Comparing Eras

I was just googling for something and happened to come across this article in a Yahoo website. It doesn't display the author's name, so I can't attest to its credibility. However, someone did a lot of research and presents a lot of interesting points in terms of comparing eras. The fact that there's an emphasis on Bill Russell and Wilt did nothing to dampen my curiosity. (Whoever it is spells Russ' name with one "l," which is probably a warning signal. But at least (s)he makes some assertions worthy of checking out.)

The author mentions some things I already knew, such as the fact that every team in the league during the mid-60s had at least one future hall-of-famer on its roster and that Russ and Wilt had to face each of these hall-of-famers at least three times as often during a season than is the case nowadays. (S)he also credits Russ with an 11-0 record in "winner-take-all" games, which (s)he defines as game 7s or game 5s. I know that, if his collegiate and Olympic experiences) Russ was 21-0 in "winner-take-all" games.

Among other things, the author lists 25 players who were legitimately 6' 11" or taller who played against Russ and Wilt. And (s)he mentions that players were measured in their bare feet in those days and in their sneaks nowadays (for promotional purposes) inflating their height by one or two inches. I happen to buy the sneakers thing, which basically makes most claims of taller players nowadays a load of crap. (Maybe they have taller sneakers.) In fact, when one considers the far greater stamina that old-time players had (also noted in this article), the only thing more athletic about today's players is higher jumping (and what happens to their knees upon landing?) and maybe speed (but I'd match Bill Russell, Larry Costello and Sam Jones for speed against any player of today's or any other era).

Someone who appears to be responding to the author also mentions that Wilt Chamberlain blocked 17 shots in his very first NBA game, along with scoring 43 and adding 28 rebounds. (The writer acknowledges that blocks were not kept as official stats during Russ' and Wilt's careers, but apparently some newspaper person kept track during that game.)

Anyway, I present this only because of the diversity of interesting factors that are raised, and I guarantee nothing about the reliability of the claims. Even if they're close to being correct, it's a pretty compelling scenario. Maybe checking out the data would make an interesting project for someone who's not named "Sam."

The article follows. The link is: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100224214633AAvvebd

Happy reading,

Sam

Did Bill Russel and Wilt Chamberlain face weak competition?

Two of the NBA's greatest players, Bill Russel and Wilt Chamberlain, are often criticized for playing in a "weak" era. This is far from the truth, as the 1960s were a very good time for basketball. A much smaller league meant more competition for fewer spots. The fact that only the 121 best basketball players in the world could play in the NBA condensed the talent pool to nine teams. In the modern NBA, over half of the teams don't even have one all star player, nevertheless hall of famers. Examining the teams in the mid 1960s, all nine of them had Hall of Fame talents:

Boston Celtics: Bill Russel, John Havlicek, Sam Jones, Tommy Heinsolm (Sam's note: also K.C. Jones)
Cincinnati Royals: Oscar Robertson, Jerry Lucas
Philadelphia 76ers: Hal Greer
New York Knicks: Willis Reed
San Francisco Warriors: Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond
St. Louis Hawks: Bob Pettit
Los Angeles Lakers: Jerry West, Elgin Baylor
Detroit Pistons: David Bing, Dave Debusschere
Baltimore Bullets: Walt Bellamy

Russel and Chamberlain faced various legends on a nightly basis, yet still were known as the best players of their generation. Throughout the decade, the two were subject to strong competition Some of the great players Russel and Chamberlain faced included:

1960-1964:

Dolph Schayes
Bob Pettit
Walt Bellamy
Jerry Lucas

1965-1968:

Willis Reed
Elvin Hayes
Wes Unseld
Nate Thurmond

1969-1972:

Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Bob Lanier
Artis Gilmore
Billy Cunningham
Dave Cowens

One reason fans tend to lash out at these legends is the absurd stats of not only Russel and Chamberlain, but average players as well, as it was not uncommon for a player to average 15-20 rebounds per game. There are several reasons for the high rebound rates of these players:

a. A high tempo offense. The average team in 1965 shot about 600 more shots than a team in 1985 and about 1400 more shots than a team in 2005.

b. Less fouls called. In 1965, the average team had 2076 personal fouls per season. In 2005, 1856 personal fouls were called. But keep in mind that 1400 more shots were attempted, yet only 200 less fouls called. The result, a lowing field goal percentage, and more shots allowed to be rebounded.

When adjusting the field goal percentage to 45% and reducing the shots taken to the normal rate today, the rebounding rate drops to a more familiar rate for most players. Elgin Baylor would dropped to around 9 boards a game and Nate Thurmond to around 12. However, both Bill Russel and Wilt Chamberlain, even with the adjusted stats, still averaged between 16-20 rebounds per game, showing that they truly did dominate like few others.

Another common misperception is that Bill Russel and Wilt Chamberlain played against only 6'6" white centers. That is completely false. Here are the NBA players from 1960-1972 6'11" or taller who played at least 3 years in the NBA: (list does not include Wilt Chamberlain)

Kareem Abdul Jabbar: 7'2"
Dennis Awtrey: 6'11"
Walt Bellamy: 6'11"
Tom Boerwinkle: 7'0"
Nate Bowmen: 6'11"
Mel Counts: 7'0"
Walter Dukes: 7'0"
Jim Eakins: 6'11"
Ray Felix: 6'11"
Hank Finkel: 7'0"
Artis Gilmore: 7'2"
Swede Halbrook: 7'3"
Reggie Harding: 7'0"
Bob Lanier: 6'11"
Jim McDaniels: 6'11"
Otto Moore: 6'11"
Dave Newmark: 7'0"
Rich Niemann: 7'0"
Billy Paultz: 6'11"
Craig Raymond: 6'11"
Elmore Smith: 7'0"
Chuck Share: 6'11"
Ronald Taylor: 7'1"
Nate Thurmond: 6'11"
Walt Wesley: 6'11"

Two other factors to keep in mind:

a. The NBA was less interested in promoting itself 40 years ago, and therefore, did not see the need to measure players with their shoes on. Almost all players today are listed 1-2 inches taller than their actual height.

b. The NBA had 1/3 of the players that they do now. That means Bill Russel and Wilt Chamberlain faced these 25 guys 3 times more often than they would in the modern nba scheduling.

The truth is, height will never be more of a factor than skill. With several exceptions, players over 7' are typically not very successful. At a collegian level, only three 7 footers have made all-American first team in the last twenty years: Shaquille O'Neal, Andrew Bogut, and Chris Mihm. In this years all star game, Dirk Nowitzki, Pau Gasol, and Chris Kaman were the only three of 30 players selected to be 7 feet, and all are known far more for their skill sets than dominating with size. If height was such a significant factor, then Manute Bol, Shawn Bradly, and Gheorghe Muresan would be hall of fame players, not just fan favorite scrubs.

