Nate 'Tiny' Archibald: 'I wished I had 10 basketballs' on 1980-81 Celtics

http://www.masslive.com/celtics/index.ssf/2016/08/boston_celtics_great_nate_tiny.html



Boston Celtics great Nate 'Tiny' Archibald: 'I wished I had 10 basketballs' on 1980-81 Celtics




Former Boston Celtics great Tiny Archibald spoke at the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame on Saturday. (Tom Westerholm / MASSLIVE)



Tom Westerholm | twesterh@masslive.com By Tom Westerholm | twesterh@masslive.com


on August 15, 2016 at 2:57 AM, updated August 15, 2016 at 2:57 PM




SPRINGFIELD — Nate "Tiny" Archibald was just a little too big.

The former Boston Celtics guard was perched on the edge of a plastic bin in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame's coat room on Saturday, waiting to speak to a crowd at the Hall of Fame's 60 Days of Summer program. The bin, however, was not cooperating — the lid kept crumpling, sending the Hall of Famer tumbling backward.

Even so, the bin was preferable to the other option — a wheelchair, which Archibald absolutely refused, citing "bad vibes."

Those vibes are a reasonable concern — Archibald, who played his last NBA game over 32 years ago, is far from needing a wheelchair. These days, he runs basketball camps ("I enjoy the teaching part of it — people say coaching, but it's a little different type of coaching"), stays up on current basketball players (Isaiah Thomas, who lists Archibald as a personal hero, said last year he introduced himself to Archibald only to have the Hall of Famer say "I already know who you are. You don't have to do that") and visits the Hall of Fame twice a year.

Perhaps most important, however: He remains a strong proponent of the marriage of basketball and education. At his clinics, Archibald said he has an agenda.

"It's not a secret: I get to get my spiel in," he said. "Most of the time, it's about education. The game is an education in itself — most kids think just basketball all the time, but I give them an example. 'What if you were the fastest guy in the league, the highest jumper in the league. How long will that last?' The guys will say, 'Oh, that will last forever. I can jump higher, run faster.' But most coaches are looking for guys not that jump high and ran faster, but the guy that's under control."

Archibald said that staying under control is a matter of mathematics, percentages and geometry. Understand the percentages of each shot and the angles on the court, and you can become the type of player who gets everyone else involved.

"I throw this at them: When you go to math class, you know how to add, subtract, multiply," Archibald said. "I say, 'What does geometry mean to you?' Kids say, 'Shapes and angles.' I say, 'If you cut the court in half, you have 90-degree angles and 45-degree angles, those are the attacking areas.'"

If anyone would know about the connection between geometry and assists, it's Archibald. He led the NBA in assists in 1972-73 with 11.4 per game (while posting an absurd 34 points per game at the same time). For his career, he averaged 7.4 assists per game, including 8.0 in 1980-81 — his first championship season with the Boston Celtics.

In Boston, Archibald — who had been a star before joining the Celtics — found himself in a new situation on a loaded team: A facilitator.

"(The Celtics were) like an Old Western — The Good, The Bad and the Ugly," Archibald said. "Before Larry (Bird), before Kevin (McHale) and Robert (Parish), the team was the ugly. They say, 'So what was the good and the bad?' There was no good, no bad. With them, it was great. It was great because I didn't have to do a whole lot of scoring. All I needed to do was manage the game, put the ball in the right people's hands. I wished I had 10 basketballs so I could feed everyone. It was just great."

That was the safe mindset playing with a legend like Larry Bird who, Archibald said, was the best player he ever played with.

"He could do it all," Archibald said, laughing. "He told me 'It's your ball. Make sure you know who gave you the ball. When I get down there, I want to touch it more.'"

Even before Boston, however, Archibald was willing to pass instead of shoot. That served him well — he was entrusted with lead guard duties by Bob Cousy with the Kansas City/Omaha Royals, a role in which he flourished. The Royals traded one of the greatest guards of all time — Oscar Robertson —  to the Milwaukee Bucks the summer Archibald arrived, and they knew that a guard could make a big impact.

