Ten questions with Bob Ryan

The following franchises won NBA championships and later moved to other cities.
Minnesota to LA
Syracuse to Philly
St Louis to Atlanta
Seattle to OKC
Rochester to Sacramental
Philly to Golden State

Have any of the current teams honored in any way (banners in particular) their predecessors team or individual accomplishments ?

swish

Swish..

I know the Syracuse NBA Banner still hangs from the rafters in the War Memorial (now called part of the ON Center in downtown Syracuse. Not sure if Philly has anything in their arena honoring it.

beat

Thanks beat
I guess that I could call each team and find out. It would make sense if they did since the team (players) remained pretty much the same after the move. That is with the exception of Sacramental and Golden State which were proceeded by teams other than the original franchises.

swish

Outside,

I've briefly revived this thread because I found some stats that I believe are relevant to our discussion of relative heights in the 60s and 80s.  Regardless of what the genetic evolution may have been for the U.S. as a whole, the NBA in 1985-86 attracted players who were two inches taller than players who were attracted to the NBA in 1962-63.  So, whether it was related to genetic changes or nutritional changes or some combination of the two or whatever, I believe it's plausible that (1) either a Russell team playing in 1986 would have averaged 1-2 more inches in height than their '62-'63 level or (2) a Bird team playing in 1963 would have averaged 1-2 inches less in height than their '85-'86 level.

And, as I suggested earlier, the only real advantage the Bird team had over the Russell team was height, which is not—by itself—an indicator of superior ability to play the game of basketball.

What is the yearly NBA average height and weight?

NBA as a whole: 1962-63 - 6'5.5"  208 lbs

NBA as a whole: 1985-86 - 6'7.5"  214 lbs.

http://lmf.forumchitchat.com/post?id=867474


Sam

Sam how about 85-86 compared to now?

Cow,

The link I provided wouldn't work for me, but I had copied the information.  I happened to find a Mav's link that provides precisely the same information, as well as yearly salaries which were also in the site I originally used.  The only problem is that it's very difficult to copy the formatting.  So I'm posting the Mav's link which will give you the information from roughly the beginning of the NBA to 2001.  It doesn't go beyond 2001, I'm sorry to say.

I do recall, when I tried to find information back when this thread was fresh, that there was one site that said the mid-eighties represented the tallest the NBA has ever been.  Through 2001, at least, there is no year in which the average height exceeded the 6' 7 1/2" of the mid-eighties.

In my mind, this fact supports a theory that it was nutritional and training differences, rather than genetics, that caused the differences from the early 60s to the mid 80s.  And then, after the mid 80s, I'm guessing that the incremental differences in nutrition and training have been tiny compared to the changes between the 1960s and the 1980s.

Whatever the case, I'm still maintaining that the major advantage for the Celtics of 1985-86 over any of the Celtics teams of the early to mid 1960s were related to physical changes from era to era and were not related to being better practitioners of the art of basketball.  And, as far as physical advantages are concerned, I doubt anyone would debate the sheer superiority of the staying power of the 60s Celtics (including freedom from injuries) in a much faster game.

On a related but different matter, as I was watching the last preseason game, I realized how frequently I see medical wraps of any type on today's players.  In the 60s, the Celtics often looked like that famous Revolutionary War picture of the the three wounded guys with fife and drum.  I remember when Cousy had a deep thigh wound, and the trainer (I think it was Jack Fadden) invented a plaster wrap that weighed quite a lot and bulged out from his leg.  Despite the weight of the wrap, Cousy was still frightened that it wouldn't do the job if he had been kneed in the thigh again.  So Fadden took a baseball bat and swung it full force against the wrap.  Cooz didn't feel a thing, played the upcoming game, and (although I don't recall the stats) played well enough to lead the Celts to victory.  And, after the balloon game, I saw Russ and Sam cutting wraps off their thighs and parceling them out to well-wishers.