The overall talent of the 1960s is greatly underestimated as well. The stamina that players in the 1960s have is far greater than anything seen today

1965 Top 3 in minutes played per game
1. Oscar Robertson, 45.6 mpg
2. Bill Russel, 45.2 mpg
3. Wilt Chamberlain, 44.4 mpg

2005 Top 3 in minutes played per game
1. Lebron James, 42.3 mpg
2. Allen Iverson, 42.3 mpg
3. Gilbert Arenas 40.9 mpg

* 1 month ago

Additional Details

In addition, teams never walked up the court and held the ball for 12 seconds, and then have four players watch as the fifth tries to get to the hoop. Most teams in the 60s tried to get a fast break after every rebound and in the half court set, the ball moved and players were setting screens and cutting to the basket. Yet players were doing this on a nightly basis, without fancy trainers giving massages and various methods to help muscle recovery. In addition, players were far more versatile as Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Dave Debusschere, and other players could play 3 or 4 positions. Many performances that players had would be considered triple doubles in todays game, but assist rules were far stricter in the 1960s, as the average team in the 1960s made 1000 more field goals per year than a team in 2005, yet averaged 100 less assists.

The 1960s produced some of the leagues finest stars, and it is an absolute travesty that these legends are debunked for playing in a weak era when it is clearly not the case.

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

Well said, and this if for those of you who said that Hakeem Olajuwon is the greatest center of all time.

I've seen a number of fans make the claim that Olajuwon is the best center of all time. They're wrong, but quite a few people have said it.

It could be said that the best "teammate" Olajuwon had was Clyde Drexler, although he did play with Sampson during the best part of Sampson's career.

I would not consider the 90s to be the best era for big men... you basically had 4 or 5 HOF quality centers in the league in Shaq, Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson and possibly Zo. Maybe Mutombo if you want to go that far. But that was IT.

In the 70s, we had Jabbar, Walton when he was healthy, Cowens, Reed, Hayes, Unseld, Thurmond, Jerry Lucas, Wilt, Walt Bellamy, Bob Lanier, Moses Malone, Bob McAdoo, plus Artis Gilmore, Dan Issel and Mel Daniels from the ABA. Not all of those guys played throughout the 70s, but they were all there during that generation.

All of the NBA guys I named are Hall of Famers, Issel is a HOF as well, but Gilmore certainly should be in there too, and even Daniels has a decent argument, although I dont see him ever making it, unfortunately.

Olajuwon did destroy Ewing in the 94 finals, no question about that. And while Olajuwon's footwork was great, the "Dream Shake" is the 2nd most overplayed and overrated move in NBA history (the most overrated was Jordan switching hands on an uncontested layup in the '91 finals). Olajuwon's footwork developed while playing soccer as a child.

You've already made the point yourself that blocked shots were not an official NBA stat during the careers of Russell and Chamberlain, otherwise, they'd be 1 and 2 (or 2 and 1) in that category. While blocks were not an official stat, newspaper accounts of games involving Wilt and Russell would often mention how many shots they blocked... it was not unusual for them to block 6-8 shots in a typical game. I'm not saying that's what they averaged, I'm just mentioning that it was common for them to have numbers like that. Both players and referees confirmed those numbers in subsequent interviews over the years.

Heck, Wilt blocked 17 shots in his very first NBA game (oh and btw, he also chipped in with 43 points and 28 rebounds that night).

Blocks (and steals) were not officially kept by the NBA until the 1973-74 season (the season after Wilt retired), and the NBA does not recognize ANY blocked shots by Wilt or Russell (even though they're on film).

Olajuwon would be no better than 4th on the all time blocked shot list had the stat been kept by the NBA from day one. He might even be #5, I think Nate Thurmond probably would have blocked more shots in his prime than Olajuwon.

Both Russell and Wilt would also be high up on the steals list (for a center) had that been an official stat as well during their careers.

If Pete Newell says that Olajuwon has the best footwork he'd ever seen in a big man, I'll take his at his word. Newell's been a coach/scout/consultant for a long time, and he has indeed seen them all.

However, having the best footwork doesn't automatically make you the best player. Charles Barkley, for example, had terrible footwork, but he was still a heck of a player. I wouldn't be able to name too many forwards in NBA history who were better than he was.

Olajuwon had some weaknesses in his game that were not always easy for a casual fan to spot. His passing skills were never that great, and his in-depth knowledge of the game was lacking in some areas (he did not really play basketball at all until his late teens).

His remarkable athleticism made up for his relative lack of overall knowledge. He didnt always have a knowledge or feel for where every one of the other 9 guys were on the court.

When Olajuwon came into the league, for example, some teams used to try to play him physically by getting a strong player to lean on him. But that actually made Olajuwons job easier, because he could feel his man leaning on him and spin off of him (theres that great footwork again). However, Pat Riley discovered that if you play off of him in the post, then Olajuwon would have to physically turn in order to locate the defender (because he couldnt use the spin move). That gave a team time to double team him and take the ball out of his hands (and as a bonus, his poor passing skills could sometimes be exploited).

Thats just one example, but its something that not many people know about. All they ever talk about is the one move he made against David Robinson, and from that alone, they proclaim him as the best center ever.

Olajuwon did win 2 rings, but imho, probably would have only won 1 ring at most had Jordan not retired. Still, you play who you play, and its not his fault Jordan retired early. But Olajuwon did play great in both of those finals, and outplayed both Ewing and (a young, raw) Shaq. Still, although you say that Olajuwon didnt have any great teammates, neither did Ewing so it was one one-man team against another in 94. He deserved both rings that he won. And Im glad he won them. I always liked him and enjoyed watching him play.

In the 70s and 80s, you needed several HOF or HOF quality players in order to win a championship. The fact that Olajuwon was able to win 2 titles in the 1990s with those teammates says more about the overall weakness of the NBA and the fact that the talent was spread so thinly than it does about him being the greatest center of all time.

Btw, when Kareem was 39 years old (1986) and Olajuwon was about 23, Kareem was named first team all-NBA over Olajuwon. Kareem destroyed both Olajuwon and Sampson during those days. Dont get me wrong, Olajuwon was great even at that age, but the fact that Kareem was first team all-NBA at age 39 tells us all we need to know about who was better. You dont want to know what Kareem would have done to Olajuwon in his prime!