"I hate the number system," Archibald said, referring to calling a point guard "a one," a shooting guard "a two," etc. "When I started learning and playing the game, coaches would say, 'I want you to be a basketball player.' Now, with the number system, you are either a one, two, three, four or five. Most kids, when they grow up, all you want to be is a basketball player."

Cousy afforded Archibald the opportunity to be a basketball player, and Archibald quickly began posting monstrous stats. Even now, for that opportunity, Archibald said he calls Cousy his "stepdad."

"He gave me a chance to do something that the experts said I couldn't do," Archibald said. "Not that I did it well, but he said after what happened with Oscar, I came a year later and he said, 'Your team, your game.' He gave me a chance to play."

Now, 46 years after that opportunity, Archibald is teaching students at his clinics how to come as close as possible to getting that chance as well.

"You get them thinking about math and geometry, and the education of the game," Archibald said. "The game is fascinating when you think about it. It's a thinking game at certain positions."


bob
MY NOTE:  Nate the Skate is the only player in NBA history to ever lead the league in both scoring and assists in the same season.  I can also say, from my own personal observations, there were fewer players more fearless (IT is damn close) and who hit the floor harder than Tiny.  Remember those were the days when "incidental contact" could send you flying and he'd drive into the lane and end up on the floor, hard, most of the time.  We were lucky to have him for 5 years.


.

My choice as Celtic point guard over Cousy.

swish

swish wrote:My choice as Celtic point guard over Cousy.

  swish

That's like choosing KG over McHale. 

Two guys where here their entire career and were part of more titles and played their prime here and like 12-13 seasons. The other guy may have been the better overall talent for a few years on other teams but really just played 5 years here like age 31-36. 

Can't choose Tiny and KG  as all-time Celtic players over Cousy and McHale.

I  was late to the showwith Cousy . Didn`t see him play much .Tiny and JoJo White were , to me, the most fun to watch, Celtic point guards. DJ was great, but less exciting. Rondo? If only he had learned to shoot.

Ram wrote:

swish wrote:My choice as Celtic point guard over Cousy.

  swish

That's like choosing KG over McHale. 

Two guys where here their entire career and were part of more titles and played their prime here and like 12-13 seasons. The other guy may have been the better overall talent for a few years on other teams but really just played 5 years here like age 31-36. 

Can't choose Tiny and KG  as all-time Celtic players over Cousy and McHale.

I can - and did - call it personal preference.

swish

Tiny was one tough little dude. He got splattered nightly and always came back for more, but I am sure that all the hits he took had to have at least somewhat shortened his career.

A great player in his prime and really fun to watch.

swish wrote:

Ram wrote:

swish wrote:My choice as Celtic point guard over Cousy.

  swish

That's like choosing KG over McHale. 

Two guys where here their entire career and were part of more titles and played their prime here and like 12-13 seasons. The other guy may have been the better overall talent for a few years on other teams but really just played 5 years here like age 31-36. 

Can't choose Tiny and KG  as all-time Celtic players over Cousy and McHale.

I can - and did - call it personal preference.

  swish

I'm not saying you can't have favorite players or preferences.

I'm just saying the facts and stats don't allow for 5 seasons and 1 title of age 30-34 Tiny to be placed ahead of 13 seasons and 6 titles from Cousy. 

Dee Brown was one of my favorite players ever. I might even prefer his best 2-3 seasons over Danny Ainge's b/c I liked his style of play and am too young to really remember Danny in Boston (just Portland and Phoenix). But I'm not silly enough to choose him over Danny in the pecking order of Celtic guards when one of them had 2 titles and FAR better stats. And these are two guys who played the same 7.5 seasons here before being traded, not 13 seasons vs. 5 like Couz vs. Tiny.

Ram wrote:

swish wrote:

Ram wrote:

swish wrote:My choice as Celtic point guard over Cousy.

  swish

That's like choosing KG over McHale. 

Two guys where here their entire career and were part of more titles and played their prime here and like 12-13 seasons. The other guy may have been the better overall talent for a few years on other teams but really just played 5 years here like age 31-36. 

