s where black pro athletes basically live the life of a rockstar with monster pay cheques and adulation everywhere they go. The incentive to even want to play in the NBA was far less than it is today. Today if you have talent and the only thing keeping you from a pro career is some hard work, you're generally looked at as an idiot for passing that up even if basketball isn't your main love. The pay day is too big to ignore.

[Psileas]

So, going by minutes played:

1957: NBA is 13% black. Russell's rookie season, immediately wins title.
1960: NBA is 28% black, already more than double compared to '57. Wilt's rookie season, immediately dominates.
1962: NBA is 42% black, a similarly large leap in percentage points. Wilt and even Russell post career highs in scoring.
1965-68: NBA is 56-58% black, a similarly large leap in percentage points. Wilt and Russell completely dominate, sweeping all MVP's and titles.
1972: NBA is 63% black. The Lakers are led by 35 and 34 y.o Wilt and West to 69-13 record, win title.
1973: NBA is 66% black. The Lakers win 60 games, are back to the Finals.

Also, older threads and posts in the past have analyzed Wilt's stats against lots of black players.

Taking all of them into account, there's no serious evidence that the "whiteness" or "blackness" of the league played any serious role in boosting or hindering Wilt's or Russell's dominance and gives us no reason to believe that in an NBA 10%-20% blacker than in the late 60's or early 70's we'd be getting significantly different results. Age and injuries proved to be much more serious factors than the change of a racial trend.

[CavaliersFTW]

So, going by minutes played:

1957: NBA is 13% black. Russell's rookie season, immediately wins title.
1960: NBA is 28% black, already more than double compared to '57. Wilt's rookie season, immediately dominates.
1962: NBA is 42% black, a similarly large leap in percentage points. Wilt and even Russell post career highs in scoring.
1965-68: NBA is 56-58% black, a similarly large leap in percentage points. Wilt and Russell completely dominate, sweeping all MVP's and titles.
1972: NBA is 63% black. The Lakers are led by 35 and 34 y.o Wilt and West to 69-13 record, win title.
1973: NBA is 66% black. The Lakers win 60 games, are back to the Finals.

Also, older threads and posts in the past have analyzed Wilt's stats against lots of black players.

Taking all of them into account, there's no serious evidence that the "whiteness" or "blackness" of the league played any serious role in boosting or hindering Wilt's or Russell's dominance and gives us no reason to believe that in an NBA 10%-20% blacker than in the late 60's or early 70's we'd be getting significantly different results. Age and injuries proved to be much more serious factors than the change of a racial trend.

[CavaliersFTW]

The way you guys make it seem is like the NBA integrated in 1950 and it was all good after that (even though it would take almost 18 years for the league to be majority black) and everyone was cool, etc. etc. I think that's just laughably glossing over what things were actually like at that time.

The fact that it took so long and that things like a black starting five are notable achievements shows there was resistance.

Even a player like Russell, who should have been beloved in Boston was the target of many ugly racist incidents ... if the best black player in the game is being degraded like that, how many guys looked at that and said "f*ck that NBA nonsense". More than a few I would imagine, if LeBron James existed in the 60s and look at that and said "no thanks, I'm going to choose a different profession" I can't say I'd blame him per se.

This isn't the 80s/90s where black pro athletes basically live the life of a rockstar with monster pay cheques and adulation everywhere they go. The incentive to even want to play in the NBA was far less than it is today. Today if you have talent and the only thing keeping you from a pro career is some hard work, you're generally looked at as an idiot for passing that up even if basketball isn't your main love. The pay day is too big to ignore.

We haven't glossed over anything ...nor have we made incorrect broad sweeping generalizations. Which is what you've been exposed as doing.

[Soundwave]

So, going by minutes played:

1957: NBA is 13% black. Russell's rookie season, immediately wins title.
1960: NBA is 28% black, already more than double compared to '57. Wilt's rookie season, immediately dominates.
1962: NBA is 42% black, a similarly large leap in percentage points. Wilt and even Russell post career highs in scoring.
1965-68: NBA is 56-58% black, a similarly large leap in percentage points. Wilt and Russell completely dominate, sweeping all MVP's and titles.
1972: NBA is 63% black. The Lakers are led by 35 and 34 y.o Wilt and West to 69-13 record, win title.
1973: NBA is 66% black. The Lakers win 60 games, are back to the Finals.