But Wilt, Russell and Kareem are (in some order) still the 3 best centers to ever play the game. Olajuwon is one of maybe 3 guys who have a legitimate claim to be #4 (along with Moses Malone and Shaq). Walton was actually a better player than Olajuwon as well, but we cant rate him over Hakeem because Waltons career was injury prone.

The 1990s saw a decline in the overall quality of centers. And again, dont get me wrong, its not the fault of Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson or Shaq as to when they were born. They came to the NBA when they did. But the 1990s NBA was becoming loaded down with too many guys who came right out of high school and werent ready for the NBA (other than their potential).
Source(s):
As far as the NBA being tougher when Hakeem won his titles, it wasn't all that tough with Jordan out of the league.

Are you even aware that blocks were not recorded by the NBA until 1974. Wilt retired in 1973, Russell in 1969. Steals were also not an official stat until 1974. Olajuwon's blocked shot totals would be dwarfed by Wilt and Russell had blocks been an official stat.

Russell was the smartest player ever to play the game, by far. It would have taken him no time at all to solve Olajuwon. It wouldn't be long before Russell knew what Hakeem would do before Hakeem knew himself. There were some weaknesses in Olajuwon's post game which require sophisticated analysis. Pat Riley was the one who discovered them. Russell would have easily exploited them. And Olajuwon simply would never get a shot off against Wilt.

Wilt was a 48 min/game man. He averaged 46 min/game over his career. He would have worn Olajuwon out easily simply with FAR superior strength and stamina (not to mention skill).

You wanna talk about Olajuwon's passing? Wilt was the ONLY non-guard ever to lead the NBA in assists.

Are you also aware that Kareem, at age 39, was first team all-NBA over Olajuwon in 1986? Kareem was kicking Olajuwon's a$$ all over the court even at that late age.

Greater athletes? Yeah, we sent great athletes to the Olympics in 2004 and to the World Championships in 2006, and our great athletes got their freakin' heads handed to them by teams which play basketball exactly the way it was played when Russell and Chamberlain played the game. Our 2008 team had to play together during the off season for THREE YEARS just to figure out how to play on the same d**m team.

Wilt and Russell never competed in an NBA full of high school players and one-and-done college players either. And the only players under 6 feet that played in the NBA all played while Olajuwon was playing, not while Wilt and Russell were playing. It was Olajuwon who benefited by playing in a league with a bunch of midgets. Muggsy Bogues FIVE FOOT THREE!!! There were almost no players under 6 foot when Wilt and Russell played, because a player that size would never be given a look. Sebastian Telfair? Please...

When Wilt scored his 100 point game, the Knicks' center was 6'11... he was 2 inches shorter than Wilt. So if Olajuwon's a seven footer, what was his high game against a 6'10 guy?

Russell was also (by FAR) the greatest clutch performer in NBA history... he was 10-0 in game sevens, and he also won his only game 5 of a best of 5 series, meaning he was 11-0 in winner-take-all games. And, in case you think he wasn't contributing much offensively on those championship teams, take a look at his game 7 performances:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=…

Oh that's right, can't talk about rings...

Any else ever score 30 and pull down 44 rebounds in the 7th game of the finals? Not bad for a guy who was a 15 ppg scorer during his career, eh?

And as poor a FT shooter as Russell was, even THAT wasn't something he'd let defeat him. I believe he was 14-17 from the foul line in that game seven. Heck, Olajuwon missed more big free throws during his career than Russell did.

As far as the Celtics being a team with lots of HOFers, Russell MADE HOFers out of many of those guys.

Russell had the highest winning percentage, as a player, than any player in history. And the Celtics IMMEDIATELY collapsed the moment he retired, despite the presence of some HOFers.

btw, Russell and Wilt would have had an absolute field day against a robot like Patrick Ewing. Of all the great centers in NBA history, Ewing would have been absolutely the easiest to guard. He was at the other end of the spectrum from Olajuwon in terms of moves. He had about one.

NBA centers have been going downhill during the last 20 years. Which means that truly great players like Olajuwon, Shaq and Robinson played very few games against HOF quality centers. Wilt, in fact, played against more HOF centers than any player in history except Kareem.

Olajuwon might face Ewing twice a year, Shaq twice a year, and David Robinson may 4x a year, if that... Wilt and Russell played against each other 142 times in ten seasons... Olajuwon didn't play 142 games in his career against a HOF center. Then there was Nate Thurmond. And Jerry Lucas. And Willis Reed. And Dave Cowens. And Walt Bellamy. And Bob Lanier. And Bob McAdoo. And Kareem (Wilt and Kareem played 27 games against each other in 3 years....they did not meet during the year Wilt was mostly out). How many games did Olajuwon have to play before he met a HOF center 27 times. Forget it. The level of competition at the center position particularly, has done nothing but gone downhill.

The fact that Kwame Brown has been able to carve out a 10 year career in the NBA shows how weak the league is overall. The NBA has always had players who were very much below average, but they didn't used to last 9 years (as Brown has so far)

Of course, I'm sure you've seen Olajuwon's move against David Robinson in the post. That's probably where your idea originated.

Wilt would have destroyed Olajuwon statistically, and Russell would have beaten him every time. Every...time.

This is not to say that Olajuwon wasn't an amazing player. He was one of my all time favorite players to watch. And what was REALLY amazing about him is that he started playing basketball so late (in his mid-teens). He grew up playing soccer, which accounts for his remarkable footwork.

Anyway, its no crime to be the 4th best center in NBA history. Olajuwon was an awesome player to watch.

Sam wrote:I was just googling for something and happened to come across this article in a Yahoo website. It doesn't display the author's name, so I can't attest to its credibility. However, someone did a lot of research and presents a lot of interesting points in terms of comparing eras. The fact that there's an emphasis on Bill Russell and Wilt did nothing to dampen my curiosity. (Whoever it is spells Russ' name with one "l," which is probably a warning signal. But at least (s)he makes some assertions worthy of checking out.)

The author mentions some things I already knew, such as the fact that every team in the league during the mid-60s had at least one future hall-of-famer on its roster and that Russ and Wilt had to face each of these hall-of-famers at least three times as often during a season than is the case nowadays. (S)he also credits Russ with an 11-0 record in "winner-take-all" games, which (s)he defines as game 7s or game 5s. I know that, if his collegiate and Olympic experiences) Russ was 21-0 in "winner-take-all" games.

