NBA - Bring on the Playoffs

[Greywolf2375]

Durant is now one game away from Michael Jordan's 1987 record of 40 games in a row where he scored 25 points or more.

Won't even be able to catch 2nd on that list & first is basically a pipedream in the league now, 56 & 80 games.

[Maithanet]

Won't even be able to catch 2nd on that list & first is basically a pipedream in the league now, 56 & 80 games.

Yeah, TNT and ESPN have been hyping MJ's streak (and Durant's chasing it) as "the longest in the past fifty years". I think it is interesting that MLB is a sport that embraces (even fetishizes) it's history, but the NBA doesn't seem to know what to do with it.

You would be hard pressed to argue that any player has been as dominant athletically (against his peers) as Wilt Chamberlain. And while the NBA loves to present MJ as the "greatest winner/champion in sports", his six titles are a shadow of the 11 championships in 13 years that Bill Russell achieved. And yet when young guys like Durant and James get asked about the greatest players ever, neither Russell nor Chamberlain is even mentioned.

There are an AWFUL lot of NBA records that are just never going to fall because of those two guys:

Scoring in a game (Chamberlain 100)

Rebounds in a game (Chamberlain 55, bonus fact, you have to go down 13 spots before you get to a name that isn't Chamberlain or Russell)

Consecutive Championships (Russell, 8)

Total Championships (Russell, 11)

These are legit, big records, not one of the bullshit records like "most points scored in back to back road games against teams over .500" that ESPN seems to love. And seriously, they're probably never going to fall because Chamberlain and Russell were just dominant in a way that can no longer be matched in the NBA, the athletic parity is too great.

[Jabronius Maximus]

Spurs are now 0-7 combined against Houston and OKC. Something about young athletic teams just disrupts the harmonious system of the Spurs.

Looking at the standings, I can see that a Clippers-Thunder 2nd round series is in order. I have a hard time seeing OKC winning that series, simply because they match up terribly against LA.

However it shakes down, the western playoffs should be very exciting, with so many great matchups. Problem with that is, the eventual WC winner will probably be the team that had favourable matchups, not necessarily the 'best' one. Contrast that with the east, where the best team (the heat) will win it.

[Sir Thursday]

Yeah, TNT and ESPN have been hyping MJ's streak (and Durant's chasing it) as "the longest in the past fifty years". I think it is interesting that MLB is a sport that embraces (even fetishizes) it's history, but the NBA doesn't seem to know what to do with it.

You would be hard pressed to argue that any player has been as dominant athletically (against his peers) as Wilt Chamberlain. And while the NBA loves to present MJ as the "greatest winner/champion in sports", his six titles are a shadow of the 11 championships in 13 years that Bill Russell achieved. And yet when young guys like Durant and James get asked about the greatest players ever, neither Russell nor Chamberlain is even mentioned.

There are an AWFUL lot of NBA records that are just never going to fall because of those two guys:

Scoring in a game (Chamberlain 100)

Rebounds in a game (Chamberlain 55, bonus fact, you have to go down 13 spots before you get to a name that isn't Chamberlain or Russell)

Consecutive Championships (Russell, 8)

Total Championships (Russell, 11)

These are legit, big records, not one of the bullshit records like "most points scored in back to back road games against teams over .500" that ESPN seems to love. And seriously, they're probably never going to fall because Chamberlain and Russell were just dominant in a way that can no longer be matched in the NBA, the athletic parity is too great.

From my point of view, the style of play and the athletic parity argument essentially renders players like Chamberlain and Russell irrelevant to the modern game as far as records are concerned. It would be impossible to emulate their stats in the game today because there just aren't the same number of possessions around to do it in. Furthermore, the talent level and scouting tools available to modern players make domination on that scale functionally impossible.

Chamberlain played 48mpg - that gives him ~20-25% more time to rack up stats than most of today's players, but it also implies that the speed and physicality of the league was much lower. There's no way anyone in today's game would even think of trying that over the course of an 82 game season, even given the advances in conditioning and recovery available to modern players.