Somehow, it seems as though there are many more injuries (both serious and minor) these days than back then.  I have to believe that the evolution of the medical field has improved the methods of treatment and has also become somewhat more conservative in allowing players to get back out there after injuries.  After all, there are millions of dollars at stake with almost every player, compared with a few bucks and a cigar band with older time players.

If I find any more height data on more recent years, I'll let you know.  As it is, I happened to stumble on these stats only when I was looking for something else.

Sam

beat wrote:Swish..

I know the Syracuse NBA Banner still hangs from the rafters in the War Memorial (now called part of the ON Center in downtown Syracuse. Not sure if Philly has anything in their arena honoring it.

beat

Swish

Finally after a little searching I found the photo of the Syracuse Nats Banner that hangs in the Onondaga County War Memorial (now the On-Center) in Syracuse NY.



beat

I have watched them all from the sixties on. I can honestly say that Bill Russell was the best Celtic I ever watched. This comes from a die hard John Havlicek fan. His teams had so many talented players on the. When one retired there was someone there to take their place.
Remember, there was hardly an NBA game ever on television back then. It was easy to follow them with a guy like Johnny Most around and transister radios.

Picking a team from that era is difficult for anyone who,did not grow up during that time. Everyone of the teams mentioned were great.
There are times when I think the 70's teams achieved on shear guts. I can still see that leaner going into the basket from Hondo in the triple overtime game, or the battle between the Lakers annd the Celts in the '85-'86 finals, the recent title will always have a special place in my heart because we waited so long for it.

But, those Russell years are a memory I will cherish forever. So many wonderful players.

Oh, the joy of having been there!

Rosalie

beat wrote:

beat wrote:Swish..

I know the Syracuse NBA Banner still hangs from the rafters in the War Memorial (now called part of the ON Center in downtown Syracuse. Not sure if Philly has anything in their arena honoring it.

beat

Swish

Finally after a little searching I found the photo of the Syracuse Nats Banner that hangs in the Onondaga County War Memorial (now the On-Center) in Syracuse NY.



beat

Thanks beat

While Syracuse has honored the hometown champ, and the LA Lakers have acknowledged Minneapolis , the question still remains as to whether any of those cities that the winning franchises moved to, have in any way honored there predecessors championship.
swish

sam wrote:Outside,

I've briefly revived this thread because I found some stats that I believe are relevant to our discussion of relative heights in the 60s and 80s.  Regardless of what the genetic evolution may have been for the U.S. as a whole, the NBA in 1985-86 attracted players who were two inches taller than players who were attracted to the NBA in 1962-63.  So, whether it was related to genetic changes or nutritional changes or some combination of the two or whatever, I believe it's plausible that (1) either a Russell team playing in 1986 would have averaged 1-2 more inches in height than their '62-'63 level or (2) a Bird team playing in 1963 would have averaged 1-2 inches less in height than their '85-'86 level.

And, as I suggested earlier, the only real advantage the Bird team had over the Russell team was height, which is not—by itself—an indicator of superior ability to play the game of basketball.

What is the yearly NBA average height and weight?

NBA as a whole: 1962-63 - 6'5.5"  208 lbs

NBA as a whole: 1985-86 - 6'7.5"  214 lbs.

http://lmf.forumchitchat.com/post?id=867474


Sam

Sam,

While the information is somewhat interesting, I don't know what the source of the information or how reliable it is. If it's just going off what's included on rosters, that's not very reliable at all. As I mentioned in a prior post, Russell was 6 ft 9 5/8 inches and was often listed as 6-9, while Dwight Howard is 6-9 and is listed as 6-11; the listed heights would be used to bolster the argument that current players are taller, while the actual heights would show the opposite.

I do think players now are generally taller and heavier than in the early days, and I think this is mainly due to nutrition, training, and increased opportunities for taller people at young ages. But I also think the differences, especially in height, are overstated.

The one thing I can trust for current players is Draft Express, which measures all kinds of things about players entering the draft. "Official" heights and weights on rosters have something in common with fishing stories.