Among other things, the author lists 25 players who were legitimately 6' 11" or taller who played against Russ and Wilt. And (s)he mentions that players were measured in their bare feet in those days and in their sneaks nowadays (for promotional purposes) inflating their height by one or two inches. I happen to buy the sneakers thing, which basically makes most claims of taller players nowadays a load of crap. (Maybe they have taller sneakers.) In fact, when one considers the far greater stamina that old-time players had (also noted in this article), the only thing more athletic about today's players is higher jumping (and what happens to their knees upon landing?) and maybe speed (but I'd match Bill Russell, Larry Costello and Sam Jones for speed against any player of today's or any other era).

Someone who appears to be responding to the author also mentions that Wilt Chamberlain blocked 17 shots in his very first NBA game, along with scoring 43 and adding 28 rebounds. (The writer acknowledges that blocks were not kept as official stats during Russ' and Wilt's careers, but apparently some newspaper person kept track during that game.)

Anyway, I present this only because of the diversity of interesting factors that are raised, and I guarantee nothing about the reliability of the claims. Even if they're close to being correct, it's a pretty compelling scenario. Maybe checking out the data would make an interesting project for someone who's not named "Sam."

The article follows. The link is: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100224214633AAvvebd

Happy reading,

Sam

Did Bill Russel and Wilt Chamberlain face weak competition?

Two of the NBA's greatest players, Bill Russel and Wilt Chamberlain, are often criticized for playing in a "weak" era. This is far from the truth, as the 1960s were a very good time for basketball. A much smaller league meant more competition for fewer spots. The fact that only the 121 best basketball players in the world could play in the NBA condensed the talent pool to nine teams. In the modern NBA, over half of the teams don't even have one all star player, nevertheless hall of famers. Examining the teams in the mid 1960s, all nine of them had Hall of Fame talents:

Boston Celtics: Bill Russel, John Havlicek, Sam Jones, Tommy Heinsolm (Sam's note: also K.C. Jones)
Cincinnati Royals: Oscar Robertson, Jerry Lucas
Philadelphia 76ers: Hal Greer
New York Knicks: Willis Reed
San Francisco Warriors: Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond
St. Louis Hawks: Bob Pettit
Los Angeles Lakers: Jerry West, Elgin Baylor
Detroit Pistons: David Bing, Dave Debusschere
Baltimore Bullets: Walt Bellamy

Russel and Chamberlain faced various legends on a nightly basis, yet still were known as the best players of their generation. Throughout the decade, the two were subject to strong competition Some of the great players Russel and Chamberlain faced included:

1960-1964:

Dolph Schayes
Bob Pettit
Walt Bellamy
Jerry Lucas

1965-1968:

Willis Reed
Elvin Hayes
Wes Unseld
Nate Thurmond

1969-1972:

Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Bob Lanier
Artis Gilmore
Billy Cunningham
Dave Cowens

One reason fans tend to lash out at these legends is the absurd stats of not only Russel and Chamberlain, but average players as well, as it was not uncommon for a player to average 15-20 rebounds per game. There are several reasons for the high rebound rates of these players:

a. A high tempo offense. The average team in 1965 shot about 600 more shots than a team in 1985 and about 1400 more shots than a team in 2005.

b. Less fouls called. In 1965, the average team had 2076 personal fouls per season. In 2005, 1856 personal fouls were called. But keep in mind that 1400 more shots were attempted, yet only 200 less fouls called. The result, a lowing field goal percentage, and more shots allowed to be rebounded.

When adjusting the field goal percentage to 45% and reducing the shots taken to the normal rate today, the rebounding rate drops to a more familiar rate for most players. Elgin Baylor would dropped to around 9 boards a game and Nate Thurmond to around 12. However, both Bill Russel and Wilt Chamberlain, even with the adjusted stats, still averaged between 16-20 rebounds per game, showing that they truly did dominate like few others.

Another common misperception is that Bill Russel and Wilt Chamberlain played against only 6'6" white centers. That is completely false. Here are the NBA players from 1960-1972 6'11" or taller who played at least 3 years in the NBA: (list does not include Wilt Chamberlain)

Kareem Abdul Jabbar: 7'2"
Dennis Awtrey: 6'11"
Walt Bellamy: 6'11"
Tom Boerwinkle: 7'0"
Nate Bowmen: 6'11"
Mel Counts: 7'0"
Walter Dukes: 7'0"
Jim Eakins: 6'11"
Ray Felix: 6'11"
Hank Finkel: 7'0"
Artis Gilmore: 7'2"
Swede Halbrook: 7'3"
Reggie Harding: 7'0"
Bob Lanier: 6'11"
Jim McDaniels: 6'11"
Otto Moore: 6'11"
Dave Newmark: 7'0"
Rich Niemann: 7'0"
Billy Paultz: 6'11"
Craig Raymond: 6'11"
Elmore Smith: 7'0"
Chuck Share: 6'11"
Ronald Taylor: 7'1"
Nate Thurmond: 6'11"
Walt Wesley: 6'11"

Two other factors to keep in mind:

a. The NBA was less interested in promoting itself 40 years ago, and therefore, did not see the need to measure players with their shoes on. Almost all players today are listed 1-2 inches taller than their actual height.

b. The NBA had 1/3 of the players that they do now. That means Bill Russel and Wilt Chamberlain faced these 25 guys 3 times more often than they would in the modern nba scheduling.

The truth is, height will never be more of a factor than skill. With several exceptions, players over 7' are typically not very successful. At a collegian level, only three 7 footers have made all-American first team in the last twenty years: Shaquille O'Neal, Andrew Bogut, and Chris Mihm. In this years all star game, Dirk Nowitzki, Pau Gasol, and Chris Kaman were the only three of 30 players selected to be 7 feet, and all are known far more for their skill sets than dominating with size. If height was such a significant factor, then Manute Bol, Shawn Bradly, and Gheorghe Muresan would be hall of fame players, not just fan favorite scrubs.

The overall talent of the 1960s is greatly underestimated as well. The stamina that players in the 1960s have is far greater than anything seen today

1965 Top 3 in minutes played per game
1. Oscar Robertson, 45.6 mpg
2. Bill Russel, 45.2 mpg
3. Wilt Chamberlain, 44.4 mpg

2005 Top 3 in minutes played per game
1. Lebron James, 42.3 mpg
2. Allen Iverson, 42.3 mpg
3. Gilbert Arenas 40.9 mpg

* 1 month ago

Additional Details

In addition, teams never walked up the court and held the ball for 12 seconds, and then have four players watch as the fifth tries to get to the hoop. Most teams in the 60s tried to get a fast break after every rebound and in the half court set, the ball moved and players were setting screens and cutting to the basket. Yet players were doing this on a nightly basis, without fancy trainers giving massages and various methods to help muscle recovery. In addition, players were far more versatile as Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Dave Debusschere, and other players could play 3 or 4 positions. Many performances that players had would be considered triple doubles in todays game, but assist rules were far stricter in the 1960s, as the average team in the 1960s made 1000 more field goals per year than a team in 2005, yet averaged 100 less assists.