ST

[Greywolf2375]

Yeah, TNT and ESPN have been hyping MJ's streak (and Durant's chasing it) as "the longest in the past fifty years". I think it is interesting that MLB is a sport that embraces (even fetishizes) it's history, but the NBA doesn't seem to know what to do with it.

You would be hard pressed to argue that any player has been as dominant athletically (against his peers) as Wilt Chamberlain. And while the NBA loves to present MJ as the "greatest winner/champion in sports", his six titles are a shadow of the 11 championships in 13 years that Bill Russell achieved. And yet when young guys like Durant and James get asked about the greatest players ever, neither Russell nor Chamberlain is even mentioned.

There are an AWFUL lot of NBA records that are just never going to fall because of those two guys:

Scoring in a game (Chamberlain 100)

Rebounds in a game (Chamberlain 55, bonus fact, you have to go down 13 spots before you get to a name that isn't Chamberlain or Russell)

Consecutive Championships (Russell, 8)

Total Championships (Russell, 11)

These are legit, big records, not one of the bullshit records like "most points scored in back to back road games against teams over .500" that ESPN seems to love. And seriously, they're probably never going to fall because Chamberlain and Russell were just dominant in a way that can no longer be matched in the NBA, the athletic parity is too great.

Agreed completely. Even some of the lesser records, like MPG - Chamberlain averaged over 50 for a season because of the number of OT games he played in & the fact that he never sat.

It's funny looking at the "Most Championships by Player" rankings - obviously with the string that Celtics had 9 of the top 10 are Celtics from the 50s/60s. First non Celtic...the Fresh Prince. Robert Horry with 7.

[Maithanet]

From my point of view, the style of play and the athletic parity argument essentially renders players like Chamberlain and Russell irrelevant to the modern game as far as records are concerned. It would be impossible to emulate their stats in the game today because there just aren't the same number of possessions around to do it in. Furthermore, the talent level and scouting tools available to modern players make domination on that scale functionally impossible.

Chamberlain played 48mpg - that gives him ~20-25% more time to rack up stats than most of today's players, but it also implies that the speed and physicality of the league was much lower. There's no way anyone in today's game would even think of trying that over the course of an 82 game season, even given the advances in conditioning and recovery available to modern players.

ST

Well, sort of. I agree that the NBA is different and that the records will not be broken. I disagree that it significantly takes away from Chamberlain to say that "the NBA is different". Chamberlain utterly dominated the league, and if he were born fifty years later, he would be dominating the league today (albeit with less flashy stats). I guess it sort of depends on how you measure "best" or "greatest" player, but I think that utterly dominating your peers is a pretty good metric.

That goes even more for Russell, who was just a winner at every level he played in. A championship is a championship, and he was the best player on 11 championship teams. To say that he isn't one of the Top 4-5 NBA players ever simply makes no sense to me. IMO, to put him behind a guy like Larry Bird, who won only 3 championships playing with two other Hall of Famers, seems just crazy.

[Sir Thursday]

Well, sort of. I agree that the NBA is different and that the records will not be broken. I disagree that it significantly takes away from Chamberlain to say that "the NBA is different". Chamberlain utterly dominated the league, and if he were born fifty years later, he would be dominating the league today (albeit with less flashy stats). I guess it sort of depends on how you measure "best" or "greatest" player, but I think that utterly dominating your peers is a pretty good metric.

That goes even more for Russell, who was just a winner at every level he played in. A championship is a championship, and he was the best player on 11 championship teams. To say that he isn't one of the Top 4-5 NBA players ever simply makes no sense to me. IMO, to put him behind a guy like Larry Bird, who won only 3 championships playing with two other Hall of Famers, seems just crazy.