Can't choose Tiny and KG  as all-time Celtic players over Cousy and McHale.

I can - and did - call it personal preference.

  swish

I'm not saying you can't have favorite players or preferences.

I'm just saying the facts and stats don't allow for 5 seasons and 1 title of age 30-34 Tiny to be placed ahead of 13 seasons and 6 titles from Cousy. 

Dee Brown was one of my favorite players ever. I might even prefer his best 2-3 seasons over Danny Ainge's b/c I liked his style of play and am too young to really remember Danny in Boston (just Portland and Phoenix). But I'm not silly enough to choose him over Danny in the pecking order of Celtic guards when one of them had 2 titles and FAR better stats. And these are two guys who played the same 7.5 seasons here before being traded, not 13 seasons vs. 5 like Couz vs. Tiny.

I'm silly enough to take Tiny over the Cuz- - because I'll take Tiny's career in the "big Leagues" over Cousy's career in the "minors". Both sitting on the roster - Tiny gets my call.

swish

swish wrote:
I'm silly enough to take Tiny over the Cuz- - because I'll take Tiny's career in the "big Leagues" over Cousy's career in the "minors".  Both sitting on the roster - Tiny gets my call.

 swish

I was talking about careers as Celtics. Entire career in green with stats and titles. 

If you are talking a playground game or building ONE roster and you can take the 1979-1981 Tiny and how he performed 30-32 or like 1954-1960 Cousy and how he performed 25-31 as your starting PG than I can see your point. 

I'd take 2008 KG over 1973-1977 Cowens or 1981-1987 Parish. For ONE season. Same with 1995 Dominique Wilkins over Don Nelson. But KG and Wilkins did not have better careers as Celtics than Cowens/Parish and Nelson.

I was talking all-time Celtics. 

And you can't choose 1971-1975 Tiny or 2001-2006 KG b/c they were not wearing green at that point in their careers.

As long as we are wishing things, these are my wishes for the 80's:

1980-81: Cowens does not retire, Fitch tells him he'll be the 6th man with less workload and Parish will start. He is a part of the title team. 

1981-82: Cowens sticks around again, providing the difference in the East Finals and Boston beats LA and wins back to back titles. (No "Beat LA" chants) Cowens retires.

1982-83: Celtics are swept... but by Sixers instead of Bucks. "Beat LA" chant happens in game 4 in the Garden, Sixers actually do beat them. 

1984: Celtics never trade Henderson for the Bias pick, but instead Red decides to loosen up his wallet as he looks around at the big spending Reagan 80's and gets with the times. He pays Gerald. Guard depth is not as big an issue '85-'88.

1985: Celtics win title with Maxwell rehabbing and manning up just a little bit more and Henderson providing a big lift. Then they draft Terry Porter. 

1986: Max is still traded for Walton. This is still a top 5 team of all-time. 

1987/88: With 5 titles in hand in the 80's the Celtics have players like McHale and Bird get surgery immediately instead of playing with injuries. Assuming they still get hurt Boston loses to LA or Detroit these years. 

1989: Ainge is not traded and Divac is drafted over Michael Smith (no need for Hardaway with Terry Porter and team probably is picking in 20's not teens)

1990 and 1991: Celtics switch to fun uptempo team with McHale back to 6th man and Bird a permanent PF on D, point-forward on offense with Lewis at SF and Shaw, Porter, Brown and Ainge at guards. They win a title one of these years

1993: Bird plays one extra season. Lewis collapses and is told he can never play ball again. Does not die. Celtics lose Bird, Lewis and McHale in the same offseason. 

1994-1997: C's know they need to rebuild. Go for the lotto 1995-98 and the multiple HOF players drafted top 10 those 4 years. Maybe get guys like Nash, Allen, Duncan and Dirk.

Ram wrote:

swish wrote:
I'm silly enough to take Tiny over the Cuz- - because I'll take Tiny's career in the "big Leagues" over Cousy's career in the "minors".  Both sitting on the roster - Tiny gets my call.

 swish

I was talking about careers as Celtics. Entire career in green with stats and titles. 

