Date ended: Thursday September 7thTopic: Which NBA championship team from the past (exluding the 90's and 00's) would be the best team to be able to compete with the best teams today?Rules: Keep it clean, No need to throw put instults and harmful remarks. You guys can just go at it unti the due date, Debate like crazy. If you both agree with the topic, See if you can prove your opponents points wrong, If you agree to the extent where there is nothing to debate about, Then say something and we will get you a new topic.Good luck.
The 1985 Los Angeles Lakers.I would love to pick one of the great Celtics teams, but I feel lack of sheer athleticism would hurt them against some teams today. I pick the Lakers. They had it all: the size, the strength, the coaching, the stars, the fundamentals, the athleticism, mentality, and most of all - chemistry. This team won over 60 games and they would do very close to the same in the league today.Magic JohnsonMagic Johnson is a top 3 player of all-time and easily one of the best passers of all time. He was a 6'9'' PG (that could play all 5 positions, mind you) that was a true leader, could run the floor, would find any open man and maybe even find you if you aren't open, the post game. He had the flair in his game but he always kept it conservative and he wasn't turnover prone. I feel his overall knowlege of the game, size, overall skill, court vision, and leadership would physically break down any PG in the NBA today. The closest thing we have to Magic right now is Jason Kidd and he's 5-6 inches shorter. He would walk all over Nash and his poor defense. Magic is just the best PG of all-time and nobody in the league today would reckon with him.Kareem Abdul-JabbarThe NBA's all-time leading scorer. Enough said right there really. He was very long, athletic, strong, and could score in many ways. The NBA's lackluster defense (especially when talking about centers, give or take a Ben Wallace or a Zo) wouldn't know what to do with Kareem's Sky Hook. And yes I capitalized "Sky Hook" because this guy originated this and he could pull it off in the closing seconds of the game with no problems. He would score on our centers all day. There are only a select few of centers in the league today that could give Kareem any kind of problems.James WorthyThe energizer. He would dunk on anyone, regardless of their size. He hustled his ass off every second of the game and unless he had a broken bone nothing stopped him. He rebounded with the best of them at his position. He, along with Magic/Kareem/McAdoo (from this team), was a Hall of Famer. There is a reason for that. I think Worthy's competitiveness and toughness along with his skill would cause a lot of problems to the forwards of the NBA today.The role players- Byron Scott was awesome. Probably the best 4th option in the league at that time. It was only his 2nd or 3rd year in the league, and this was the year he broke out. He was given a few extra minutes and his numbers took a big jump. He took on a lot of the scoring load, he was a combo guard, and he was young/full of energy. This was just the beginning of an excellent NBA career for Scott (he's a very good coach as well).- An aging Bob McAdoo did more than his age (at the time) would suggest. He went on to become a Hall of Famer, of course, but his veteran leadership and physical toughness downlow was key for the Lakers in '85. He taught the young guys by leading by example, despite the fact that he was in his closing years in the league.- Michael Cooper: He was a great high-energy guy for this team. He was pretty athletic, he was a good passer and very unselfish, and he trived off transition feeds from Magic. He was the guy to re-energize the team when he was on the floor.- Kurt Rambis was a great role player for this team. He was goofy as hell but he was an excellent rebounder and he fought for position every time the ball came off the rim. He would teach the youngins of the league today a thing or 2 about actually boxing out.Pat RileyThe legend. He was a firey coach back then, but all the work paid off. He won championships for a reason. Sure, he had HOF players to work with, but he is the guy that molded the role players and kept everyone disciplined. Everyone on this team was on the same page and accepted their roles with no problems whatsoever. He's a top 5 coach of all-time, IMO, and he got his players to produce in any given situation (and still does).This team had it all, and I think every team in the NBA would have a REALLY tough time taking this 1985 Lakers team down.What you got Hang Eleven :boxin:
How can you talk about the Lakers, everyone knows that the 2005 Rockets are way better. I mean, they had HoF T-Mac, Yao, Luther Head...OK, just kidding.I was thinking about those Lakers, but in the end, I'm picking another one - the 1972 Lakers. The won the championship (obviously), not only did they win 69 games (a record that stood for 24 years), and win 33 games (a record that hasn't been broken, and I don't think ever will be), they also had three Hall of Famers (four, if you count Baylor).Wilt ChamberlainThis was his second-to-last year, yet he still averaged 15/19, not because he couldn't scored 30 a game, but because he was convinced by Bill Sharman to focus on rebounding and defense. He could have dropped in 40 a night if he wanted to, but he decided that, for the good of the team, he would let Gail Goodrich and Jerry West do the scoring, while he played the role of Dennis Rodman (minus the hair and the tude).Even in his last years, he still could beat Kareem or any other center.Gail GoodrichThis guy, was overshadowed probably his whole career, yet on this team, he was let loose, and he responded to the tune of 26 points a game. This guy is never mentioned among top guards, yet he was a lefty Hall of Famer, and could score with anybody (as shown in this year).Jerry WestThe third Hall of Famer, he not only also scored 26 points a game, he also averaged 10 APG, a very rare feat, to say the least. This guy was a supreme talent, in that he could settle back and let Goodrich take over, and simply pass to him or Chamberlain, or he could do it himself. Not often you see guys like that. And, of course, he was the Clutch man himself.On the bench, you had guys like Jim McMillan (another underrated guy), and Happy Hairston (still underrated, he averaged 10 boards a game, yet no one talks about it, and he averaged 13 that year, along with Wilt's 19).Their coach was Bill Sharman. Not as many rings as Riley, or as many wins, but it was he who convinced Wilt to just rebound, and West to focus on passing. He was the motivator of all these guys, the guy who got it into their heads that playing specific roles was better than all of them trying to just outscore the other team.This team was good not because it had Hall of Famers. It was good because it had players that knew their role and stuck to it. They steam-rolled everybody, in the regular season (incidentally, they beat Kareem and the Big O in the WCF). On the basis of indivual talent meshing together, they could beat the Lakers team that would come in 13 years, or any team today as well.
You basically just gave me the same reasons why this team could compete now as I did - players knew their roles, were unselfish, good coaching, some stars. But the thing is, the team I picked had more talent. Sure they won 69 games, but in a much less talented era. MUCH less.For their time, yes the 1972 Lakers were awesome. But the 1985 Lakers would definitely keep up with nowadays' talent/athleticism. '72 wouldn't.Jerry West - great for his time. But compare him to our SG's today (Kobe, T-Mac, Wade, Carter, Pierce, Allen, etc) and he wouldn't stand a chance. The players from the 1985 team would because they were more athletic and more physically gifted.My opinion, if you take the players from the 70's and earlier and put them in the league today - they would be laughed at for their uncoordination and goofyness. That's not their fault because it was a different era, before the "new breed of basketball" kicked in. But still, the '85 team could keep up, the '72 team wouldn't know WTF hit them.See, in 1985, they were used to the "new era." They were playing guys like Michael Jordan, Isiah Thomas, Dominique Wilkins, etc. Those guys begun the whole athletic add-on. The 70's players went crazy, watching their 1st ever dunk contest. The 1985 players were laughing at the old footage and topping it with little effort.The game changed drastically from 1972 to 1985, and the lack of athleticism and a lot of the players' coordination would kill the '72 team. Magic, Worthy, Kareem, Scott, etc. - they could keep up. They were used to that style of play. The 70's (and before) was all fundamentals, very little athleticism, and less coordination than the 2000's, even the mid-late 80's.