Oh, I'm not trying to diminish the achievements of these guys. The conditions under which they played were ridiculous and at the time there were a lot of modern tools (conditioning knowledge, video scouting etc. etc.) unavailable to them. And I don't believe the top players were any less athletic than guys are today (for example), although their competition was not quite at the level it is today.

What I'm saying, I guess, is that comparing their achievements to those of the 'Modern Era' is a futile task. Given that in today's NBA it is structurally impossible to replicate some of their feats, when you're trying to see how current players stack up against historical benchmarks you probably shouldn't include the players from way back then.

ST

[Greywolf2375]

That goes even more for Russell, who was just a winner at every level he played in. A championship is a championship, and he was the best player on 11 championship teams. To say that he isn't one of the Top 4-5 NBA players ever simply makes no sense to me. IMO, to put him behind a guy like Larry Bird, who won only 3 championships playing with two other Hall of Famers, seems just crazy.

Sure, but Russell played with 7 HoF on his teams.

In my pantheon of Top 5 Picks ever:

Jordan

Russell

Chamberlain

Bird

Magic

I saw a couple weeks ago the All Time Draft with people like Barkely, Mchale, Chris Weber as the GMS.

Barkley had the first overall pick and went with....

Allen Iverson.

The whole thing is on YouTube, it's pretty entertaining.

[Maithanet]

Oh, I'm not trying to diminish the achievements of these guys. The conditions under which they played were ridiculous and at the time there were a lot of modern tools (conditioning knowledge, video scouting etc. etc.) unavailable to them. And I don't believe the top players were any less athletic than guys are today (for example), although their competition was not quite at the level it is today.

What I'm saying, I guess, is that comparing their achievements to those of the 'Modern Era' is a futile task. Given that in today's NBA it is structurally impossible to replicate some of their feats, when you're trying to see how current players stack up against historical benchmarks you probably shouldn't include the players from way back then.

ST

That clip is absolutely insane, I'd never seen that before.

I mean, obviously it is impossible to really compare players of different eras. Hell, even players of the same era can be really difficult to compare, as Chamberlain was probably a better player and almost certainly a better athlete than Russell, but Russell consistently got the better of Chamberlain in head to head matchups. How much of that is because Russell was surrounded by other HoF type players?

If we add in the temporal aspect, and the differences in the league, it is essentially impossible.

However, I take issue with the idea that NBA players today are bigger, stronger and faster than players 50 years ago, and therefore Russell and Chamberlain would not be great if they played today. The reason that players are bigger, stronger and faster is because of improvements in nutrition, weight training, and year round fitness regimes. If Russell and Chamberlain were born today, they would have access to those too, and would still be dominant players. Obviously, they wouldn't be as dominant, as Chamberlain wouldn't be playing 48 minutes a night, and the salary cap would prevent Russell from having quite so many Hall of Famers around him. But they would still be great, a damn sight better than Howard or Shaq.

ST, I realize you aren't making that argument, I just find it frustrating when people dismiss older players as inferior.

[Greywolf2375]

That clip is absolutely insane, I'd never seen that before.

I mean, obviously it is impossible to really compare players of different eras. Hell, even players of the same era can be really difficult to compare, as Chamberlain was probably a better player and almost certainly a better athlete than Russell, but Russell consistently got the better of Chamberlain in head to

Obviously, they wouldn't be as dominant, as Chamberlain wouldn't be playing 48 minutes a night, and the salary cap would prevent Russell from having quite so many Hall of Famers around him. But they would still be great, a damn sight better than Howard or Shaq.

ST, I realize you aren't making that argument, I just find it frustrating when people dismiss older players as inferior.

Russell is an absolute freak of nature; I'm not sure Chamberlain was a better athelete. Russell was going to do the high jump in the 56 Olympics if he hadn't been able to play on the hoops team.

I would LOVE to have seen Chamberlain or Russell with current training techniques, nutrition, etc against Shaq in his prime.