Outside,
 
As I tried to explain earlier, I had difficulty retracing the source from which I had extracted the information.  The URL I had posted to credit the source somehow didn't work on my computer.  However, I had copied the data in question, and it exactly matched the information on the Mavericks website I found. 
 
However, since you need the exact source, I've gone back and done additional research, and the name of the provider is The Association for Professional Basketball Research.  (apbr.org).  Among the properties owned by the APBR are:
 
BasketballReference.com
Databasebasketball.com
ProBasketballNews.com
NBA.com History
NBA Rules
NBA Transaction Archive
Statistical Database


You may be able to access it via the original URL I posted:
http://www.apbr.org/apbrfaq.html


I have to back into any access by first going to www.apbr.org and then clicking of "faq" on their website.  The extended information to which you will be sent includes not only heights and weights through the years but also a lot of other history such as average salaries through the years.



I trust this is sufficient documentation of the source.  Perhaps, if you wish to contact the APBR, they can fill you in on the exact details of measurement through the years.  In the absence of same, I trust the providers of Basketball Reference data to publish the best comparative measurements they could find.


By the way, Basketball Reference lists Bill Russell as being 6' 10."  This fact, I feel, casts doubt on any theory that the heights of older players are understated (and the era-to-era differences therefore magnified) in whatever data the APBR reported.


I agree that it was very possibly nutrition and training that caused much of the era-to-era height and weight differences.  The important point, as far as I'm concerned, is that whatever factors caused the differences, those factors represent physical evolution and do not represent measures of ability to play the game of basketball.  I see height and shooting accuracy as the primary areas in which the Bird Celtics might potentially have had an advantage over the Russell Celtics; and any such advantages would likely have been minimal if both teams had played in the same era.



And, if alleged era-to-era physical advances such as endurance and speed entered the equation, the Russell Celtics would gain ground (or the Bird Celtics would have lost ground) had the two teams played in the same era.  And the Russell Celtics already enjoyed a phenomenal advantage over the Bird Celtics in both respects despite their differing eras.  And any disparity of shooting mechanics would be similarly neutralized.  In fact, the only factors I can think of that would be greater advantages for either team if they both played in the same era than they exhibited in their respective eras would be the speed and endurance superiority that the Russell Celtics demonstrated even in an earlier era.



I think most proponents of the 80s Celtics in this debate feel the Bird Celtics would physically overpower the Russell Celtics in a head-to-head matchup.  But, aside from my contention that there would be little, if any, height and weight differences if they had played in the same era, there's another major fallacy fallacy in this reasoning.  You can't overpower what you can't catch—particularly when you're stepping on your tongue in the process.


It's rather ironic that the perpetual greatness (over time) of the Russell Celtics actually penalizes those teams in these head-to-head debates.  Because, whereas the Bird Celtics had that one great team that was their obvious "showcase pinnacle" in such a debate, there is no strong consensus over which was the greatest Russell team.  That lack of consensus dilutes support for any single Russell team.  Personally, I believe any Russell team from 1961 through 1965, if updated to the era of the 1980s, would have handily beaten the 1985-86 Bird Celtics.  Same thing if the 86-86 Celtics were backdated to the 60s.



I'd actually love to debate Bob Ryan on this topic because I believe most of his backing of the Bird Celtics is along emotional and entertainment, rather than logical, lines.  And I've tried my best to utilize logical reasoning despite my obvious emotional feelings about the Russell teams.



Sam

Sam,

Thanks for the additional background. At first I thought you were citing some forum post, but you are the author of that post on lmf.forumchitchat.com, correct?

Sam some valid points and great post, you actually claimed the Bird Celtics might have had a shooting advantage, fair point, don't remember you giving them anything before. On pace and endurance, that 86 team was also Birds deepest with Walton, Kite, Wedman, Schicting, and Thirdkill/Vincent. Thirdkill and Vincent had speed, but barely played that team was so deep, but when they did even they had effective moments as that team had so many HoFers playing to their strengths and could just as easily pick apart teams as easily as overpower them.