If you are talking a playground game or building ONE roster and you can take the 1979-1981 Tiny and how he performed 30-32 or like 1954-1960 Cousy and how he performed 25-31 as your starting PG than I can see your point. 

I'd take 2008 KG over 1973-1977 Cowens or 1981-1987 Parish. For ONE season. Same with 1995 Dominique Wilkins over Don Nelson. But KG and Wilkins did not have better careers as Celtics than Cowens/Parish and Nelson.

I was talking all-time Celtics. 

And you can't choose 1971-1975 Tiny or 2001-2006 KG b/c they were not wearing green at that point in their careers.

"If you are talking a playground game or building ONE roster and you can take the 1979-1981 Tiny and how he performed 30-32 or like 1954-1960 Cousy and how he performed 25-31 as your starting PG than I can see your point."

Per your above statement:
I'll make it perfectly clear - I would take the CELTICS YEARS TINY over Cousy - period.

swish wrote:

Ram wrote:

swish wrote:
I'm silly enough to take Tiny over the Cuz- - because I'll take Tiny's career in the "big Leagues" over Cousy's career in the "minors".  Both sitting on the roster - Tiny gets my call.

 swish

I was talking about careers as Celtics. Entire career in green with stats and titles. 

If you are talking a playground game or building ONE roster and you can take the 1979-1981 Tiny and how he performed 30-32 or like 1954-1960 Cousy and how he performed 25-31 as your starting PG than I can see your point. 

I'd take 2008 KG over 1973-1977 Cowens or 1981-1987 Parish. For ONE season. Same with 1995 Dominique Wilkins over Don Nelson. But KG and Wilkins did not have better careers as Celtics than Cowens/Parish and Nelson.

I was talking all-time Celtics. 

And you can't choose 1971-1975 Tiny or 2001-2006 KG b/c they were not wearing green at that point in their careers.

  "If you are talking a playground game or building ONE roster and you can take the 1979-1981 Tiny and how he performed 30-32 or like 1954-1960 Cousy and how he performed 25-31 as your starting PG than I can see your point."

       Per your above statement:
I'll make it perfectly clear - I would take the CELTICS YEARS TINY over Cousy - period.

Period?

You mean for one season or game right?

Like you do understand you cannot rank him above Cousy in a list of all-time greatest Celtics players b/c he did not play long enough in green right?

Ram wrote:

swish wrote:

Ram wrote:

swish wrote:
I'm silly enough to take Tiny over the Cuz- - because I'll take Tiny's career in the "big Leagues" over Cousy's career in the "minors".  Both sitting on the roster - Tiny gets my call.

 swish

I was talking about careers as Celtics. Entire career in green with stats and titles. 

If you are talking a playground game or building ONE roster and you can take the 1979-1981 Tiny and how he performed 30-32 or like 1954-1960 Cousy and how he performed 25-31 as your starting PG than I can see your point. 

I'd take 2008 KG over 1973-1977 Cowens or 1981-1987 Parish. For ONE season. Same with 1995 Dominique Wilkins over Don Nelson. But KG and Wilkins did not have better careers as Celtics than Cowens/Parish and Nelson.

I was talking all-time Celtics. 

And you can't choose 1971-1975 Tiny or 2001-2006 KG b/c they were not wearing green at that point in their careers.

  "If you are talking a playground game or building ONE roster and you can take the 1979-1981 Tiny and how he performed 30-32 or like 1954-1960 Cousy and how he performed 25-31 as your starting PG than I can see your point."

       Per your above statement:
I'll make it perfectly clear - I would take the CELTICS YEARS TINY over Cousy - period.

Period?

You mean for one season or game right?

Like you do understand you cannot rank him above Cousy in a list of all-time greatest Celtics players b/c he did not play long enough in green right?