[Maithanet]

I would LOVE to have seen Chamberlain or Russell with current training techniques, nutrition, etc against Shaq in his prime.

Shaq is probably my least favorite NBA player ever (speaking simply as a player). His prime was a time when there weren't many real NBA centers left, and his unbelievable strength allowed him to dominate the league for a time. Shaq is like the most boring of comic supervillains, he's big, he's strong, but his not really good at anything. He can't shoot, he can only defend if you come to him, and all of his moves are just crappy copies of better centers of the past.

Thus, I am sure my bias is absolutely at play here, but everything I've seen and heard about Russell and Chamberlain says that they were long/strong enough to hold their own against his strength, whereas their superior mobility would be decisive on both ends of the floor. I think he would just end up frustrated and in foul trouble.

[Sir Thursday]

That clip is absolutely insane, I'd never seen that before.

I mean, obviously it is impossible to really compare players of different eras. Hell, even players of the same era can be really difficult to compare, as Chamberlain was probably a better player and almost certainly a better athlete than Russell, but Russell consistently got the better of Chamberlain in head to head matchups. How much of that is because Russell was surrounded by other HoF type players?

If we add in the temporal aspect, and the differences in the league, it is essentially impossible.

However, I take issue with the idea that NBA players today are bigger, stronger and faster than players 50 years ago, and therefore Russell and Chamberlain would not be great if they played today. The reason that players are bigger, stronger and faster is because of improvements in nutrition, weight training, and year round fitness regimes. If Russell and Chamberlain were born today, they would have access to those too, and would still be dominant players. Obviously, they wouldn't be as dominant, as Chamberlain wouldn't be playing 48 minutes a night, and the salary cap would prevent Russell from having quite so many Hall of Famers around him. But they would still be great, a damn sight better than Howard or Shaq.

ST, I realize you aren't making that argument, I just find it frustrating when people dismiss older players as inferior.

I think the distinction is that it does seem reasonable to me to attempt to compare, say, Magic Johnson and LeBron James, whereas there really just doesn't seem like any point to me in asking a question like "Who's better, Chris Paul or Bob Cousy?". It's a matter of degree, but in my mind at least there is a line beyond which discussing players in the context of old records is just silly.

I know what you mean about modern advancements floating all boats, but I've always thought that the benefits of those would be more likely to improve the marginal players rather than the guys at the top. People like Chamberlain and Russell were athletic freaks to the point that no matter what they were doing off the court they could perform at a high level. But I'll bet there were quite a lot of other players from eras past who never got anywhere near their potential because of the playing conditions at the time. In the modern NBA, those players don't fall by the wayside and the league ends up with a wider talent pool as a result.

One thing I notice when watching old footage is how thin everyone looks. I've read that this was because of the pace of the game back then - there was no room for lumbering players who couldn't get up and down the court, so everyone was built for speed. If you sent Shaq back to the 60s he'd have been left in the dust! But I suspect if you brought players ahead to today's game their comparative lack of muscle might set them back a bit.

ST

[Greywolf2375]

Shaq is probably my least favorite NBA player ever (speaking simply as a player). His prime was a time when there weren't many real NBA centers left, and his unbelievable strength allowed him to dominate the league for a time. Shaq is like the most boring of comic supervillains, he's big, he's strong, but his not really good at anything. He can't shoot, he can only defend if you come to him, and all of his moves are just crappy copies of better centers of the past.

Thus, I am sure my bias is absolutely at play here, but everything I've seen and heard about Russell and Chamberlain says that they were long/strong enough to hold their own against his strength, whereas their superior mobility would be decisive on both ends of the floor. I think he would just end up frustrated and in foul trouble.

yep - same here. Chamberlain wasn't exactly pure at the line, but Shaqs inability to hit a free throw is one of the main reasons I thought his inclusion in the 50 was a little questionable.

[Jabronius Maximus]

Great win for the Raps today, with no Amir or Lowry. Starting to look like they actually might have a good chance against Indy in a series. Although they won't continue to shoot like 50% from 3.