The 1960s produced some of the leagues finest stars, and it is an absolute travesty that these legends are debunked for playing in a weak era when it is clearly not the case.

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

Well said, and this if for those of you who said that Hakeem Olajuwon is the greatest center of all time.

I've seen a number of fans make the claim that Olajuwon is the best center of all time. They're wrong, but quite a few people have said it.

It could be said that the best "teammate" Olajuwon had was Clyde Drexler, although he did play with Sampson during the best part of Sampson's career.

I would not consider the 90s to be the best era for big men... you basically had 4 or 5 HOF quality centers in the league in Shaq, Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson and possibly Zo. Maybe Mutombo if you want to go that far. But that was IT.

In the 70s, we had Jabbar, Walton when he was healthy, Cowens, Reed, Hayes, Unseld, Thurmond, Jerry Lucas, Wilt, Walt Bellamy, Bob Lanier, Moses Malone, Bob McAdoo, plus Artis Gilmore, Dan Issel and Mel Daniels from the ABA. Not all of those guys played throughout the 70s, but they were all there during that generation.

All of the NBA guys I named are Hall of Famers, Issel is a HOF as well, but Gilmore certainly should be in there too, and even Daniels has a decent argument, although I dont see him ever making it, unfortunately.

Olajuwon did destroy Ewing in the 94 finals, no question about that. And while Olajuwon's footwork was great, the "Dream Shake" is the 2nd most overplayed and overrated move in NBA history (the most overrated was Jordan switching hands on an uncontested layup in the '91 finals). Olajuwon's footwork developed while playing soccer as a child.

You've already made the point yourself that blocked shots were not an official NBA stat during the careers of Russell and Chamberlain, otherwise, they'd be 1 and 2 (or 2 and 1) in that category. While blocks were not an official stat, newspaper accounts of games involving Wilt and Russell would often mention how many shots they blocked... it was not unusual for them to block 6-8 shots in a typical game. I'm not saying that's what they averaged, I'm just mentioning that it was common for them to have numbers like that. Both players and referees confirmed those numbers in subsequent interviews over the years.

Heck, Wilt blocked 17 shots in his very first NBA game (oh and btw, he also chipped in with 43 points and 28 rebounds that night).

Blocks (and steals) were not officially kept by the NBA until the 1973-74 season (the season after Wilt retired), and the NBA does not recognize ANY blocked shots by Wilt or Russell (even though they're on film).

Olajuwon would be no better than 4th on the all time blocked shot list had the stat been kept by the NBA from day one. He might even be #5, I think Nate Thurmond probably would have blocked more shots in his prime than Olajuwon.

Both Russell and Wilt would also be high up on the steals list (for a center) had that been an official stat as well during their careers.

If Pete Newell says that Olajuwon has the best footwork he'd ever seen in a big man, I'll take his at his word. Newell's been a coach/scout/consultant for a long time, and he has indeed seen them all.

However, having the best footwork doesn't automatically make you the best player. Charles Barkley, for example, had terrible footwork, but he was still a heck of a player. I wouldn't be able to name too many forwards in NBA history who were better than he was.

Olajuwon had some weaknesses in his game that were not always easy for a casual fan to spot. His passing skills were never that great, and his in-depth knowledge of the game was lacking in some areas (he did not really play basketball at all until his late teens).

His remarkable athleticism made up for his relative lack of overall knowledge. He didnt always have a knowledge or feel for where every one of the other 9 guys were on the court.

When Olajuwon came into the league, for example, some teams used to try to play him physically by getting a strong player to lean on him. But that actually made Olajuwons job easier, because he could feel his man leaning on him and spin off of him (theres that great footwork again). However, Pat Riley discovered that if you play off of him in the post, then Olajuwon would have to physically turn in order to locate the defender (because he couldnt use the spin move). That gave a team time to double team him and take the ball out of his hands (and as a bonus, his poor passing skills could sometimes be exploited).

Thats just one example, but its something that not many people know about. All they ever talk about is the one move he made against David Robinson, and from that alone, they proclaim him as the best center ever.

Olajuwon did win 2 rings, but imho, probably would have only won 1 ring at most had Jordan not retired. Still, you play who you play, and its not his fault Jordan retired early. But Olajuwon did play great in both of those finals, and outplayed both Ewing and (a young, raw) Shaq. Still, although you say that Olajuwon didnt have any great teammates, neither did Ewing so it was one one-man team against another in 94. He deserved both rings that he won. And Im glad he won them. I always liked him and enjoyed watching him play.

In the 70s and 80s, you needed several HOF or HOF quality players in order to win a championship. The fact that Olajuwon was able to win 2 titles in the 1990s with those teammates says more about the overall weakness of the NBA and the fact that the talent was spread so thinly than it does about him being the greatest center of all time.

Btw, when Kareem was 39 years old (1986) and Olajuwon was about 23, Kareem was named first team all-NBA over Olajuwon. Kareem destroyed both Olajuwon and Sampson during those days. Dont get me wrong, Olajuwon was great even at that age, but the fact that Kareem was first team all-NBA at age 39 tells us all we need to know about who was better. You dont want to know what Kareem would have done to Olajuwon in his prime!

But Wilt, Russell and Kareem are (in some order) still the 3 best centers to ever play the game. Olajuwon is one of maybe 3 guys who have a legitimate claim to be #4 (along with Moses Malone and Shaq). Walton was actually a better player than Olajuwon as well, but we cant rate him over Hakeem because Waltons career was injury prone.

The 1990s saw a decline in the overall quality of centers. And again, dont get me wrong, its not the fault of Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson or Shaq as to when they were born. They came to the NBA when they did. But the 1990s NBA was becoming loaded down with too many guys who came right out of high school and werent ready for the NBA (other than their potential).
Source(s):
As far as the NBA being tougher when Hakeem won his titles, it wasn't all that tough with Jordan out of the league.

Are you even aware that blocks were not recorded by the NBA until 1974. Wilt retired in 1973, Russell in 1969. Steals were also not an official stat until 1974. Olajuwon's blocked shot totals would be dwarfed by Wilt and Russell had blocks been an official stat.