I still don't see anyone that can match up with Bird and then while your straining on Larry Legend in his best year, at his absolute peak, whos gonna handle McHale? you only have one Russell, he'd have his hands full with Parrish/Walton, thats 4 great bigs, Bird was so versatile, even todays best players, he'd kill them. First team all NBA from his rookie year on....I don't see anyone in history that could stop him or that team enough in a 7 game series. They had depth, it was such a no contest on that ride through the Finals in 86, they picked teams apart and wore them down!!! I don't see them getting worn out by the Russell Celtics best team.

Outside,

No, incorrect.  I have never posted a syllable on any forum other than BDC and ours.  I'm really sure exactly what the heck you're attributing to me, because, when I go to that link you posted, I don't see anything that relates to our conversation.  But that's moot because, if you are even inferring that I authored something on a Mavs forum, you're dead, dead wrong!

Just to repeat once more, trying a different tack this time:

1. I just happened to discover certain data on the history of NBA heights and weights and thought it was a useful discovery because of the earlier thread in which a number of us had participated.  So I posted excerpts from the data with a link for anyone who wished to see the entire data.

2. You expressed doubts as to the origins of the data.  So I immediately accessed the link I had posted and got.....nothing.  The link didn't work—at least not on my computer.

3. I then embarked on a several hour Google search, trying all sorts of combinations involving player heights.  I was initially unsuccessful in re-finding the original source.  But I did happen on a post in a Mavs forum that showed data exactly corresponding to what I had excerpted.  I took some pains to explain that it was the complete data from a Mavs post that happened to coincide with the data I had excerpted.

4. Expecting more demands for indicators of credibility I persisted in looking for the original link for the data.  I finally found it, and the darned link still looked exactly like the one I had initially published; gut it still wouldn't work on my computer.  So, finally knowing the identity of the original publisher of the data (APBR), I then went back to the APBR website and found a way to "back into" the data using the process I described to you.

Even the tiniest implication that I authored that or any other post on a Mavs thread is completely false.  But maybe I'm misunderstanding the point of your remark.  If so, I'd be glad to revisit the topic.

Sam

Sam,

Okay, I'm just confused on many levels.

When you revived this thread a day or two ago, your post about heights was addressed specifically to me, but I had just one minor point on that topic and thought others had been much more actively engaged in that discussion. But since you addressed the post to me, I thought I should respond, even though I didn't have a worthwhile response to make.

The data you linked to at http://lmf.forumchitchat.com/post?id=867474 didn't say what the source was, which is why I questioned it.

You also referenced another source, but the URL listed in the link was missing a hyphen (it should be http://www.apbr.org/apbr-faq.html). While The Association for Professional Basketball Research sounds pretty good, they also don't say where they get their information regarding average heights and weights.

Did someone actually measure and weigh the players? Are we just supposed to accept this information? As you can see, I still have questions about how reliable the information is.

Sorry about the bad assumption of you being the poster on the Mavericks site. At that point, it seemed like a hopeful way out of my confusion about the reliability of the information because I would be far more inclined to accept information you provided as reliable than from some unknown source. The poster's name (Richard) also led me astray. Of course it seemed odd that you would post on a Mavericks site, but as I said, I was clutching at straws to get me out of my confusion.

I'm willing to write it all off as a bad reaction to medication on my part. Now I need to find some medication to retroactively take to have caused my bad reaction.

Outside,

Sorry for any confusion.  I had addressed my post about the height data to you because I thought you were involved in the discussion on height when you posted: One other point about the height difference between the eras is that the heights listed in the old days were typically actual heights without shoes and even undersold, in some cases. For example, Russell was 6' 9 5/8" but often listed as 6' 9". Dwight Howard is 6' 9" without shoes but is listed as 6' 11". So much of the height difference is not really a difference at all.

As for how the measurements were made, I assume they were not made by the research organization—just picked up from some other source they concluded was reliable.  If you're interested in the manner(s) of measurement, you might want to contact the research company.

Sam

Just finished reading Scribe and I found it to be a fascinating and enlightening read. I highly recommend it.