60s Dream Team vs 2010s

[Stu Jackson]

Greatness is greatness. You can't choose what era you are born in. The 60's had some seriously great superstars. I agree the talent pool was pretty weak but still, there were some great superstars.

you cant help it but you cant deny the superstars looked better because the mid levels stars and rank & file were playing other sports

if you watch games on espn classic you can see flashes from the top players but without competition from the second and third tiers the true superstars suffer for it

[Psileas]

i was a kid then and saw it happen the talent was definitely better

top stars look better when the rank & file are worse

not only would the depth on a 60s dream team suffer but the top 60s guys arent as good as they looked because they stood out so far above the rank & file

What exact part of a 60's Dream Team is going to suffer compared to a 75-79 Team?

[Stu Jackson]

What exact part of a 60's Dream Team is going to suffer compared to a 75-79 Team?

the bench if you put a starting 5 of wilt chamberlain bill russell elgin baylor oscar robertson jerry west that will be good enough to play with anybody. after that the 70s will catch up with gervins and bobby joneses and lucases and wilkeses who will fill out spots 6-12 on the roster

when a dream team played in the olympics stars dont get 40 minutes not because they cant play those minutes but because thats not how you play a fiba game

also the legend of the 60s players is partly due to looking better than the rank & file there was no second or third tier that could compete with the nba after the merger

[ClipperRevival]

you cant help it but you cant deny the superstars looked better because the mid levels stars and rank & file were playing other sports

if you watch games on espn classic you can see flashes from the top players but without competition from the second and third tiers the true superstars suffer for it

Yes, as I stated before, the talent pool was weak. And the game was still learning to crawl during that era, so the game wasn't as advanced. But like I said, you can't help when you are born. Greatness is greatness. And the 60's had some serious all time great talent.

[Psileas]

the bench if you put a starting 5 of wilt chamberlain bill russell elgin baylor oscar robertson jerry west that will be good enough to play with anybody. after that the 70s will catch up with gervins and bobby joneses and lucases and wilkeses who will fill out spots 6-12 on the roster

when a dream team played in the olympics stars dont get 40 minutes not because they cant play those minutes but because thats not how you play a fiba game

also the legend of the 60s players is partly due to looking better than the rank & file there was no second or third tier that could compete with the nba after the merger

No, they really aren't: First of all, my 60's starting 5 may have only 1 center, with either Wilt or Russell coming off the bench: So, Wilt and Russell may split time playing at their natural positions instead of having Russell play as a PF: Oscar, West, Baylor, Pettit, Wilt/Russell and then Frazier, S.Jones, Barry, Lucas, Russell/Wilt, Thurmond off the bench provide competition for a battle till the end.

70's had clearly more teams than the 60's, so having less 2nd and 3rd tier competition doesn't really mean much here. Not many 60's players were exactly random bench fillers, which is why most of them had normal length of careers instead of short bursts and quick fades. Lots of seemingly "random" bench players of the 60's would go on in the 70's with no trouble at all.

[Stu Jackson]

No, they really aren't: First of all, my 60's starting 5 may have only 1 center, with either Wilt or Russell coming off the bench: So, Wilt and Russell may split time playing at their natural positions instead of having Russell play as a PF: Oscar, West, Baylor, Pettit, Wilt/Russell and then Frazier, S.Jones, Barry, Lucas, Russell/Wilt off the bench provide competition for a battle till the end.

70's had clearly more teams than the 60's, so having less 2nd and 3rd tier competition doesn't really mean much here. Not many 60's players were exactly random bench fillers, which is why most of them had normal length of careers instead of short bursts and quick fades. Lots of seemingly "random" bench players of the 60's would go on in the 70's with no trouble at all.

but i said before our perceptions of how good the top guys were are inflated by playing weaker second and third tier stars

pettit and frazier werent in their primes at the same time and might not have been in the league at the same time. pettit also was not a natural athlete and picked up the game in high school and changed his position in the pros

you mention bench players but having two leagues meant there were more spots and weaker competition

those havlicek cowens celtics teams won so many games because talent was spread out

the pistol
dj

gervin
skywalker

dr j
bobby jones
wilkes

elvin hayes
maurice lucas

jabbar
bill walton
moses

that is a deep team

[Dbrog]

i was a kid then and saw it happen the talent was definitely better

top stars look better when the rank & file are worse

not only would the depth on a 60s dream team suffer but the top 60s guys arent as good as they looked because they stood out so far above the rank & file

With all due respect, you seem to either have a hazy memory or are just lying. 70s had the expansion of the league and thus easier matchups for the stars more consistently. There were only 12 teams in the league in '67 as opposed to the 22 in '77. You weren't facing top 15 players every night in the 70s. This is the reason depth didn't matter as much in the 60s and DEFINITELY doesn't matter if you have a '67 allstar team. I listed the depth chart and there literally are no depth issues. Combine this with the fact that they were used to playing abnormally large minutes per game (compared to now) and in shitty conditions. These dudes weren't standing out against "rank and file," they were standing out against stars.

