Why was Bill Walton good at basketball?

[John Kavanaugh]

Russel and Magic both won NBA titles in their rookie season. I love how those other kids moms brag about how many points their kids scored with losing records. I hate mom stats.

[Kalen Braley]

Thought I would share this:

Julius Erving share his all time first and second NBA teams:

His first team consisted of Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell. All five of those players had retired by 1974, when Erving was still in the ABA. His second team gets slightly more modern, but not by much: Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Karl Malone and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

No love for Lebron!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/julius-erving-leaves-lebron-james-off-his-all-time-lineup-relegates-michael-jordan-to-second-team/ar-BB1g9UXx?li=BB15ms5q

[Tom Allen]

Completely unrelatedly (or not), I'm going to throw out the name Jerry Lucas just because we are talking about underrated players and he should be in some of these discussions (and also because he is from my same home town).  Amazing mind, but a great trivia question answer as well.  I'll not give away the question just yet.

[Tim Leahy]

Completely unrelatedly (or not), I'm going to throw out the name Jerry Lucas just because we are talking about underrated players and he should be in some of these discussions (and also because he is from my same home town).  Amazing mind, but a great trivia question answer as well.  I'll not give away the question just yet.

Which NBA player was also a professional magician?

[John Kirk]

Which NBA player was also a professional magician?

Without looking it up, maybe Calvin Murphy, though he is also famous for being a baton twirler.

By the way, your comment that the 80s Laker teams would beat up on the 10s Warrior dynasty is an equally valid opinion.  They were very tall and athletic.  And they had Kurt Rambis, who was the best player in my region when I was in high school.

I don't like Dr. J's all-time teams much.  He has somewhere between five and seven of the top ten right.  I didn't get to watch the stars from the 60s enough to know.  But I believe these old greats would have trouble guarding James Harden, for instance.  It all depends on how the rules are interpreted, but Harden's ball skills far exceed any of the old greats.  Bill Simmons, who wrote a very entertaining book called "The Big Book of Basketball", has eight of Erving's choices in the top ten, and has Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan in there.  I highly recommend Simmons's book. I could not put it down.

[Dan Smoot]

You guys are old, who is Bill Walton?

I am definitely feeling that way.  I get blank stares when I mention John Wooden's name.  It startles me when it happens.

[Tom_Doak]

You guys are old, who is Bill Walton?

I am definitely feeling that way.  I get blank stares when I mention John Wooden's name.  It startles me when it happens.

One of the coolest things on the wall at my office is a signed copy of the Pyramid of Success, which I received thanks to one of the posters on this forum.

[SL_Solow]

John,  The game and the rules change but certain skills are fundamental.  Harden is very skilled but unless you saw his predecessors in person or on film you can't compare them.  Putting aside Dr. J's team, do you believe he was better than Maravich with the ball?  I saw Oscar in person as well as TV and while he was not as flashy as Harden or Pistol, there wasn't anything that he couldn't do with the ball.  As far as defense goes, when the league was more physical and the eurostep was called travelling, Harden would have had his difficulties offensively and players like Robertson would have been just as they were, virtually unstoppable.  Current rules would have freed them up as I previously noted about Jordan.  I could talk about many ball handling wizards who did not have the all around games of players like Robertson (who did with a few exceptions) or the current greats like Harden.  But the current view that everything current is better is just hype in most areas whether it is politics, sports or GCA.  Science can build empirically on prior knowledge and it is the one area where we seem reluctant to proclaim our belief in advancements

[John Kirk]

Hi SL,

More debate!  To begin, I saw Pete Maravich play in person at least once for the Atlanta Hawks around 1971 or 1972.  He was averaging about 27 a game at the time.  He was very good, but I felt he was not an outstanding NBA player.  On average, his teams did not perform exceptionally well.

I don't believe I saw the Big O play in person.  I saw him several times on television with the Milwaukee Bucks.  To brush up on his game and style, I watched parts of three YouTube highlight reels.  The 1969 All-Star game was the best one.  You can see some of the passing brilliance and all-around court play.  One highlight film was an endless reel of mid-range jumpers, which show his unusual high release.  A fine player, very strong but neither fast nor a great leaper.