Russell was the smartest player ever to play the game, by far. It would have taken him no time at all to solve Olajuwon. It wouldn't be long before Russell knew what Hakeem would do before Hakeem knew himself. There were some weaknesses in Olajuwon's post game which require sophisticated analysis. Pat Riley was the one who discovered them. Russell would have easily exploited them. And Olajuwon simply would never get a shot off against Wilt.

Wilt was a 48 min/game man. He averaged 46 min/game over his career. He would have worn Olajuwon out easily simply with FAR superior strength and stamina (not to mention skill).

You wanna talk about Olajuwon's passing? Wilt was the ONLY non-guard ever to lead the NBA in assists.

Are you also aware that Kareem, at age 39, was first team all-NBA over Olajuwon in 1986? Kareem was kicking Olajuwon's a$$ all over the court even at that late age.

Greater athletes? Yeah, we sent great athletes to the Olympics in 2004 and to the World Championships in 2006, and our great athletes got their freakin' heads handed to them by teams which play basketball exactly the way it was played when Russell and Chamberlain played the game. Our 2008 team had to play together during the off season for THREE YEARS just to figure out how to play on the same d**m team.

Wilt and Russell never competed in an NBA full of high school players and one-and-done college players either. And the only players under 6 feet that played in the NBA all played while Olajuwon was playing, not while Wilt and Russell were playing. It was Olajuwon who benefited by playing in a league with a bunch of midgets. Muggsy Bogues FIVE FOOT THREE!!! There were almost no players under 6 foot when Wilt and Russell played, because a player that size would never be given a look. Sebastian Telfair? Please...

When Wilt scored his 100 point game, the Knicks' center was 6'11... he was 2 inches shorter than Wilt. So if Olajuwon's a seven footer, what was his high game against a 6'10 guy?

Russell was also (by FAR) the greatest clutch performer in NBA history... he was 10-0 in game sevens, and he also won his only game 5 of a best of 5 series, meaning he was 11-0 in winner-take-all games. And, in case you think he wasn't contributing much offensively on those championship teams, take a look at his game 7 performances:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=…

Oh that's right, can't talk about rings...

Any else ever score 30 and pull down 44 rebounds in the 7th game of the finals? Not bad for a guy who was a 15 ppg scorer during his career, eh?

And as poor a FT shooter as Russell was, even THAT wasn't something he'd let defeat him. I believe he was 14-17 from the foul line in that game seven. Heck, Olajuwon missed more big free throws during his career than Russell did.

As far as the Celtics being a team with lots of HOFers, Russell MADE HOFers out of many of those guys.

Russell had the highest winning percentage, as a player, than any player in history. And the Celtics IMMEDIATELY collapsed the moment he retired, despite the presence of some HOFers.

btw, Russell and Wilt would have had an absolute field day against a robot like Patrick Ewing. Of all the great centers in NBA history, Ewing would have been absolutely the easiest to guard. He was at the other end of the spectrum from Olajuwon in terms of moves. He had about one.

NBA centers have been going downhill during the last 20 years. Which means that truly great players like Olajuwon, Shaq and Robinson played very few games against HOF quality centers. Wilt, in fact, played against more HOF centers than any player in history except Kareem.

Olajuwon might face Ewing twice a year, Shaq twice a year, and David Robinson may 4x a year, if that... Wilt and Russell played against each other 142 times in ten seasons... Olajuwon didn't play 142 games in his career against a HOF center. Then there was Nate Thurmond. And Jerry Lucas. And Willis Reed. And Dave Cowens. And Walt Bellamy. And Bob Lanier. And Bob McAdoo. And Kareem (Wilt and Kareem played 27 games against each other in 3 years....they did not meet during the year Wilt was mostly out). How many games did Olajuwon have to play before he met a HOF center 27 times. Forget it. The level of competition at the center position particularly, has done nothing but gone downhill.

The fact that Kwame Brown has been able to carve out a 10 year career in the NBA shows how weak the league is overall. The NBA has always had players who were very much below average, but they didn't used to last 9 years (as Brown has so far)

Of course, I'm sure you've seen Olajuwon's move against David Robinson in the post. That's probably where your idea originated.

Wilt would have destroyed Olajuwon statistically, and Russell would have beaten him every time. Every...time.

This is not to say that Olajuwon wasn't an amazing player. He was one of my all time favorite players to watch. And what was REALLY amazing about him is that he started playing basketball so late (in his mid-teens). He grew up playing soccer, which accounts for his remarkable footwork.

Anyway, its no crime to be the 4th best center in NBA history. Olajuwon was an awesome player to watch.

Sam,

In your post there are way too many points to comment on but I would like to discuss the centers in the 60's that you referenced.
Many of those on that list that played against Wilt and Russell only played a few years, many scored in single digits or were very thin tall guys.
Halbrook played parts of two season and averaged 5 points per game.
Eakins was 6'11" but only weighed 215 lbs.
Having some of these guys on this list is like having Chuck Nevitt or Swen Nater on today's center list.
Bad players that happened to be tall.
Also, Russell never played against Gilmore.
Many teams in the NBA have 2 or more guys that are 6'11" or taller.
Memphis alone has (4) 7 footers.

I know as a fact that all NBA players are measured in their socks or barefoot.

I never saw Russell play but I am not sure if he would dominate like he did in the 50's and 60's.
I don't get the impression that he was a real good shooter.
Just looking at stats I can see that Russell only averaged 15 points per game in his career.
His highest scoring season was the 59-60 season when he averaged 18.9 ppg while Boston averaged 124.5.
That is more than 20 ppg more then today's teams average.

I think most people would agree that today's players in the NBA are much more physically dominate then the players from 50 years ago.

TJ

Russ was an OLYMPIC caliber high jumper. Although he might not DOMINATE today he would wear the hell out of whoever he played and dominate them when it mattered in the end.

He did not need to score but could. Stats are very misleading and the only thing that mattered was winning which he did better than ANYONE before or since.

Of course the players today are bigger but if Russ was given the opportunity with weight traing and all the other benifits of todays players he would be fine in todays game.

Comparing eras in any sport is virtually imposible and involves a lot of speculation.

Bottom line you nearing blasphemy status for siting Russ's stats and NOT the fact he won at every level HS College Olympic and NBA in an era that was not conducive to the black athelte being accepted. NONE of todays players have to worry about that do they?

beat

tj

Can you give me the sourse for the statement that all nba players are measured in their socks or bare feet ?

Thanks
swish

TJ,

You say, "I know as a fact that all NBA players are measured in their socks or barefoot."