[swagga]

do you people actually PLAY basketball? you do realize that a 60s team is extremely uncomfortable defending long shots? long shots which if left open are drilled by guys like durant/12 lebron/ curry/etc at a ridiculous rate.

On the other hand basketball is still physical these days, it's not goonish anymore but still physical.

Imo you people need to get out more and play the damn game. With any set of rules the 10s win. Lmao wilt reliable jumper, fcking dwight howard is more reliable at the ft line, y'all people living in another universe tbh

[Dbrog]

do you people actually PLAY basketball? you do realize that a 60s team is extremely uncomfortable defending long shots? long shots which if left open are drilled by guys like durant/12 lebron/ curry/etc at a ridiculous rate.

On the other hand basketball is still physical these days, it's not goonish anymore but still physical.

Imo you people need to get out more and play the damn game. With any set of rules the 10s win. Lmao wilt reliable jumper, fcking dwight howard is more reliable at the ft line, y'all people living in another universe tbh

One of Wilt's trademark shots was a fadaway from the post
lol @ implying West and Barry can't shoot at the level of players today. Oscar too (just from midrange...think prime Wade)

[Stu Jackson]

With all due respect, you seem to either have a hazy memory or are just lying. 70s had the expansion of the league and thus easier matchups for the stars more consistently. There were only 12 teams in the league in '67 as opposed to the 22 in '77. You weren't facing top 15 players every night in the 70s. This is the reason depth didn't matter as much in the 60s and DEFINITELY doesn't matter if you have a '67 allstar team. I listed the depth chart and there literally are no depth issues. Combine this with the fact that they were used to playing abnormally large minutes per game (compared to now) and in shitty conditions. These dudes weren't standing out against "rank and file," they were standing out against stars.

basketball wasnt a top 3 sport in the 60s when the playground legends of hawkins and pearl and even baylor and robertson came earlier it inspired kids

nobody cared in the 60s about basketball on a pro level and i mean nobody

you said 1967 but i guarantee by the time of the merger there were significantly more african american players

[Psileas]

but i said before our perceptions of how good the top guys were are inflated by playing weaker second and third tier stars

pettit and frazier werent in their primes at the same time and might not have been in the league at the same time. pettit also was not a natural athlete and picked up the game in high school and changed his position in the pros

you mention bench players but having two leagues meant there were more spots and weaker competition

those havlicek cowens celtics teams won so many games because talent was spread out

the pistol
dj

gervin
skywalker

dr j
bobby jones
wilkes

elvin hayes
maurice lucas

jabbar
bill walton
moses

that is a deep team

These guys were looking good even when playing against each other. Wilt was scoring big vs anyone. Oscar had volumous triple doubles vs the best guards of his era, Thurmond was giving everyone fits defensively, including the 70's greatest player, etc.
Concerning Frazier, the title was "60s Dream Team vs 10s", so I suppose I can pick any 60's player I want at any 60's condition I want. 1969 Frazier is already pretty good, although you may argue Wilkens, who was at his peak in the late 60's. Btw, I forgot to mention Havlicek before, he was also entering his prime in the late 60's.
Pettit was deemed weak and unathletic for his own era, as well, when he entered the league. I view him as a player who dominated by using his brain a lot, so I don't worry too much about his lack of athleticism.

[Dbrog]

basketball wasnt a top 3 sport in the 60s when the playground legends of hawkins and pearl and even baylor and robertson came earlier it inspired kids

nobody cared in the 60s about basketball on a pro level and i mean nobody

you said 1967 but i guarantee by the time of the merger there were significantly more african american players

Yes because you have to be black to be a star in the NBA

Again, you like to ignore my point of 60s players facing top15 players every single night (or even GOAT candidates!) and still shining. Psileas has now brought up this point as well.

You simply had easier matchups more often in the 70s. I'm not sure how this is disputable.

[Stu Jackson]

Yes because you have to be black to be a star in the NBA

Again, you like to ignore my point of 60s players facing top15 players every single night (or even GOAT candidates!) and still shining. Psileas has now brought up this point as well.

You simply had easier matchups more often in the 70s. I'm not sure how this is disputable.

you dont have to be african american but until there are enough in the league that in years after there arent noticeably more its a factor

facing top 15 players mean nothing if the second and third tiers are not there, it means aside from the other 3-4 superstars in a year you are constantly going against rank & file

[Euroleague]

I'd rather see a team from mid 80s to late 80s.

[Dbrog]

you dont have to be african american but until there are enough in the league that in years after there arent noticeably more its a factor

facing top 15 players mean nothing if the second and third tiers are not there, it means aside from the other 3-4 superstars in a year you are constantly going against rank & file

It actually does. I already discussed this in previous posts (see post #22)