My general theory on this matter of comparing great players from those from 50 years ago is as follows.  I looked up a couple numbers.  The number of people who play basketball in the world today is about 450 million.  In 2012, it was estimated that 26 million Americans play the game.  Back in 1960 or 1965, virtually all NBA players were American, and the participation of black men had not yet been fully embraced.  Nowadays, the league draws upon a huge population of players from all over the world.  As a result, there are very few notable white American players, though there are many great light-skinned European players.  Tall white American athletes are much more likely to become professional football players and baseball pitchers.

I watch these highlights and Oscar generally dribbles with his right hand exclusively, sometimes with his head down, and I imagine him facing The Beard, a wizard who always has his head up, watching his team and his defender, dribbling effortlessly between his legs, waiting for the defender to make a false move.  The two guards are about the same size, and have experienced similar success in the playoffs.  It's a good comparison, but Harden has an amazing arsenal of plays, whereas Oscar only needed a small arsenal of go-to moves to dominate against inferior competition.

Thanks for reading. 

[Tom_Doak]

The last two posts get to the impossible part of the argument:  the modern player always has the advantage of greater training and athleticism, but you can't just say that the great players of the past wouldn't have gained anything from greater competition if they had to play in the present day.


Oscar Robertson [and Bill Russell, and Kareem] did what was necessary to become the best in the game.  He could not really have done much more than that.


No matter what era the teams were going to compete in, I think I'd want Steph Curry on my starting five.  His shooting ability would make all of the other players more dangerous.




EDIT:  Also, John, Tim Leahy's question was rhetorical:  Jerry Lucas was the magician.

[SL_Solow]

John,  You base your evaluation on a few views of Oscar with the Bucs who he joined after 10 years with the Royals where he averaged more than 42 minutes per game, led the league in assists numerous times on teams which generally had only 1 above average offensive player (the early Jerry Lucas with apologies to the old Jack Twyman), averaged more than 25 points per game regularly (often second in the league to Wilt) and was an outstanding rebounder.  All this when every team planned to stop him and after an outstanding career in college where he was known for leading a fast break offense.  Yes, he played a slow style with the Bucks.  He was acquired to get the ball to the young Kareem.  You may not recall but that team only had one player who wanted to run, Dandridge, and the offense revolved around the post with McGlocklin as the outside threat.  Oscar could go in any direction he wanted to when he wanted to, but in Milwaukee his role was as an enabler and the lane was always filled. I concede that he did less running for the Royals than he did in college but that was a result of the fact that, other than Lucas, who was truly outstanding in college and for his first several years in the pros before his body broke down, the Royals had no one to get the ball off the board to start a running game. Hence Oscar hit the boards and became such a good rebounder that prior to Lucas, he averaged a triple double for a year.  Its hard to consistently grab the board, lead in scoring and assists while also leading the fast break.  Don't judge him by the end of his career while playing in a style that reduced his creativity.  Dr. J may overrate those he grew up watching but he knows what it takes to play.  None of us will ever know how players from different eras would do against each other.  As I have said before, you can only compete with those you have the opportunity to play against and I believe that the best of an era would generally translate to other eras.  Having seen all of them dating back to the late 50's I am confident that the players identified by Doc would have been stand outs today.  Whether they were the "best" is a matter of opinion.  I won't begin to start on how people are underrating Baylor although he was not as good as Robertson.  I think I will return to GCA but always happy to exchange views.


Incidentally John, turning to an endeavor where you have devoted extraordinary amounts of time and effort, do you believe that modern jazz and blues musicians are worse than their predecessors or is that different?

[Jeff Schley]

A dynamic in today's NBA and perhaps sports in general is the player is looking out for themselves first and foremost. Our discussion on best teams or which players would form the best teams doesn't consider the following (which are big if's):

• Salary cap - you couldn't afford anymore than 3 greats on a team with salary cap.
• Who gets paid what and the lowest guy not bitching and holding out or demanding a trade. Of course never happened in the past without free agency, but in today's game and max salaries it will.
• How many shots a game or plays designed for them does the coach dial up? Will Harden be ok, with not jacking it up 15-20 times a game if he has Chamberlain, LeBron, Jordan, etc. to feed the ball to?
• Alfa males together sometimes make one or more realize exactly the pecking order and threaten their egos. Will Kobe feed Kareem in the post or be ok without being the #1 option?
• Allen Iverson (perhaps the best small scorer in the league) I can see getting into fist fights with Jordan or others when he doesn't show up physically or mentally for practice. "We talking about practice? Practice?" That wont' go over with the greats or the coaches and lead to problems.
• Coaching will be key. You couldn't have a Bobby Knight running the show or Norman Dale running the show passing the ball 4 times before you shoot. Are you taking modern players back to the 60's or moving old players into the modern era?  This will determine which coach is best. Ego was not nearly as important in the early days as in the last 20 years, it was about the team and winning moreso.