The players may be measured both ways in college, but by the time they are in the NBA, they only give one number and it is the biggest. It is also given without qualifiers.

I would tend to believe the pre-draft numbers because they have every reason to get it right and no reasons to obfuscate. Once drafted, the numbers get tweaked because the NBA teams live in "Spin City".

Here is an example of the college (or pre-NBA draft) numbers:

2008: http://www.nbadraft.net/2008_nbapredraftcamp_measurements.html

Michael Beasley is listed at 6'-10" in the NBA, yet he was much shorter in college.
Is Beasley as tall as 6'-10" Kendrick Perkins?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/4388


2009: http://www.nbadraft.net/node/6151

Notice the numbers for Tyreke Evens. He is listed on his NBA page as 6'-6". Evens at 6-6 is even taller than his "with shoes" number by 1/2 inch.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/4564

Griffin at 6-10 is right on his "with shoes" number.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/4561

Your statement about "facts" comes up a tad short of including any. The method of measuring height (in the NBA) now is not the same as it once was.

gyso

Anybody that tells me Kobe and Bron would dominate Bird and Magic is hittin the bong w/o water. I dont buy all this superior athlete crap a whit. With the drive and smarts those guys had they would have been on the weight pile too. Sometimes I think todays athletes are so roided out that it impedes their movement. I didnt see Bill and Wilt but I think those guys would be just as good today as they were then.

The game to me is nowhwere near as smartly played as it was even in the 80's when the ball moved through the air. Great players are great players imho.

jeb

It is said in sports one of the hardest things to do is hit a baseball.

Do you or anyone really think that Ted Williams would not be a .300 hitter today?

Great players in any era would be great if given all the advantages of todays pampered stars. (and perhaps better given the work ethic)

beat

gyso

Do you know the year that the change took place?

swish

jeb,

"hittin the bong w/o water"?
With or without water, the bong user gets the same results.

Without water just gets the user a possible lung-full of ashes, if it has a one-hitter.

You got to work on your metaphors!!

gyso

swish wrote:gyso

Do you know the year that the change took place?

swish

I don't know.

Here is some interesting stuff, though:

http://www.draftexpress.com/article/A-Historical-Look-at-the-NBA-Pre-Draft-Measurements-2912/

http://www.brewhoop.com/2008/6/22/543088/measurement-error-explorin

gyso

gyso

very interesting finds!!

beat

Velly intelesting!

gyso

Great link- some great stuff in there.

swish

Sam

As you suggested, I will check out the data for accuracy.

swish

Thanks Swish, and good luck.

I'm shocked that so many people waded through the article and that it provoked so much interest.

TJ, the article went as far as 1972 to accommodate Wilt's career. There was no claim that Russ played against Gilmore. Yes I know that tall guys played in each era, and that's the point of the article. The list was the author's, not mine. How about the list of future hall-of-famers, of which one or more were opponents of every team every game? How does the consistency of today's opposition stand up against that?

As for personal attributes, I'll take [speed, endurance, height and knowhow born of 4-year "minor league" college fundamentals training] over [speed, height and vertical leap] ANY DAY. A layup and a dunk each count for two points, and a layup causes less stress on the player's body. As for the art of blocking shots, it's at least as much a matter of technique as physicality.

What those who tout the athleticism of today's players seldom reference is the endurance issue. In a persistently faster game, playing as many as 5 nights in a row (a provable fact), the players of the earlier era withstood the rigors of the game VASTLY better than many players of today withstand a simple back-to-back without deterioration in play.

Sam

beat wrote:TJ

Russ was an OLYMPIC caliber high jumper. Although he might not DOMINATE today he would wear the hell out of whoever he played and dominate them when it mattered in the end.

He did not need to score but could. Stats are very misleading and the only thing that mattered was winning which he did better than ANYONE before or since.

Of course the players today are bigger but if Russ was given the opportunity with weight traing and all the other benifits of todays players he would be fine in todays game.

Comparing eras in any sport is virtually imposible and involves a lot of speculation.

Bottom line you nearing blasphemy status for siting Russ's stats and NOT the fact he won at every level HS College Olympic and NBA in an era that was not conducive to the black athelte being accepted. NONE of todays players have to worry about that do they?

beat

beat,

I really don't like comparing players from completely different era's.
How do you compare Cy Young to Warren Spahn to Randy Johnson? Was Cy a better pitcher because he won over 500 games?
Baseball is completely different now.
The same is true with pro basketball. Just by watching the offense from 1960 to 2010 you can see that it is a very different game now.

I mean no disrespect to Bill Russell. He is widely recognized as one of the top 5 greatest players ever and possibly the greatest center. We all know that he is the greatest winner in pro basketball history. The thing that people have to keep in mind is that just because he won the most, doesn't mean he was the best. No one can tell me that he wanted to win more than Shaq or Kareem just because he has the most titles. By looking at championships one might think that Derek Fisher or Robert Horry were excellent players. They were decent players who were on very good teams.

Besides stats, I am not sure how else we compare players especially those that have been retired for a long time.

jeb65 wrote:Anybody that tells me Kobe and Bron would dominate Bird and Magic is hittin the bong w/o water. I dont buy all this superior athlete crap a whit. With the drive and smarts those guys had they would have been on the weight pile too. Sometimes I think todays athletes are so roided out that it impedes their movement. I didnt see Bill and Wilt but I think those guys would be just as good today as they were then.

The game to me is nowhwere near as smartly played as it was even in the 80's when the ball moved through the air. Great players are great players imho.

jeb,

Nobody is going to tell you that because Bird and Magic are top 10 all time players who are considered modern era players just like Kobe and LeBron.
In my opinion, Jordan is the greatest shooting guard ever, Bird is the greatest small forward ever and Magic is the greatest point guard.
The PF and C positions in my opinion are harder to give the greatest ever title to.

You do have to realize that if Wilt and Russell were playing today, they would not have games of 27, 33 or 55 rebounds.
They might have a couple of 20 rebound games a year but their numbers would be so different if they played today.

PS-I don't want to hear any greatest ever talk about LeBron until he wins multiple titles.

gyso wrote:TJ,

You say, "I know as a fact that all NBA players are measured in their socks or barefoot."

The players may be measured both ways in college, but by the time they are in the NBA, they only give one number and it is the biggest. It is also given without qualifiers.

I would tend to believe the pre-draft numbers because they have every reason to get it right and no reasons to obfuscate. Once drafted, the numbers get tweaked because the NBA teams live in "Spin City".

