JerrySullivan
Banned
True or False?
I personally think they would win at least one this era.
I personally think they would win at least one this era.
The 1960s Celtics would win at least 1 championship this era
- Thread starter JerrySullivan
- Start date
They'd win more
We're talking about a team that had like 1 guy over 6'7" and that one guy had limited offensive skill, right?
#15, Tom Heinsolm, was their leading scorer averaging 22ppg on 42%. Team as a whole shot 42% from the field that year. That's 42% on all two-point shots.
In the ECF they shot 39% and won anyway because they outrebounded the Warriors by 45. A team with literally 1 player over 6'7" outrebounded the other squad by 45.
In the Finals they gave up 41-18-4 to Elgin Baylor and 31-5-3 to Jerry West, and yet won anyway because everyone else on the Lakers was worthless. Baylor put up 61 and 22 in Game 4 of the Finals. Y'all think they're giving up 60 to Elgin Baylor but they're gonna beat someone in the 2010s?
#15, Tom Heinsolm, was their leading scorer averaging 22ppg on 42%. Team as a whole shot 42% from the field that year. That's 42% on all two-point shots.
In the ECF they shot 39% and won anyway because they outrebounded the Warriors by 45. A team with literally 1 player over 6'7" outrebounded the other squad by 45.
In the Finals they gave up 41-18-4 to Elgin Baylor and 31-5-3 to Jerry West, and yet won anyway because everyone else on the Lakers was worthless. Baylor put up 61 and 22 in Game 4 of the Finals. Y'all think they're giving up 60 to Elgin Baylor but they're gonna beat someone in the 2010s?
Last edited:
If you really want a great comparison, this is Game 7 of the Finals. 
Conscious Pilot
Do Better.
We're talking about a team that had like 1 guy over 6'7" and that one guy had limited offensive skill, right?
#15, Tom Heinsolm, was their leading scorer averaging 22ppg on 42%. Team as a whole shot 42% from the field that year. That's 42% on all two-point shots.
In the ECF they shot 39% and won anyway because they outrebounded the Warriors by 45. A team with literally 1 player over 6'7" outrebounded the other squad by 45.
In the Finals they gave up 41-18-4 to Elgin Baylor and 31-5-3 to Jerry West, and yet won anyway because everyone else on the Lakers was worthless. Baylor put up 61 and 22 in Game 4 of the Finals. Y'all think they're giving up 60 to Elgin Baylor but they're gonna beat someone in the 2010s?
If they grew up today with all the genetically modified foods we're fed and all the training and supplements athletes have access to then I'm sure they would be as good as any modern players.
You gotta realize that the past influences the future. You can't just teleport them to 2020 and not give them access to all the stuff we have had access to our entire lives.
Too small and too slow
you are stupid as fukk, no offense. All the genetically modified food in the world will not add 4 to 5 inches to your height
This team is too s.all period to survive today.
You have guards playing now now who are as tall as russell.
All the genetically modified food in the world will not add 4 to 5 inches to your height
This team is too s.all period to survive today.
You have guards playing now now who are as tall as russell.
Why are we getting taller as a species?
We've been consistently getting taller as a species for the last century or so. A big part of it is what we are eating. We have access to nutrition our ancestors didn't have and its led to bodies that are bigger. We accept that we're growing fatter because of these foods. Why is it hard to accept that we might also be getting taller?
Also you seem to be mathematically challenged. The human population has also exploded. So even if the average American has only increased slightly in average height, the fact the population has doubled means we now have double the number of 7-footers that we had just 50 years ago. That is one of the main reasons there are more tall NBA players now. Simple population growth.
If you really want a great comparison, this is Game 7 of the Finals.
At the end of the day these comparisons across eras make no sense considering how the present is so reliant on the past. If the 1960s NBA players didn't play the way they did and develop the game, how would modern players know what to do? Would you know how to euro step if someone didn't do it first? How about a fadeaway? Or a cross-over dribble move?
I used to be the type that shyt on athletes from past eras. Then I matured and learned that you can't have a Michael Jordan without a David Thompson. Its those players you are now trying to shyt on that inspired the players who you are trying to elevate. Basketball is no different than anything else in life. It evolves.
feelosofer
#ninergang
In order to make this fair you would have to give these guys modern NBA training and diet, it's too tough to say.
Russell would still be a great player, the question is would he have same defensive impact.
Like his defense was literally carrying inefficient team
offenses to championships
Like his defense was literally carrying inefficient team
offenses to championships
staticshock
Veteran
The Hornets of today will beat them
Are the mathematicians of today smarter than Isaac Newton (the guy who created calculus) simply cause they have had access to hundreds of years of additional information?
The present day Hornets might destory those teams from the 60s. But they're only able to do that based on advantages built on what those players in the past contributed. Take away that (just like if you take away Calculus from modern mathmeticians) then what do you have? Nothing.
Kinguno
The Immortal
Then that wouldn’t be them
Damn if LeBron played played in the 40’s could he handle the racism?