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You basically just gave me the same reasons why this team could compete now as I did - players knew their roles, were unselfish, good coaching, some stars. But the thing is, the team I picked had more talent. Sure they won 69 games, but in a much less talented era. MUCH less.For their time, yes the 1972 Lakers were awesome. But the 1985 Lakers would definitely keep up with nowadays' talent/athleticism. '72 wouldn't.Jerry West - great for his time. But compare him to our SG's today (Kobe, T-Mac, Wade, Carter, Pierce, Allen, etc) and he wouldn't stand a chance. The players from the 1985 team would because they were more athletic and more physically gifted.My opinion, if you take the players from the 70's and earlier and put them in the league today - they would be laughed at for their uncoordination and goofyness. That's not their fault because it was a different era, before the "new breed of basketball" kicked in. But still, the '85 team could keep up, the '72 team wouldn't know WTF hit them.See, in 1985, they were used to the "new era." They were playing guys like Michael Jordan, Isiah Thomas, Dominique Wilkins, etc. Those guys begun the whole athletic add-on. The 70's players went crazy, watching their 1st ever dunk contest. The 1985 players were laughing at the old footage and topping it with little effort.The game changed drastically from 1972 to 1985, and the lack of athleticism and a lot of the players' coordination would kill the '72 team. Magic, Worthy, Kareem, Scott, etc. - they could keep up. They were used to that style of play. The 70's (and before) was all fundamentals, very little athleticism, and less coordination than the 2000's, even the mid-late 80's.</div>1. Athleticism and all is relative. If the '85 or '72 Lakers were playing today, then their players would be just as athletic as the Lebron and Kobe and so on. 2. You're completly forgetting Wilt Chamberlain (or maybe you just wanted to). Wilt, as I stated a few months ago in a debate with Nitro, is the most athletic big man ever. He blows everyone away with his vertical, his speed, his long arms, everything. He would definitely be able to matchup with the KGs and Dirks of today, and he might even be better than he was if he had the modern equipment and so on.3. Athleticism is not crucial to winning. Ya, would like it, of course. But you want a recent example of an unathletic team beating an athletic team? Greece beating the US. The US had all the talent in the world, and they were way, way more athletic than any other country. They were better even then a team of International All-Stars. Greece didn't play the US at their own game. They didn't beat them with speed or strength or one-on-one play. They beat them because they played a team game, played it their way.Even if they didn't have athleticism (excluding Wilt), they could still win today because, as I said, each starter and bench player knew their role. Goodrich scored, West passed, Wilt rebounded and played defense. That is a definition of a good team- five guys that each had individual talents that, when blended with the other four, was just about unstoppable. 4. I disagree with the statement that the talent pool was less. First of all, their were 17 teams in '72 (23 in '85). Since there were less players to choose from (only Americans), then they had less teams. Once the international players came in, then the NBA got up to 30 teams (and they could expand even more, since there's many, many places that could produce many more quality players). If anything, the talent pool was more diluted in '85, because there were 6 more teams, but the international players hadn't started coming in yet (that didn't come until the 90s, until after the Dream Team).
What? Are you kidding me? If you take the exact Jerry West from 1972 and put him on the court with Kobe Bryant of now - West would be laughed at and Kobe would blow him away. We are talking about the 1972 Jerry West, not "if West came out in 2000." The athleticism of today would physically blow the minds of the 70's players. Oh, I didn't forget about Wilt the Stilt. He was extremely athletic, no question. But instead of singling just him out of the pack, why not compare the athleticism of the whole team to the 1985 whole team. On the whole, the athleticism for the 1985 team is WAAAY ahead of 1972. Very true, but the 2006 Greece team is more athletic and more coordinated than the 1972 Lakers. It's just physics, the way it went along as time passed by. Athleticism is not entirely crucial to winning, true, but the 1972 team was the total opposite of gifted athletes. They were vastly much less coordinated than even the Greece team today, and didn't have the basketball IQ we do today.That's the biggie - basketball IQ and basketball knowlege. We have developed so many things with the game since 1972, and adding that to the speed/athletcism of today - the 72 Lakers wouldn't stand a chance. They wouldn't be quick enough to get out in the passing lanes, our court vision and passing skills of today is 100x better than 1972 NBA teams, players are much bigger/stronger/more talented. The 1985 Lakers, on the other hand, could at least keep up with the vision, size, IQ that we have today. Hell, Magic is the one who embelished on the passing aspect. The number of players on the league has absolutely nothing to do with the overall physical talent level. The talent/physical gifted players in the league today are lightyears ahead of the 1972 talent level. If you put even Ricky Davis in the league in 1972 he would average like 35 ppg and he would be a superstar. If you put Jerry West in the league today he would never be talked about as a legend for anything. The difference is talent is such a large margin, it's not even funny, and the number of players/teams in the league then has absolutely nothing to do with it. I don't know how much more I can stress that.