So we know it is all hypothetical, but if you endeavor for that the above would derail that exercise quickly if not considered. If you consider what maybe the best TEAM, vs a group of the best players I think it would be a different exercise.

EDIT: I'm not advocating for him, but an interesting stat on Russell Westbrook I just saw: Monday's performance guarantees that Westbrook will average a triple-double in a season for the fourth time in his career; Robertson is the only other player to do this, and he did it once, in 1961-62.

[Jason Thurman]

The last two posts get to the impossible part of the argument:  the modern player always has the advantage of greater training and athleticism, but you can't just say that the great players of the past wouldn't have gained anything from greater competition if they had to play in the present day.


Oscar Robertson [and Bill Russell, and Kareem] did what was necessary to become the best in the game.  He could not really have done much more than that.


No matter what era the teams were going to compete in, I think I'd want Steph Curry on my starting five.  His shooting ability would make all of the other players more dangerous.




EDIT:  Also, John, Tim Leahy's question was rhetorical:  Jerry Lucas was the magician.

This post kind of gets at a working theory I have: That the absolutely elite guys in any post-integration era could, in turn, have played effectively in any era.


I think Time-Machine Russell would be held back slightly by some offensive limitations if you sent him to 2021. But Rudy Gobert has offensive limitations too, and he's probably going to make 3rd team All NBA. It's hard for me to imagine that Russell wouldn't thrive defending the modern pick-and-roll, throwing outlet passes, and running to the rim on offense. I just can't see how he wouldn't be a really good player in any era, even if not quite an All Star as the game continues to evolve.


And you're right - Steph is lethal in any era, even without a 3 pt line but especially post-1979. Although it should be noted that, had he played in the 80s, he almost certainly would not have had this career because I don't think medical care was good enough for his ankles to have recovered from the major issues he was having a few years back.


That's where I struggle so much with comparisons between generations. It's not so much about the X's and O's and tangible skillsets. It's little stuff like Steph's ankles that only survive NBA basketball if he plays post-2005 or so. Or Larry Bird's hardscrabble, sometimes horrifying upbringing that turned him into such a fearless menace - I just don't know how he could've become the same badass with AAU coaches coddling him and telling him to shoot it all the time or whatever. I won't even wade into the factors that turned Russell into one of the wisest, most dignified, and strongest MFers that ever played any sport.


I think Elgin's skills were a little unrefined for a 6'5" guy in today's era. I think his athleticism would be a lot less overpowering in a globally-integrated league. But am I really gonna bet that a guy who averaged 38 a night moonlighting on the hardwood when he wasn't busy serving his country couldn't have developed a jumper?


I don't know. Sometimes you just have to appreciate things for what they were and are. Elgin Baylor lived an extraordinary life. He probably couldn't compare to James Harden in some ways... but James Harden will definitely never compare to him either.

[Dan Smoot]

You guys are old, who is Bill Walton?

I am definitely feeling that way.  I get blank stares when I mention John Wooden's name.  It startles me when it happens.

A treasure.




One of the coolest things on the wall at my office is a signed copy of the Pyramid of Success, which I received thanks to one of the posters on this forum.

[John Kirk]

Incidentally John, turning to an endeavor where you have devoted extraordinary amounts of time and effort, do you believe that modern jazz and blues musicians are worse than their predecessors or is that different?

Hi SL,

Now that you mentioned Jon McGlocklin, that makes me more confident that I saw the Bucks play once in the early 70s.  A very good long range shooter that would have benefited from the three point rule.