What is the league requirement for years played in a Celtic uniform? No need to respond since I assume that I have a different set of values from yours when it comes to player selection criterion. You mentioned all the Cousy championship rings - but I place Zero value in that stat because it is a team stat. I didn't think that my brief statement about choosing Tiny over Cuz was going to cause such a fuss - but since it has, I figured that I owe you a detailed explanation as to why I would prefer Tiny as my starter. For the record: I started following during his Junior year at Holy Cross back in 1948 and of course had the good fortune, as a Celtic fan, to follow his entire career. Luv ya Cuz - BUT the Quality of play during his 13 year career was minor league quality at best when compared to the level that has developed since the late 70's. Starting with Cousy's 2nd year in 1951 and including his 1955-56 and 1960-61 seasons I have posted his guard competition for those years paying special attention to the 2 point shooting percentages for those players - Rather horrible aren't they. Also I want to note that the black speed merchants, that now dominate the modern game, were almost totally absent from the game back in Cousy's day. In 1951-52 = 10 players - all white,,,, 1955-56 = 12 players - all white,,,,1960-61 = 13 players - 11 white (.846%) And then came the Blacks - 1980-81 = 41 players - 2 white (.049%). And how about those fg%'s.

And one extremely important factor for which there is no stat,but which is very obvious when viewing video's of the games is the almost total lack of any dribbling skills with the off shooting hand. It prompted Cousy to remark in later years that "kids in the playgrounds have better ball handling skills then he ever had"

http://bkref.com/tiny/BaPgd


http://bkref.com/tiny/ORVGv


http://bkref.com/tiny/ORVGv


http://bkref.com/tiny/su5qQ


swish

I get that 31-32 year old Tiny was almost certainly a more talented PG than was Cousy at any point in his career if you plopped either one into a lineup regardless of the era. 

I'm just not going to give a guy with 5 years in green during the end of his career the nod in an all-time Celtic ranking over a guy who played 13 years here and is a legend. Trying to justify a personal favorite by demeaning the 1950's/60's (which my dad barely remembers let alone me) does a disservice to the franchise.

Ray Allen played 5 years later in his career here, won a title just like Tiny, and I don't put him ahead of Sam Jones b/c Sam played in the 50's/60's. 

The same thing can be said for KG vs. numerous bigs like Russ, Cowens, Parish and McHale. Stats, titles and longevity count when it comes to overall impact on the franchise, regardless of the era or that teams win championships not individuals.

For me, the only time the era that a guy played in comes into consideration is if they played a similar number of years here.

Take Heinsohn (9 yrs), Antoine (7.5) and Maxwell (8 ). 

Despite the flaws in Antoine I think he is the most talented player of the 3. Maxwell was clutch in an era of tough guys and has two titles and a Finals MVP to totally trump 'Toine's postseason resume. Tommy of course has the best stats, the most titles and the most all-star games in an era that many are quick to scorn. 

It ends up being between Tommy and Max when talking all-time Celtics, it should go to Heinsohn, but is close enough that the era he played in makes me lean towards Max the same way one might lean towards Tiny over Cousy. 

But if Max was here for only 4-5 years, or even 6 years with no Finals MVP, you'd have to give the nod to Tommy and his 9 years, 8 titles, 6 all-star games and 18p/9r career #'s.

Ram wrote:I get that 31-32 year old Tiny was almost certainly a more talented PG than was Cousy at any point in his career if you plopped either one into a lineup regardless of the era. 

I'm just not going to give a guy with 5 years in green during the end of his career the nod in an all-time Celtic ranking over a guy who played 13 years here and is a legend. Trying to justify a personal favorite by demeaning the 1950's/60's (which my dad barely remembers let alone me) does a disservice to the franchise.

Ray Allen played 5 years later in his career here, won a title just like Tiny, and I don't put him ahead of Sam Jones b/c Sam played in the 50's/60's. 

The same thing can be said for KG vs. numerous bigs like Russ, Cowens, Parish and McHale. Stats, titles and longevity count when it comes to overall impact on the franchise, regardless of the era or that teams win championships not individuals.

Your below quote:
"Trying to justify a personal favorite by demeaning the 1950's/60's (which my dad barely remembers let alone me) does a disservice to the franchise."