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Very true, but the 2006 Greece team is more athletic and more coordinated than the 1972 Lakers. It's just physics, the way it went along as time passed by. Athleticism is not entirely crucial to winning, true, but the 1972 team was the total opposite of gifted athletes. They were vastly much less coordinated than even the Greece team today, and didn't have the basketball IQ we do today.That's the biggie - basketball IQ and basketball knowlege. We have developed so many things with the game since 1972, and adding that to the speed/athletcism of today - the 72 Lakers wouldn't stand a chance. They wouldn't be quick enough to get out in the passing lanes, our court vision and passing skills of today is 100x better than 1972 NBA teams, players are much bigger/stronger/more talented. The 1985 Lakers, on the other hand, could at least keep up with the vision, size, IQ that we have today. Hell, Magic is the one who embelished on the passing aspect.</div>You're serious? Basketball IQ is better?OK, look at, say, the modern-day Lakers. How well is Kwame Brown using his "superior" athleticism and super IQ? Smush Parker? Seriously, IQ hasn't gotten better. It's gotten worse, if anything. Guys like Stromile Swift are wasted because their IQ is nothing near to their athleticism.It's called cerebral basketball. Playing with your heads. That's why the the Lakers would be able to play with today's teams. That's also why the Greek team won against the US.How much have they learned in 30 years? How to do a 720? How to shoot from halfcourt? You say Magic "embelished" passing. What does that do? He didn't reinvent the wheel. He might have looked great passing. He might have popularised the lookaway pass, but Maravich did that before him, and so did Cousy. Every heard the saying "Nothing is new under the sun"?<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The number of players on the league has absolutely nothing to do with the overall physical talent level. The talent/physical gifted players in the league today are lightyears ahead of the 1972 talent level. If you put even Ricky Davis in the league in 1972 he would average like 35 ppg and he would be a superstar. If you put Jerry West in the league today he would never be talked about as a legend for anything. The difference is talent is such a large margin, it's not even funny, and the number of players/teams in the league then has absolutely nothing to do with it. I don't know how much more I can stress that.</div>I think you're seriously overrating the difference between now and 30 years ago. History has shown the great players (and West is a great player), are great, even when playing in two different eras. Look at Kareem himself. He played from 1970 to 1989. He was good every single season (well, almost, anyway). He scored 28 PPG in his first season, and he scored 23 PPG in 86. Moses Malone (hardly an athletic specimen), played 21 seasons, from the so-called "unathletic" era of the 70s all the way up to the mid-90s (specifically 1975-1995). He had 35 PPG in 1979, and 20 in 1989. In short, great players are always great, whenever they are playing.
Yeah there you go, pull out 2 players (one who is arguably the biggest bust off all time, and another who was D-League material a year and a half ago). IQ as in knowlege of the game and new developments - yes it's gotten better. Stro wasn't wasted because of lack of IQ, it was wasted due to lack of work ethic. New plays, a new style of play, how to keep up with/teach the game with all these superior athletes, etc. Not just streetball and show-boating was invented.Right.. Cousy/Maravich started it, Magic embelished.. like I said before. Do you know what that means? Nice job looking all that up, stat-boy.You telling me stats of what players got in the 70's and 80's does not support your argument, nor go against mine. LOL really? Take the greatest player from 1935 and have him play 1 on 1 with Wade. The guy from 1935 would look like an uncoordinated geek that everyone makes fun of in gym class. Time changes, the game changes, and the talent level gets better as years go on.
