Soundwave said:
Also by "fit in very well" I think Russell would be a decent player, but he'd be no where close to the best player in the game now. LeBron is way better than him. The only player from the 60s that I feel could legit be a top 5 player in the modern NBA is maybe Wilt because and even he would be nowhere close to a 50 ppg player and even he would have to make big adjustments to his game IMO. "Pro sports" was a joke in the 60s, most players couldn't do it full time and had to have seperate jobs and the like, the training was no where close to what it is today, the player development that starts today on kids basically from junior high onwards is radically different from the 60s, etc. etc. etc. Virtually every sport is far better today than it was in the 60s ... sprinters are faster today, the best swimmer today would murder the best swimmer from the 60s, the best tennis player from the 60s would get demolished today, the best hockey team from the 60s would get blown out today, etc. etc. I don't view baskeball much differently. |
Well Russell wasn't the best then either. In terms of individual skill, Wilt, West, Oscare, and Baylor were all better. Russell was just athletic, intelligent, and determined as all hell. As far as defense goes, he would be a fantastic defender. I mean, he basically invented modern defense and was famous for his reflexes and blocking ability. Where he would struggle would be offense. He was competent when needed back then but couldn't really make his own shot. He is best as a centerpiece of a well rounded team, as he is a great leader. Honestly, he would fit right in in this day and age where big men aren't as big nor as domminant and are mainly looked to for their rim and lane protection.
Wilt would be dominant I think in the current state of things due to the sheer lack of great big men. And he has enough endurance to run a team's big men ragged. And who is going to guard him? Iguadala? Tristan Thompson? Dwight Howard? Please. His stiffest competition would be the early to mid 2000s with Shaq. Would be an amazing matchup to see, being the two most physical and strong centers to ever play. Wilt's biggest advantage would probably be his range though. He could shoot from mid range and even fairly long range far better than Shaq. And we all know Shaq's advantage is his mass which he could use well. Would be epic.
But I think West is the most out of time player. I mean, he had a good 3 point shot before that was a thing. Give him a 3 point line that gives him better looks, an extra point for long range shots, and spreads the defense to make getting inside easier, and you would see a completely different player. And his flexibility was something else. He switched from shooting guard to point guard with like a few months' notice and immediately went from being the best shooting guard in the league to being the second best point gaurd in the league right behind Oscar Robinson with a high assists average. So yeah, I think West would be a top tier player in this day and age once he acclimated to the pace of things and the various rule changes.
And yes, most sports are better today, but I think Basketbal and Golf are the most complex to analyze. Rules changed a ton in Basketball, with the 3 point line completely changing the pace and rendering decades of strategy obsolete. And in Golf an enormous ammount has changed in terms of equipment and course design, making it hard to tell if modern players could play with all that old equipment on courses that were more about extreme precision than current courses (still think athletically today's player's are superior, it's a matter of technique here). Point is, in basketball I would say there has been a much less linear progression than with sprinting or swimming. Those are all the same, just go faster than your oponent.
Basketball's rules and call tendancies are night and day when you compare the old game to the modern game. And that in itself shapes the players. Look at Shaq. Would he be crazy physically dominant back then? Absolutely. But would he be able to play the kind of minutes needed? Probably not. That's not a dis on Shaq, he was built around his era, an era with a slower pace, a more spread court, and where you aren't expected to play as many minutes. Could he adapt? Absolutely. But then you have a different version of Shaq. Wilt is similarly built for his time, I just feel his is more flexible with what era you plug him into. Curry is another player who has benefited enormously from changes in call tendancies concerning carrying, fouls, etc. The ammount of space he can create for himself as a result allows him to be domminant despite being undersized and not very strong. He would even run into trouble in the mid 90s. Could he adapt? Yes, he could. Jordan did. The greatest of the greats can adapt to those kinds of things. It's all about boiling a player down to their abilities when analyzing them. It's never a clear answer though.