How could I be so hateful!!!! My youthful fantastic memories of - my favorite Celtic teams - my favorite Celtic players - especially the Cuz - certainly all those great memories should over-ride my honest opinion on this issue. I guess I've never taken to the "good old days" line.

swish

If you use different criteria, you are likely to arrive at different answers. resolution may not be possible--- interesting discussion , though

jrleftfoot wrote:If you use different criteria, you are likely to arrive at different answers. resolution may not be possible--- interesting discussion , though

I'm always interested in viewing the other side of the story - please fire away.

swish

jrleftfoot wrote:If you use different criteria, you are likely to arrive at different answers. resolution may not be possible--- interesting discussion , though

Jr,

Yep, you nailed it perfectly.  Perspective is a critical factor in any discussion.  Personally, I tend to avoid era comparisons.  Different games.  Laker greats Elgin Baylor and Jerry West had to put up their numbers with defenders hand-checking them and dropping them to the floor on drives.  Ask any player who competed against defensive-oriented Jerry Sloan and they'll tell you were bruised for days afterwards.  You compete against your peers, not some hypothetical future superman, nor do you get to keep your job because you're superior to an ancient.  If you did then James Young would be feeling pretty damn good about himself right now, and he sure as hell shouldn't be.

The crux of this particular discussion seems to be trying to define the qualification for "years of service in green".  It's like the NBA setting the minimum number of fgas for a scoring leader or rebounds for a rebounding leader.  That is a somewhat intriguing proposition.  Where should the bar be set?

As long as everybody remains courteous, gracious, convivial and discuss things in the same tone and manner they would if the other person was sitting next to them, disagreements are what sports boards are about as much as the head-nodding agreements.


bob


.

bobheckler wrote:

jrleftfoot wrote:If you use different criteria, you are likely to arrive at different answers. resolution may not be possible--- interesting discussion , though

Jr,

Yep, you nailed it perfectly.  Perspective is a critical factor in any discussion.  Personally, I tend to avoid era comparisons.  Different games.  Laker greats Elgin Baylor and Jerry West had to put up their numbers with defenders hand-checking them and dropping them to the floor on drives.  Ask any player who competed against defensive-oriented Jerry Sloan and they'll tell you were bruised for days afterwards.  You compete against your peers, not some hypothetical future superman, nor do you get to keep your job because you're superior to an ancient.  If you did then James Young would be feeling pretty damn good against himself right now, and he sure as hell shouldn't be.

The crux of this particular discussion seems to be trying to define the qualification for "years of service in green".  It's like the NBA setting the minimum number of fgas for a scoring leader or rebounds for a rebounding leader.  That is a somewhat intriguing proposition.  Where should the bar be set?

As long as everybody remains courteous, gracious, convivial and discuss things in the same tone and manner they would if the other person was sitting next to them, disagreements are what sports boards are about as much as the head-nodding agreements.


bob


.

                        Bob expressed what I was trying to say perfectly. Like the song said,, Swish, nobody`s right, nobody`s wrong. Using your criteria, I`d go with Tiny. Using Ram`s , I`d pick Cousy. Like I said , interesting discussion. Probably irreconcilable differences. I wasn`t trying to interrupt the flow though. Your point about the racial makeup of the league is worthy of a whole separate discussion. Who was better, Babe Ruth or Josh Gibson? We`ll never know. Pardon the digression.

jrleftfoot wrote:

bobheckler wrote:

jrleftfoot wrote:If you use different criteria, you are likely to arrive at different answers. resolution may not be possible--- interesting discussion , though

Jr,

Yep, you nailed it perfectly.  Perspective is a critical factor in any discussion.  Personally, I tend to avoid era comparisons.  Different games.  Laker greats Elgin Baylor and Jerry West had to put up their numbers with defenders hand-checking them and dropping them to the floor on drives.  Ask any player who competed against defensive-oriented Jerry Sloan and they'll tell you were bruised for days afterwards.  You compete against your peers, not some hypothetical future superman, nor do you get to keep your job because you're superior to an ancient.  If you did then James Young would be feeling pretty damn good against himself right now, and he sure as hell shouldn't be.