Also, older threads and posts in the past have analyzed Wilt's stats against lots of black players.

Taking all of them into account, there's no serious evidence that the "whiteness" or "blackness" of the league played any serious role in boosting or hindering Wilt's or Russell's dominance and gives us no reason to believe that in an NBA 10%-20% blacker than in the late 60's or early 70's we'd be getting significantly different results. Age and injuries proved to be much more serious factors than the change of a racial trend.

Still by that metric, the 60s is the "whitest", smallest, and least athletic decade than any one following it.

Anyone want to seriously argue that? The Celtics won the majority if not all of their titles before the league became majority black.

Again another fact.

How many titles did the Celtics win in a majority black league?

I don't think it's coincidence that no other team since then has come close to that level of domination, it was a situational perfect storm for the Celtics where they got one of the two best black players early on in the integration process, had some of the better white players to go with him (something Wilt didn't), and then had a nice window of about 10 years to exploit it.

I will also add I think it's a crime that Russell didn't have a statue in Boston until like 2013. For shame Boston.

[CavaliersFTW]

Still by that metric, the 60s is the "whitest", smallest, and least athletic decade than any one following it.

Anyone want to seriously argue that? The Celtics won the majority if not all of their titles before the league became majority black.

Again another fact.

How many titles did the Celtics win in a majority black league?

I don't think it's coincidence that no other team since then has come close to that level of domination, it was a situational perfect storm for the Celtics where they got one of the two best black players early on in the integration process, had some of the better white players to go with him (something Wilt didn't), and then had a nice window of about 10 years to exploit it.

You've been ethered pretty badly here... we've shown that the "whiteness" of the league does not appear to effect the competitiveness of the superstars of that era, AND that the "whiteness" of that league was not nearly as predominant as you had initially tried to suggest. How badly are you trying to get exposed here, I mean you are still pushing this agenda?

[Soundwave]

You've been ethered pretty badly here... we've shown that the "whiteness" of the league does not appear to effect the competitiveness of the superstars of that era, AND that the "whiteness" of that league was not nearly as predominant as you had initially tried to suggest. How badly are you trying to get exposed here, I mean you are still pushing this agenda?

Just because you want some one to be ethered because you're threatened by their arguement doesn't make it so.

The 50s/60s was a predominantly white league for the majority of the time the Celtics won their titles.

Argue against that if you want, but you can't.

The fact that it took 18 years for the NBA to be "fully integrated" is pretty pathetic in my mind anyway. That's not something to be proud of.

[fpliii]

Just because you want some one to be ethered because you're threatened by their arguement doesn't make it so.

The 60s was a predominantly white league for the majority of the time the Celtics won their titles.

Argue against that if you want, but you can't.

The fact that it took 18 years for the NBA to be "fully integrated" is pretty pathetic in my mind anyway. That's not something to be proud of.

Not as pathetic as the fact that it took nearly twice as long for the three pointer to be fully embraced as a weapon.

Seriously though dude, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. No disrespect intended. I respect your opinion but don't see it the same way.

[Psileas]

Still by that metric, the 60s is the "whitest", smallest, and least athletic decade than any one following it.

Anyone want to seriously argue that? The Celtics won the majority if not all of their titles before the league became majority black.

What I and others argue is the extent that the latter leagues were bigger and more athletic. You think the difference is vast, I and others don't think so. You think that the athletes from now on will not develop much more due to the human body "pushing its limits", but the human body has already pushed its limits for millenia now in the face of the best athletes of any era, as it's been shown that even early 20th century Olympic athletes were not better than ancient Olympic ones. Whatever difference has been made ever since is due to PED's, roids and the rest of chemical boosters. If you consider them legit, be it, but don't pretend to know where our actual bodily limits sit - scientists have been proven wrong time and again when they tried to predict this in previous dacades. And even if we actually got there, having guys like Nash, Dirk, Love, 35 year old Kobe, 37 year old Duncan and others dominate is the final nail to the coffin of the "athleticism" argument.

