Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise
posted at 8/28/2011 6:06 AM EDT
In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise
[QUOTE]hold on pal....Sasha would rank as high as the 30th best player during the '60's....? Really....? ....he isn't even as good as Dave Gambee....trust me....I've seen both of them play... of course I'm not saying that there were only 100 guys good enough to play back in the day....I agree with you when it comes to growth and expansion...the Euro factor....the only thing I am debating is your opinion that the NBA was a bush league prior to Bird/Magic.....[/QUOTE]
If it was a predominantly white league back then (with only 20% African American players), no international talent (because the game was not globally popular), thus ignoring a big talent pool as of now, then how wasn't it a bush league as compared to today?
Yes, I say Sasha would be ranked as the 30th - 50th player. Let's look at the league roster in 1961 (the last season with 8 teams, 5th season into a Celtic dynasty that started in 1956-57). These are the players that I say would be better than Sasha:
Celtics: Heinsohn, Cousy, Russell, Ramsey, Sam Jones, Sharman, Sanders
Warriors: Wilt, Arizin, Gola, Rodgers
Nationals: Schayes, Greer, Barnett, Costello, Gambee, Kerr
Knicks: Naulls, Guerin, Garmaker, Sears
Hawks: Pettit, Hagan, Lovellette, Wilkens
Lakers: Baylor, West, LaRusso, Selvy
Pistons: Howell, Shue, Ohl, Ferry,
Royals: Oscar, Twyman, Embry
This list has fewer than 40 players, including the HOFers, all-stars, etc. It's not like all 100 players in the league were all-stars. And that's right. Sasha should be a reserve in general and possibly a part-time starter on a non-contender, comparable to the Phil Jordons, Bob Boozers, Johnny Greens, George Lees, etc.
some of the greatest players in history were in the league years before them....
And you should understand that Sasha being able to play in 1961 has no contradiction to this claim, unless you want to say ALL of the greatest players in history in the league years before them...
[QUOTE]and many of them were better than today's players when it comes to playing basketball....[/QUOTE]
And how do you know about that? In all sports that can be measured objectively (i.e. by time and distance) and subjectively (by degree of difficulty), the athletes have become better (track & field, swimming, weighlighting, skiing, skating, (gymnastics, figure-skating, diving, etc)
In team sports, the tactics, skill-level, athleticism, etc. had improved tremendously over the game of 50 years ago. Then all in a sudden, you are telling me that basketball is the lone exception, that many of the players back then were better than today's player. I have absolutely no reason to buy your blind belief.
how about this team from Philly in '66/'67....? C-Wilt Chamberlain F-LukeJackson-6-9 240lb banger F-Chet Walker...excellent player G-Hal Greer...excellent player G-Wali Jones..reminds me of "Downtown Freddie Brown".. 6th man......Billy Cunningham....the" Kangaroo Kid".....every one of these Philly players were better than Sasha in my opinion[/QUOTE]
Yes, congratulations. You cite one of the best single-season team of all-time (68-13) and tell us that 6 of their players are better than Sasha. I can spare you that. I have already cited the 1961 Celtics with 7 HOFers better than Sasha. I wonder why you didn't tell us about 1967's lower-rung teams, how their fringe starters compared to Sasha:
John Barnhill, Joe Strawder, John Tresvant, Don Kojis, Jim Washington, etc.
Was it because they are no better than Sasha?