[Sir Thursday]

Hmm, actually, I went and looked up some stats on Chamberlain and I was completely wrong about the strength stuff. He definitely could have held his own against Shaq physically.

Chamberlain:

Height: 7'1"

Wingspan: 7'8"

Standing Reach: 9'7"

Playing Weight: 250 pounds as a rookie, 310 pounds by end of career.

Shaq:

Height: 7'0"

Wingspan: 7'7"

Standing Reach: 9'5"

Playing Weight: 303 pounds as a rookie, 325 pounds by end of career.

So pretty similar, really!

ST

[Slurktan]

yep - same here. Chamberlain wasn't exactly pure at the line, but Shaqs inability to hit a free throw is one of the main reasons I thought his inclusion in the 50 was a little questionable.

Chamberlain was also hurt free throw wise by the rule changes put in by the NCAA and NBA to expressly stop his style as he used to dunk them when they allowed crossing the line.

[Calibandar]

Yeah, TNT and ESPN have been hyping MJ's streak (and Durant's chasing it) as "the longest in the past fifty years". I think it is interesting that MLB is a sport that embraces (even fetishizes) it's history, but the NBA doesn't seem to know what to do with it.

You would be hard pressed to argue that any player has been as dominant athletically (against his peers) as Wilt Chamberlain. And while the NBA loves to present MJ as the "greatest winner/champion in sports", his six titles are a shadow of the 11 championships in 13 years that Bill Russell achieved. And yet when young guys like Durant and James get asked about the greatest players ever, neither Russell nor Chamberlain is even mentioned.

It's just too long ago I guess. You have to acknowledge that Chamberlain and Bill Russell played in the same sport, but the sport has changed so much that the records of that time don't mean much more than to say, "in that period, these guys were the absolute top dogs and they were legendary". But you cannot compare it to today anymore.

This is different to players like Magic, Jordan, Olajuwon etc who still played in era that we can comfortably recall and while we can see that game changed since the 80's and 90's, it's still more recognizable than when Russell, Wilt and early Kareem played in the 60's. It's a bit like comparing the Tour de France winners today to the guys who won 5 or 6 times in a row 50 years ago, there is just a much broader group of talent at work.

Now having said that, this thread has made me look at some Chamberlain and Kareem videos on youtube and you can't deny these guys were legitimate monsters. I fail to see how someone like Chamberlain wouldn't still be the best center in the league today. I don't see a center at the moment with that kind of size and profile. He'd have been less dominant for sure, and would have had a tougher opponent center in every NBA game he played, but you'd still see him as dominant and the best. This guy was enormous and skilled.

[Maithanet]

One thing I notice when watching old footage is how thin everyone looks. I've read that this was because of the pace of the game back then - there was no room for lumbering players who couldn't get up and down the court, so everyone was built for speed.

That was just the game back then. More speed and endurance, less power and less physical.

Hmm, actually, I went and looked up some stats on Chamberlain and I was completely wrong about the strength stuff. He definitely could have held his own against Shaq physically.

Chamberlain:

Height: 7'1"

Wingspan: 7'8"

Standing Reach: 9'7"

Playing Weight: 250 pounds as a rookie, 310 pounds by end of career.

Shaq:

Height: 7'0"

Wingspan: 7'7"

Standing Reach: 9'5"

Playing Weight: 303 pounds as a rookie, 325 pounds by end of career.

So pretty similar, really!

ST

Which is why I said that Chamberlain was the more athletic of Russell/Chamberlain. Although Russell was obviously a top top athlete, Chamberlain was like a force of nature.

I agree that a lot of people imagine the great centers of yesteryear to be like those uncoordinated, 230 pound 7 footers who were only dominant because they are tall. But they couldn't be more wrong.