Here is an example of the college (or pre-NBA draft) numbers:

2008: http://www.nbadraft.net/2008_nbapredraftcamp_measurements.html

Michael Beasley is listed at 6'-10" in the NBA, yet he was much shorter in college.
Is Beasley as tall as 6'-10" Kendrick Perkins?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/4388


2009: http://www.nbadraft.net/node/6151

Notice the numbers for Tyreke Evens. He is listed on his NBA page as 6'-6". Evens at 6-6 is even taller than his "with shoes" number by 1/2 inch.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/4564

Griffin at 6-10 is right on his "with shoes" number.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/4561

Your statement about "facts" comes up a tad short of including any. The method of measuring height (in the NBA) now is not the same as it once was.

gyso

gyso,

Beasley was listed as 6'9 in college. He left college at 19. Do you not think that he could have grown 1 inch when he was 19?
I will post my facts about measuring players.
There are questions about players height. There is no way Duncan is only 2" shorter than Shaq.

swish wrote:tj

Can you give me the sourse for the statement that all nba players are measured in their socks or bare feet ?

Thanks
swish

Swish,

A very good friend of mine is the President of a Sports and Entertainment company.
One of their divisions employs professional sports agents. They mostly represent MLB and NFL players but they have some NBA players as clients. I have already had this "height" conversation with him.
I will send him an e-mail and copy and paste his comments to this thread.

tj

Thanks for your reply. Stay tuned to this thread. Over the next few days I will be presenting some facts relevent to "Era" comparisons. I think that you will find them quite interesting.

swish

tjmakz wrote:

gyso wrote:TJ,

You say, "I know as a fact that all NBA players are measured in their socks or barefoot."

The players may be measured both ways in college, but by the time they are in the NBA, they only give one number and it is the biggest. It is also given without qualifiers.

I would tend to believe the pre-draft numbers because they have every reason to get it right and no reasons to obfuscate. Once drafted, the numbers get tweaked because the NBA teams live in "Spin City".

Here is an example of the college (or pre-NBA draft) numbers:

2008: http://www.nbadraft.net/2008_nbapredraftcamp_measurements.html

Michael Beasley is listed at 6'-10" in the NBA, yet he was much shorter in college.
Is Beasley as tall as 6'-10" Kendrick Perkins?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/4388


2009: http://www.nbadraft.net/node/6151

Notice the numbers for Tyreke Evens. He is listed on his NBA page as 6'-6". Evens at 6-6 is even taller than his "with shoes" number by 1/2 inch.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/4564

Griffin at 6-10 is right on his "with shoes" number.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/4561

Your statement about "facts" comes up a tad short of including any. The method of measuring height (in the NBA) now is not the same as it once was.

gyso

gyso,

Beasley was listed as 6'9 in college. He left college at 19. Do you not think that he could have grown 1 inch when he was 19?
I will post my facts about measuring players.
There are questions about players height. There is no way Duncan is only 2" shorter than Shaq.

tj,

Beasley was listed as 6'-7" (barefoot) in college, use the 2008 link and you will see that. Not 6'-9".

My father grew over 5 inches after high school. Me, I maxed out in height in the 10th grade. Neither of those facts have anything to do with the issue here.

The issue here is that NBA player heights used now are with shoes and the heights used in the 60's and possibly more recently (70's and maybe the 80's) are sans shoes. Your agent buddy can say they measure players in a hundred different ways and it does not alter the fact that they use the inflated height obtained with shoes to come up with the final number that is used to define most player's heights.

And in most cases, when you add in the shoe, the player can add a couple inches to their published height. There are exception to this and one not mentioned is KG. Standing side by side with Perk, KG towers over him. The joke is that KG is 6'-13". KG thinks that if he is listed as a 7 footer, more is expected of him than if he were 6'-11". That is kind of an odd way of thinking about the perception of height, but if you haven't noticed, KG is a little odd.

It is all about the chase of the almighty dollar. If a player can get listed at 6'-10", he will make more money than if he is listed at 6'-7 1/2". Agents know this and act as spin doctors to massage the numbers. The whole thing is smoke and mirrors.

The only numbers they should use to compare today's players with the players of yesteryear is the barefoot measurement, since that is how the players were measured back in the day.

But they won't. It is not in their best interest.

gyso

PS: Agents = Politicians. Words and numbers are just tools of the trade.

gyso,

You put so much relevance on some commentary that was written on a Yahoo Answers page with no author listed that I saw.
Where are the facts supporting this 'article'?

All NBA prospects have pre-draft measurements. Here are some of the following measurements that they are tested for:
1) Height w/o shoes
2) Height w/ shoes
3) Weight
4) Wing Span
5) Reach
6) Body Fat %
7) No Step Vertical
No Step Vertical Reach
9) Max Vertical
10) Max Vertical Reach
11) Bench Press
12) Agility Timing
13) Sprint

You can see that GM's know EXACTLY how tall each prospect is that enters the draft.

.....its so obvious if you just watch the games,Beasley is 6'8",about the same height as Udonis Haslem,but he plays alot smaller.

gyso

if you dont know I am by and large speaking pig latin all the time by now after 3000 posts...

tj,

Relevance? Did I quote something and expound on it? No, I just linked a couple things that had to do with the issue at hand.

Commentary on a Yahoo answers page? What are you talking about? The only Yahoo links I used were player pages.

In addition to the Yahoo player pages, I linked nbadraft.net, SBnation and ??? Again, I ask you what are you talking about?

I said, "Your agent buddy can say they measure players in a hundred different ways and it does not alter the fact that they use the inflated height obtained with shoes to come up with the final number that is used to define most player's heights."

Then you list 13 measurable things, of which two are heights. That leaves 87 to go. I'll make up one and leave you with 86:

I offer to you a new way to measure the height of players. How about their height above sea level while standing on the rock pile on top of Mt. Kataden (in Maine) wearing hiking boots? That would make me about one mile, 6'-2 1/2" tall. And I still can't get a job in the NBA. Go figure.

I don't care what the GM's know. Again, that is NOT the point. Remember, we are talking height - the height that is listed for reference for the general public. In the NBA today, they use the player's height with shoes, not barefoot. Not exactly scientific. Compare a 6'-7" player of today against a 6'-7" player of the 60's and the current player comes up short.

You seem to want to make an argument rather than support one. A case in point:

In this thread, you discount some player's "greatness" in one post, because you say being involved with many championships doesn't add to a players absolute quality, yet in another post you discount LeBron's greatness because he hasn't won multiple rings.

Let me know when you make up your mind!!!

gyso