The crux of this particular discussion seems to be trying to define the qualification for "years of service in green".  It's like the NBA setting the minimum number of fgas for a scoring leader or rebounds for a rebounding leader.  That is a somewhat intriguing proposition.  Where should the bar be set?

As long as everybody remains courteous, gracious, convivial and discuss things in the same tone and manner they would if the other person was sitting next to them, disagreements are what sports boards are about as much as the head-nodding agreements.


bob


.

                        Bob expressed what I was trying to say perfectly. Like the song said,, Swish, nobody`s right, nobody`s wrong. Using your criteria, I`d go with Tiny. Using Ram`s , I`d pick Cousy. Like I said , interesting discussion. Probably irreconcilable differences. I wasn`t trying to interrupt the flow though. Your point about the racial makeup of the league is worthy of a whole separate discussion. Who was better, Babe Ruth or Josh Gibson? We`ll never know. Pardon the digression.

In regards to your below statement
"Your point about the racial makeup of the league is worthy of a whole separate discussion"
The switch from a white dominated league in those early years to a black dominated league from the late 70's on is easily documented. It is especially noteworthy in the Speed- agility positions of the under 6'9" players where blacks dominate. Add on the huge differences in shooting and ball handling skills plus the very significant added weight difference of the modern front court player and it's very easy to come to the conclusion that the nba of those early years has gone the way of the window fan, black and white tv, roadside phone booth and thousands of other Dinosaurs. The advancement in human athletic skills can best best be viewed by following the advancement of Olympic achievements over the years. On several occasions others have mentioned extenuating circumstances that should be taken into account - one of which is hand checking. In no way was hand checking ever a factor back in the 50's-60's. That was a generation of no touchum ball - could have played in gowns and tuxedo.

swish

swish wrote:

jrleftfoot wrote:

bobheckler wrote:

jrleftfoot wrote:If you use different criteria, you are likely to arrive at different answers. resolution may not be possible--- interesting discussion , though

Jr,

Yep, you nailed it perfectly.  Perspective is a critical factor in any discussion.  Personally, I tend to avoid era comparisons.  Different games.  Laker greats Elgin Baylor and Jerry West had to put up their numbers with defenders hand-checking them and dropping them to the floor on drives.  Ask any player who competed against defensive-oriented Jerry Sloan and they'll tell you were bruised for days afterwards.  You compete against your peers, not some hypothetical future superman, nor do you get to keep your job because you're superior to an ancient.  If you did then James Young would be feeling pretty damn good against himself right now, and he sure as hell shouldn't be.

The crux of this particular discussion seems to be trying to define the qualification for "years of service in green".  It's like the NBA setting the minimum number of fgas for a scoring leader or rebounds for a rebounding leader.  That is a somewhat intriguing proposition.  Where should the bar be set?

As long as everybody remains courteous, gracious, convivial and discuss things in the same tone and manner they would if the other person was sitting next to them, disagreements are what sports boards are about as much as the head-nodding agreements.


bob


.

                        Bob expressed what I was trying to say perfectly. Like the song said,, Swish, nobody`s right, nobody`s wrong. Using your criteria, I`d go with Tiny. Using Ram`s , I`d pick Cousy. Like I said , interesting discussion. Probably irreconcilable differences. I wasn`t trying to interrupt the flow though. Your point about the racial makeup of the league is worthy of a whole separate discussion. Who was better, Babe Ruth or Josh Gibson? We`ll never know. Pardon the digression.