Now having said that, this thread has made me look at some Chamberlain and Kareem videos on youtube and you can't deny these guys were legitimate monsters. I fail to see how someone like Chamberlain wouldn't still be the best center in the league today. I don't see a center at the moment with that kind of size and profile. He'd have been less dominant for sure, and would have had a tougher opponent center in every NBA game he played, but you'd still see him as dominant and the best. This guy was enormous and skilled.

I think what I find frustrating is that really, the only fair way to compare athletes of different eras is to say "how dominant were they against the best players of their time?" And I feel it is safe to say that Russell and Chamberlain were both dominant to a level that will never be replicated.

If you want to discuss "best NBA players of the past 40 years", that's fine, but you need to say that, otherwise you just sound like a fool when you leave off those two.

[Greywolf2375]

That was just the game back then. More speed and endurance, less power and less physical.

Which is why I said that Chamberlain was the more athletic of Russell/Chamberlain. Although Russell was obviously a top top athlete, Chamberlain was like a force of nature.

I agree that a lot of people imagine the great centers of yesteryear to be like those uncoordinated, 230 pound 7 footers who were only dominant because they are tall. But they couldn't be more wrong.

I think what I find frustrating is that really, the only fair way to compare athletes of different eras is to say "how dominant were they against the best players of their time?" And I feel it is safe to say that Russell and Chamberlain were both dominant to a level that will never be replicated.

If you want to discuss "best NBA players of the past 40 years", that's fine, but you need to say that, otherwise you just sound like a fool when you leave off those two.

It was referenced earlier, but in the last 20 years there have been 3 performances of 30 rebounds or more in a game & Wilt alone had 6 40+ rebound games in 1960 aone.

It would be interesting today to see what position Russell would be playing - he was 6'9-10", so he could play center but I would see him being developed more through his growth to be a PF. And given training today, to see how offensively he would have been different.

re: last 40 years. Not even just those two....the Big O was 6'5", 220lb. For his first 5 years the dude averaged a triple double. I think part of the reason why he doesn't get more attention in the Greatest Of discussions is that he only has one title to his name and it came with Jabbar.

In current news, the C's were able to lose the toilet bowl game to the Sixers, almost guaranteeing Milwaukee the most ping pong balls and getting to a solid change the East will have the worst 4 records. It's funny that as weak as the East is, you'd think the tops teams would be cruising with their records - Miami (east #1 right now) would be in 4th in the West.

[Sir Thursday]

It was referenced earlier, but in the last 20 years there have been 3 performances of 30 rebounds or more in a game & Wilt alone had 6 40+ rebound games in 1960 aone.

It would be interesting today to see what position Russell would be playing - he was 6'9-10", so he could play center but I would see him being developed more through his growth to be a PF. And given training today, to see how offensively he would have been different.

re: last 40 years. Not even just those two....the Big O was 6'5", 220lb. For his first 5 years the dude averaged a triple double. I think part of the reason why he doesn't get more attention in the Greatest Of discussions is that he only has one title to his name and it came with Jabbar.

In current news, the C's were able to lose the toilet bowl game to the Sixers, almost guaranteeing Milwaukee the most ping pong balls and getting to a solid change the East will have the worst 4 records. It's funny that as weak as the East is, you'd think the tops teams would be cruising with their records - Miami (east #1 right now) would be in 4th in the West.

Worth pointing out that rebounding is a stat that was heavily inflated by the style of play back then. The lack of the three point line meant there was very little incentive to shoot from distance, so long rebounds were very rare. As a result, if you were a big man near the basket you were much more likely to get rebounds (as opposed to today's game where they are much more spread around the team because of the three point bombing). And when you were as athletic as Chamberlain was, that meant you could pretty much gobble up everything that came off the boards. The scoring records are more impressive to me.

From what I understand, one of the reasons why Robertson isn't more highly regarded is that he had what could be charitably described as a spiky personality. By all accounts he was very difficult to play with (though perhaps understandably so). Simmons put up an excerpt from his book about this a while back.

ST