If you watch him play, you can see he's just not smart. He takes bad shots, he turns it over, tons of stuff like that. And I'm saying: It doesn't matter. It doesn't add anything to the game. The lookaway pass isn't a fundamental pass tought by all basketball coaches. That's the chest pass and the bounce pass that are being taught.You're talking as if he invented a whole new aspect that revolutionized the game. He didn't. It's just another way to pass. You said that 80s players (specfically the '85 Lakers) would be able to match up against the players of today. You said that the players on the '72 Lakers would not. That's also implying that the '72 Lakers wouldn't be able to match up with their team 13 years on.I'm showing you the stats to show you that Malone and Kareem averaged the same stats (more or less), in the 70s and the 80s, despite what you saying that's there's a big difference between the two decades. Ah, but we're not talking about the 30s, are we? No, we're talking 70s and 80s.
But that's because he never worked hard to improve his game. The game itself, with passing, was somewhat "revolutionized" with Magic. After Magic you had Stockton, then you had Kidd, Nash, etc. People make passes nowadays and they say "wow, that reminded me of Magic Johnson." Sure, it may look like just a fancier style, but my point was that our talent level is so much more advanced now, compared to the early 70's. So you take the select few players. But total teams skill level and coordination, on average (give or take a Moses Malone type player), is very weak compared to the average team in 1985. It's just the way it works, every era there will be a more advanced talent level. The average NBA player in 1972 would not be as talented as the average NBA player in 1985, plain and simple. But remember what you said? You said, and I'll quote you: "In short, great players are always great, whenever they are playing." Great players are great players, whenever they are playing. Assuming that means whatever era, right?And even then, are you telling me the overall talent level of Jerry West = the overall talent level of Kobe Bryant? Get real. It's good to appreciate history, and I do, but you have to at least be real and admit that the talent level of a great player today is far superior to the talent level of a great player in 1972.
Exactly, he has no motivation, as many players do today. Unlike those 30 years ago. Somewhat quicker and a bit stronger, maybe, but talent...no, not really. How much has been invented since 30 years ago? How to do a 720? How to make halfcourt shots (actually, that was West's invention). The 72 Lakers were not an "average" team". They were the most dominant team, second only to the 96 Bulls, all-time. 70 years on, basketball has imrpoved, yes. But to say it went up so much in 13 years is false.No, Jerry West, can't match up to Kobe. But then again, neither can Ron Artest. Or Bruce Bowen. He's the greatest player of his generation (probably, anyway), the best takeover player (definitely), and he's obviously very unguardable.Plus, in a way, West wouldn't have to guard him well anyway. With a backline anchored by Wilt Chamberlain, any guard would look good. Wilt would be more than enough to encourage any player, even Kobe (eventually) to operate exclusively on the perimeter.
I know a few kids that tried out for my high school basketball team last year with all the motivation in the world and they worked at their game a lot. Without the talent motivation doesn't prevail. How to do a 720? How to make halfcourt shots? - that's the 2nd time you have said that. Why?And West didn't "invent" it lol. The Lakers weren't an average team, correct, but the average player in the league in 1972 is less talented than the average player in 1985, simple. And the 1985 Lakers team was more physically talented than the 1972 Lakers. Exactly! West can't match up to Kobe. And James Worthy would do much better with him than West would. A big man would give Kobe Bryant motivation? See Shaquille O'Neal...To end this post, I want to point something out, and make sure you see this:This post is not about how the teams wer FOR THEIR TIME. It's about how that team would compete with the elite teams of OUR TIME. Huge difference. Because for their time, yes, they were amazing. But if you put those same exact players, without changing anything, that would not fair well against an elite team today. The 1985 team would have a much better chance.