As you might suspect, I've thought about whether modern musicians are better than the "old dead guys".  It's not a precise analogy with modern athletes, but there are some similarities.  Modern athletes have superior training regimes and better nutrition than their elder counterparts.  Same as with golf, where the best players are larger, stronger, more flexible, etc.  Jazz musicians have displayed total devoition to their art for several generations now


The short answer to your question about jazz is that the modern musicians are probably better musicians, but I like the older jazz music better, especially the original small band swing jazz from the 20s and 30s.  Over the past few years I have delved into 21st century jazz a bit, enough to appreciate some of the newer music.  The more interesting newer music takes some getting used to.  Jazz has a longstanding tradition of creativity, and many pride themselves on creating something new.  There are distinctions between stylists who play existing styles (Wynton Marsalis generally falls into this category) and conceptualists who create new rhythms, styles and languages within the art.  The amount I love music is closely tied to how long I have known and embraced it.  Virtually all new music sounds foreign to me to some extent, and the new songs I choose to listen to grow on me gradually.  Whether these modern styles will ever surpass the popularity and appeal of the original jazz styles is yet to be determined.  They are a more complex language to me.


Thanks for asking, and yes, let's get back to golf, despite my relative indifference for the topic.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

The last two posts get to the impossible part of the argument:  the modern player always has the advantage of greater training and athleticism, but you can't just say that the great players of the past wouldn't have gained anything from greater competition if they had to play in the present day.


Oscar Robertson [and Bill Russell, and Kareem] did what was necessary to become the best in the game.  He could not really have done much more than that.


No matter what era the teams were going to compete in, I think I'd want Steph Curry on my starting five.  His shooting ability would make all of the other players more dangerous.




EDIT:  Also, John, Tim Leahy's question was rhetorical:  Jerry Lucas was the magician.

This post kind of gets at a working theory I have: That the absolutely elite guys in any post-integration era could, in turn, have played effectively in any era.


I think Time-Machine Russell would be held back slightly by some offensive limitations if you sent him to 2021. But Rudy Gobert has offensive limitations too, and he's probably going to make 3rd team All NBA. It's hard for me to imagine that Russell wouldn't thrive defending the modern pick-and-roll, throwing outlet passes, and running to the rim on offense. I just can't see how he wouldn't be a really good player in any era, even if not quite an All Star as the game continues to evolve.


And you're right - Steph is lethal in any era, even without a 3 pt line but especially post-1979. Although it should be noted that, had he played in the 80s, he almost certainly would not have had this career because I don't think medical care was good enough for his ankles to have recovered from the major issues he was having a few years back.


That's where I struggle so much with comparisons between generations. It's not so much about the X's and O's and tangible skillsets. It's little stuff like Steph's ankles that only survive NBA basketball if he plays post-2005 or so. Or Larry Bird's hardscrabble, sometimes horrifying upbringing that turned him into such a fearless menace - I just don't know how he could've become the same badass with AAU coaches coddling him and telling him to shoot it all the time or whatever. I won't even wade into the factors that turned Russell into one of the wisest, most dignified, and strongest MFers that ever played any sport.


I think Elgin's skills were a little unrefined for a 6'5" guy in today's era. I think his athleticism would be a lot less overpowering in a globally-integrated league. But am I really gonna bet that a guy who averaged 38 a night moonlighting on the hardwood when he wasn't busy serving his country couldn't have developed a jumper?


I don't know. Sometimes you just have to appreciate things for what they were and are. Elgin Baylor lived an extraordinary life. He probably couldn't compare to James Harden in some ways... but James Harden will definitely never compare to him either.

Thanks for the comments on Elgin.  His teams won in high school, college and the pros.  All the time you thought you were watching an individual all star with amazing skills, but in the end, without him receiving much credit, you were watching a savvy player helping lead his team to win after win.


It is futile to compare players and teams from different eras.

[John Kirk]

EDIT:  Also, John, Tim Leahy's question was rhetorical:  Jerry Lucas was the magician.

My first thought was that the magician might also be Lucas, but I was thinking about his amazing feat of memorizing the New York City White Pages phone book.  I read parts of his memory book many years ago.  I still have it on my bookshelf, I think.

[David_Tepper]

The Ringer rates the top 25 players in the NBA:

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2021/5/4/22416337/top-25-nba-player-ranking-lebron-james-nikola-jokic

[Jeff Segol]

This question is for Lynn, at the risk of retreating further into hoop nostalgia:


What was it like guarding Elvin Hayes in the (I believe) championship game, where you guys played a diamond-and-one? What if any advice did Coach Wooden give you about guarding Hayes, who was one of the great all-time one-on-one players?


Thanks,
Jeff