In regards to your below statement
      "Your point about the racial makeup of the league is worthy of a whole separate discussion"
The switch from a white dominated league in those early years to a black dominated league from the late  70's on is easily documented. It is especially noteworthy in the Speed- agility positions of the under 6'9" players where blacks dominate. Add on the huge differences in shooting and ball handling skills plus the very significant added weight difference of the modern front court player and it's very easy to come to the conclusion that the nba of those early years has gone the way of the window fan, black and white tv, roadside phone booth and thousands of other Dinosaurs. The advancement in human athletic skills can best best be viewed by following the advancement of Olympic achievements over the years. On several occasions others have mentioned extenuating circumstances that should be taken into account - one of which is hand checking. In no way was hand checking ever a factor back in the 50's-60's. That was a generation of no touchum ball - could have played in gowns and tuxedo.

swish

                                               Well o.k. That settles that

jr I really like your avitar

jrleftfoot wrote:

swish wrote:

jrleftfoot wrote:

bobheckler wrote:

jrleftfoot wrote:If you use different criteria, you are likely to arrive at different answers. resolution may not be possible--- interesting discussion , though

Jr,

Yep, you nailed it perfectly.  Perspective is a critical factor in any discussion.  Personally, I tend to avoid era comparisons.  Different games.  Laker greats Elgin Baylor and Jerry West had to put up their numbers with defenders hand-checking them and dropping them to the floor on drives.  Ask any player who competed against defensive-oriented Jerry Sloan and they'll tell you were bruised for days afterwards.  You compete against your peers, not some hypothetical future superman, nor do you get to keep your job because you're superior to an ancient.  If you did then James Young would be feeling pretty damn good against himself right now, and he sure as hell shouldn't be.

The crux of this particular discussion seems to be trying to define the qualification for "years of service in green".  It's like the NBA setting the minimum number of fgas for a scoring leader or rebounds for a rebounding leader.  That is a somewhat intriguing proposition.  Where should the bar be set?

As long as everybody remains courteous, gracious, convivial and discuss things in the same tone and manner they would if the other person was sitting next to them, disagreements are what sports boards are about as much as the head-nodding agreements.


bob


.

                        Bob expressed what I was trying to say perfectly. Like the song said,, Swish, nobody`s right, nobody`s wrong. Using your criteria, I`d go with Tiny. Using Ram`s , I`d pick Cousy. Like I said , interesting discussion. Probably irreconcilable differences. I wasn`t trying to interrupt the flow though. Your point about the racial makeup of the league is worthy of a whole separate discussion. Who was better, Babe Ruth or Josh Gibson? We`ll never know. Pardon the digression.

In regards to your below statement
      "Your point about the racial makeup of the league is worthy of a whole separate discussion"
The switch from a white dominated league in those early years to a black dominated league from the late  70's on is easily documented. It is especially noteworthy in the Speed- agility positions of the under 6'9" players where blacks dominate. Add on the huge differences in shooting and ball handling skills plus the very significant added weight difference of the modern front court player and it's very easy to come to the conclusion that the nba of those early years has gone the way of the window fan, black and white tv, roadside phone booth and thousands of other Dinosaurs. The advancement in human athletic skills can best best be viewed by following the advancement of Olympic achievements over the years. On several occasions others have mentioned extenuating circumstances that should be taken into account - one of which is hand checking. In no way was hand checking ever a factor back in the 50's-60's. That was a generation of no touchum ball - could have played in gowns and tuxedo.

swish

                                               Well o.k. That settles that

That's not the response that I was hoping for. I am really hoping to read of the other side of the story which is frequently hinted at but never fully expressed.

swish

I just don`t think there is an argument to be had here. "Progress" is being made in almost every realm of human endeavor over the course of time. Everything you said is demonstrably true. I can`t speak for Ram , but I gathered that he was using a different yardstick . I suppose the countervailing argument , which I don`y particularly care to make , would be that one should be judged by how one dominated ones peers and that , assuming exponential dominance , one might  posit that , given the advances in nutrition , training , etc. , the oldtimers who were transcendent in their eras would be so today. I , for instance, choose to believe, and I use the word choose advisedly, that Babe Ruth`s achievements vis a vis his peers
are far more impressive than those of Barry Bonds, but there is no way of proving or disproving that. That`s why I mentioned Ruth and Josh Gibson earlier. At least they played during the same era, but since the competetion was different we can`t really compare them either. Opinions are , by their very nature subjective. So, in my opinion, is virtually everything else in life. I hope this response is satisfactory , because it is absolutely everything I have to say about the matter. I sort of intruded in ya`lls argument , but this is my 2 cents