[quote name='CelticBalla32' post='152897' date='Sep 7 2006, 02:48 AM']I know a few kids that tried out for my high school basketball team last year with all the motivation in the world and they worked at their game a lot. Without the talent motivation doesn't prevail.How to do a 720? How to make halfcourt shots? - that's the 2nd time you have said that. Why?And West didn't "invent" it lol.[/quote]I forgot I said that, actually. but, it emphasises the point that nothing has fundamentally changed the game. Look, the Lakers, as you achknowledged, were not an average team, they were a great team. A team of exceptional players. I just don't seem them not doing the same (or almost the same), in 1985 or 2005. By the way, this is my logic, using your reasoning, if you can follow me here.1. Moses Malone (and Kareem as well) dominated in 70s and 80s. You acknowledged that.2. The Lakers dominated in 72. They were not an average team. You agreed as well.3. Now, if an exceptional player could play the same in two decades, don't you think an exceptional team could do the same? And if they could play in the 80s, they could play 20 years later. You seem to have missed my point. West can't guard Kobe, and neither can Artest, or Bowen, or Tayshaun Prince. He's the best player in the game, talentwise. In the "takeover player" thread, everyone listed Kobe as number one (if they didn't, then they're idiots). And when I was talking about Wilt persuading Kobe, I meant on defense. In other words, if Kobe had the ball, then Kobe would be persuaded to keep on the perimeter (eventually, after Wilt "learned" him a few times). I don't know how you connect that to Shaq.And that's why the Lakers were so great, because, as individuals, they all had weaknesses, but together, their strengths were blended together so they had no weaknesses. Yes, I see your writing. I don't doubt the Lakers of '85 would be able to compete with the teams of today. But I say that the Lakers 13 years ago could too, and could do it better.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I forgot I said that, actually. but, it emphasises the point that nothing has fundamentally changed the game.</div>But the overall talent level is much better.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Look, the Lakers, as you achknowledged, were not an average team, they were a great team. A team of exceptional players. I just don't seem them not doing the same (or almost the same), in 1985 or 2005. By the way, this is my logic, using your reasoning, if you can follow me here.1. Moses Malone (and Kareem as well) dominated in 70s and 80s. You acknowledged that.2. The Lakers dominated in 72. They were not an average team. You agreed as well.3. Now, if an exceptional player could play the same in two decades, don't you think an exceptional team could do the same? And if they could play in the 80s, they could play 20 years later.</div>2. The Lakers of 72 dominated, and weren't the average team - FOR THEIR TIME. Comparing them with teams of nowadays is a new ballgame. So when I agreed they weren't the average team, I mean for that era. Not compared to nowadays, or any team from the past 10 years.- Wilt would not have had it as easy if he came in going against Shaq. No way. Kareem got a taste of it, playing with the young studs in Hakeem, Ewing, etc. Wilt went against some good players, sure, but nobody consisting of the physical dominance of some of the stars in the mid-late 80's.- West would not fair with guys like Kobe, T-Mac, Wade, Pierce, Iverson, etc. Those guys' talent levels heap over West's.- Goodrich could score. But I would love to see him put up 20 on Bowen, Artest, Kobe, etc.Now compare Magic with the PG stars of recent history. Kidd is a lower version of Magic, Nash as well (except for the size/versatility), and Payton was great. He also went up against Isiah, Jordan, Bird, etc. All the legends. Can't say the same about West or Goodrich can you?<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You seem to have missed my point. West can't guard Kobe, and neither can Artest, or Bowen, or Tayshaun Prince. He's the best player in the game, talentwise. In the "takeover player" thread, everyone listed Kobe as number one (if they didn't, then they're idiots). And when I was talking about Wilt persuading Kobe, I meant on defense. In other words, if Kobe had the ball, then Kobe would be persuaded to keep on the perimeter (eventually, after Wilt "learned" him a few times). I don't know how you connect that to Shaq.And that's why the Lakers were so great, because, as individuals, they all had weaknesses, but together, their strengths were blended together so they had no weaknesses.</div>Right, Artest/Bowen (actually, he does good)/Prince/etc. can't guard Kobe. But maybe you missed my point as well - Worthy would handly Kobe much better than West or Goodrich would. He still couldn't "stop him", sure, but he would do a lot better.I connected that to Shaq because a superstar big man doesn't motivate or change Kobe. We have seen that in Shaq. If they were mature about it, Shaq/Kobe would STILL be winning championships, and they probably would have about 5 together by now. Shaq didn't persuade Kobe to "keep out of his area", you think Wilt would? I think not.Every team has weaknesses. Every team. I don't know what you are talking about there. Sure, they blended together and played excellent basketball, but are you saying the 1985 Lakers didn't blend? They sure as hell did.Also, a question for Balla, or anyone that knows - the opening post says the deadline is today. What time, exactly, is the cut-off?