Again another fact.

How many titles did the Celtics win in a majority black league?

So, from the mid-60's on? The majority of them.
From 70's and on, they won in 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008. In only 1 of these titles were they led by black superstars.

I don't think it's coincidence that no other team since then has come close to that level of domination, it was a situational perfect storm for the Celtics where they got one of the two best black players early on in the integration process, had some of the better white players to go with him (something Wilt didn't), and then had a nice window of about 10 years to exploit it.

No doubt they had the better material plenty of seasons. But the fact that after the 1965 season they won without having posted the best seasonal record shows they were more than that.

[jlip]

Somebody please show a picture of the 1986 Celtics which is often considered the GOAT team.

[CavaliersFTW]

What I and others argue is the extent that the latter leagues were bigger and more athletic. You think the difference is vast, I and others don't think so. You think that the athletes from now on will not develop much more due to the human body "pushing its limits", but the human body has already pushed its limits for millenia now in the face of the best athletes of any era, as it's been shown that even early 20th century Olympic athletes were not better than ancient Olympic ones. Whatever difference has been made hence is due to PED's, roids and the rest chemical boosters. If you consider them legit, be it, but don't pretend to know where our actual bodily limits sit - scientists have been proven wrong time and again when they tried to predict this in previous dacades. And even if we actually got there, having guys like Nash, Dirk, Love, 35 year old Kobe, 37 year old Duncan and others dominate is the final nail to the coffin of the "athleticism" argument.



So, from the mid-60's on? The majority of them.
From 70's and on, they won in 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008. In only 1 of these titles were they led by black superstars.



No doubt they had the better material plenty of seasons. But the fact that after the 1965 season they won without having posted the best seasonal record shows they were more than that.

Again, great post

[Soundwave]

What I and others argue is the extent that the latter leagues were bigger and more athletic. You think the difference is vast, I and others don't think so. You think that the athletes from now on will not develop much more due to the human body "pushing its limits", but the human body has already pushed its limits for millenia now in the face of the best athletes of any era, as it's been shown that even early 20th century Olympic athletes were not better than ancient Olympic ones. Whatever difference has been made ever since is due to PED's, roids and the rest of chemical boosters. If you consider them legit, be it, but don't pretend to know where our actual bodily limits sit - scientists have been proven wrong time and again when they tried to predict this in previous dacades. And even if we actually got there, having guys like Nash, Dirk, Love, 35 year old Kobe, 37 year old Duncan and others dominate is the final nail to the coffin of the "athleticism" argument.



So, from the mid-60's on? The majority of them.
From 70's and on, they won in 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008. In only 1 of these titles were they led by black superstars.



No doubt they had the better material plenty of seasons. But the fact that after the 1965 season they won without having posted the best seasonal record shows they were more than that.

I actually said I don't think there will be as big of a difference in athleticism in the future because there are limits to how far the human body can develop without aid of drug/technological implants which would likely be illegal.

So I'm not exactly sure what you're harping on here.

Kobe is a religious user of many modern supplements, the Lakers keep tubs of creatine and other things for him, that's probably helped prolong his career to a degree too.

For the Celtics, I'm referring to Russell's Celtics only. They did win pretty much all their titles in a majority white league.

[Roundball_Rock]

Somebody please show a picture of the 1986 Celtics which is often considered the GOAT team.

[CavaliersFTW]

Somebody please show a picture of the 1986 Celtics which is often considered the GOAT team.

4 black players, 8 white ones


8 black players, 4 white ones

Which decade is which?

[Soundwave]

4 black players, 8 white ones


8 black players, 4 white ones

Which decade is which?

You might have a point if by the 80s the NBA wasn't almost 80% black. That meant that even the white players in the game had to tailor their entire game to playing against that type of competition.

The 80s Celtics were the extreme exception to the rule for a basketball team in the 80s, in the 60s, it wouldn't even be notable for a team to look like that, it was considered normal.