I don't think there is an exact time that the debate ends yet, so I guess let's just say that any post made after 12:00 AM ET tonight will be (or atleast should be) disregarded by the judges when we make our decision. That is just the way I look at it, but if anybody else has an opinion or an idea on the matter then feel free to suggest an alternative method.
OK, let me make a last statement.I have shown, through the course of this debate, that players from the 70s have done just as well in the 80s, and that players from the 80s could compete on today's level. I really can't or won't make it clearer than that. The opinion that the Lakers of 72 couldn't compete with the top teams is something I discussed in detail, as it was the whole point of the debate. I still say that a team with three Hall of Famers, a Wilt, a West, and a Goodrich, would be a contender. As I said (and CB agreed), exceptional players played as well in one era as another, and a great team like the Lakers can do the same.This is my last post in the debate, since I'll be gone till after the deadline.
OK I'll make one final post as well:<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>As I said (and CB agreed), exceptional players played as well in one era as another</div>I agreed that those players you mentioned did, but those were only a few players (Kareem, Moses, etc.). But at the same time, I didn't do searches and stat-crunch like Hang Eleven did. Never once did I compare stats of a player, I don't feel it's necessary. I did all of this based on basic knowlege.And like I said before, sure you have your Moses' and your Kareem's that played well in both the 70's and 80's, but at the end of the day an average player in 1985 is better than the average player in 1972. Plain and simple.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I still say that a team with three Hall of Famers, a Wilt, a West, and a Goodrich, would be a contender</div>Magic in his prime, Kareem a few years away from the end of his career, and Worthy in his prime is better than a trio of Wilt of 1972, West of 1972, and Goodrich.See, what you don't realize (or at least didn't point out) is that Wilt and West were in the closing years of their career. They weren't in their primes. I will take prime Magic, prime Worthy, and Kareem with 4-5 years to go over Wilt/West both in the final few years of their career, then Goodrich.And again, the 4th option of a young Byron Scott is awesome, plus high energy in Michael Cooper, rebounds/toughness in Rambis etc. I will take them mixed with prime Magic, prime Worthy, and Kareem with 4-5 years left in the tank over Wilt/West in the closing couple years of their careers, Goodrich, and a less talented supporting cast... any day of the week.The 1985 Los Angeles Lakers would fair much better against a more recent elite team than the 1972 Lakers.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I agreed that those players you mentioned did, but those were only a few players (Kareem, Moses, etc.). But at the same time, I didn't do searches and stat-crunch like Hang Eleven did. Never once did I compare stats of a player, I don't feel it's necessary. I did all of this based on basic knowlege.And like I said before, sure you have your Moses' and your Kareem's that played well in both the 70's and 80's, but at the end of the day an average player in 1985 is better than the average player in 1972. Plain and simple.</div>Once again, let me say this: Wilt, West, and Goodrich are not "average" players.And I used stats because I felt that stats (which are objective), could make a better point than if I used anecdotes and whatnot. It's not like I don't know it.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>See, what you don't realize (or at least didn't point out) is that Wilt and West were in the closing years of their career. They weren't in their primes. I will take prime Magic, prime Worthy, and Kareem with 4-5 years to go over Wilt/West both in the final few years of their career, then Goodrich.And again, the 4th option of a young Byron Scott is awesome, plus high energy in Michael Cooper, rebounds/toughness in Rambis etc. I will take them mixed with prime Magic, prime Worthy, and Kareem with 4-5 years left in the tank over Wilt/West in the closing couple years of their careers, Goodrich, and a less talented supporting cast... any day of the week.</div>Even in his later years, Wilt still could and did outplay Wilt (the Lakers beat the Bucks and Kareem in the WCF on the way to the title). And I would take 26 PPG from West anyday, whether or not he was old.And they had role players to provide energy, like Jim McMillan and Happy Hairston (not the nickname). Even if they were in their 30s, the Lakers could (and did) beat any team in their day or in the 80s, or the 00s.I believe this is legal.
