Topic of Discussion 86 Boston Celtics vs 96 Bulls

If these two teams met up in a 7 games series who do you think would win and why?

I'm dying to hear what some of you think would happen.

THERE IS NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT THE CELTICS WOULD HAVE WON THIS SERIES. BIRD, PARISH, MCHALE, DJ, AND WALTON MADE THIS TEAM ONE HELL OF A TEAM TO WATCH GAME IN AND GAME OUT. IT WAS A TRUE TEAM GAME.
WALTON WAS A PHENOMENAL PASSER, HE WAS THRILLED TO BE ON THIS TEAM. I MET HIM ONE DAY IN THE MALL, AND HE KEPT ME THERE FOR ALMOST TWENTY MINUTES TALKING ABOUT HOW GREAT IT WAS TO BE A CELTIC. CAN YOU IMAGINE IF ALL OF THEM WERE TOGETHER IN THEIR PRIME?

I KNOW THERE ARE MANY MICHAEL FANS OUT THERE, BUT THIS WAS A TRUE
TEAM. I HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME, A HUGE RUSSELL, HAVLICEK
FAN, BUT THIS TEAM, THEY WON MY HEART.

I'm with Ros on this one, though of course my green tinted glasses are 1986 vintage so I'd go with the 86 over any other.

Besides having an 8 man rotation full of all stars, HOFers and MVPs.......great "team" players all, many who were capable of playing two positions or roles; has there ever been more BBall IQ and vision on the court at one time than when Bird, DJ and Walton were out there? (I'll accept some 1960s suggestions, but I didn't see them myself so 86 is my fav.)

Ditto with all above, the question was, when one was doubled teamed, the others had a free for all. Most of the year they just had to "show up" to blow the other team out. Rosalie mentioned Walton's passing ability, he and Bird put on a clinic all year long.

I always felt that the league was a bit diluted during the Bulls run and that the 86 team had more weapons and was more complete. I am in no way trying to take away from MJ's incredible talent.

But to me, the X factor on this team was chemistry, I have never seen a better example of this.The 86 team would have hammered them, plain and simple.

Pete

Questions like this generally are decided on a hometown or generational preference. I suspect the vote here will be Pro-Celtic, but for me its too close to call.
I rate it a toss-up.

Swish

Bobc,

I just bet you were hunkering down and waiting for this response. It really has nothing to do with the original topic of this thread, but just to respond to your question on whether there has ever been more basketball IQ and vision on the court at one time, the answer (with no disrespect to the 1985-86 team that mesmerized all of us) the answer is a resounding "Yes."

You correctly pointed out that the '85-'86 team went eight deep with all-stars, HOF'ers and MVPs. And also that Larry, DJ and Walton represented a formidable trio in terms of basketball IQ.

But, come on, Bob. The 1962-63 Boston Celtics team included:

• NINE (count 'em, nine) players who became future Hall-of-Famers plus a Hall-of-Fame coach

• SEVEN (count 'em, seven) players who became future NBA coaches, including six head coaches (one of them the second winningest head coach in Celtics history), plus a noted ball-stealer who could easily have become a head coach if he had expressed the slightest inclination

• a collective 78 career NBA championship rings (not including Red's nine), 53 all-star appearances, and 6 league MVP awards

• a team so deep that it included two premier sixth men—both of them at the pinnacle of basketball IQ (one invented the sixth man role and, incidentally, the flop, and the other was arguably the greatest true sixth man in history)

• incredible basketball creativity epitomized by two players who arguably redefined their respective positions more innovatively than any other two players of all-time, even to the extent of forcing significant changes in league rules

The 1985-86 Celtics were a serendipitous collection of immensely talented and complementary players who had a great season and thrilled all of us. The 1962-63 Celtics were a complete phenomenon of physicality and basketball intellect that was in the vanguard of a true NBA Tyranny.

Sam

Hi Sam,

Of course I knew it was coming! I figured you and others who saw the 60s team firsthand would have a different opinion. I'm going with 86 as my fav because I was too young to watch the 60s teams, not because I think they are better.

86 Cs against 96 Bulls = Cs win
63 Cs against 96 Bulls = Cs win
63 Cs against 86 Cs = (I'm not touching that one....)

I'd be extremely curious to see how Pippen and Bird would match up. Pippen is the greatest wing defender of all time IMO. His ability to double down on the post and recover is unsurpassed and his long arms make it hard to dribble penetrate by him.
I believe Bird would still do well, but he'd have to work for it very hard.

McHale vs Rodman would be interesting too, but I think McHale's length would allow him to get off just about any shot he would want. How the refs called Rodman's attempts at drawing charges when McHale would pivot and Rodman would flop on contact could affect the matchup adversely too.

Chief would have to be huge for the team as him vs Luc Longley is a huge mismatch in the C's favor.

Jordan would be Jordan, it would just come down to how much the C's defense would make him work for his points. I think you'd have to put DJ on him a lot.

I think the Celtics size and depth would be too much, but this is a real toss up series as Jordan is of course the x-factor.

I too believe the the league was severely diluted from having introduced 6 expansion teams in the previous 8 years. When you consider all the very good players who went to expansion teams and how the draft went from 24 picks to 30, you can see how previously bad teams and mediocre teams were unable to retool as easily and provide a stiffer challenge for the Bulls.

So to me 72 wins is not a significant factor vs the Celtics 67 wins who got those 67 in a much tougher league.

bobc33 wrote:Hi Sam,

Of course I knew it was coming! I figured you and others who saw the 60s team firsthand would have a different opinion. I'm going with 86 as my fav because I was too young to watch the 60s teams, not because I think they are better.

86 Cs against 96 Bulls = Cs win
63 Cs against 96 Bulls = Cs win
63 Cs against 86 Cs = (I'm not touching that one....)

I'll pick them as follows

86 C's vs 96 Bulls-toss-up
63 C/s vs 96 Bulls- Bulls
63 C's vs 86 Celts- 86 Celts

Swish

So who on the Bulls would stop McHale? And when the doubles begin Would Kevin pass it back out.

So who on the C's would "slow" down Jordan. DJ somewhat but he would require help unless we let him get his 63 and make the other 4 work like hell.

Regardless the front line of the C's would rule. And of course this is a C's formum too!

beat

Bobc,

I'm surprised you wouldn't pick a winner of 63 Celts vs. 86 Celts. C's win, of course. lol.

At least the 86 Celts and 96 Bulls were in the same era. Perhaps it makes comparisons a little more relevant than 63 versus 86..

However, since you brought it up, the only advantage I could see that the 86 Celts would have over the 63 team would be height. And, with adversaries like Chamberlain and Thurmond (and numerous others), that was a situation the Russell Celtics dealt with many times each season (playing every other team on eight or nine occasions). Otherwise, in terms of virtually all other comparisons, it's all 63 Celts as far as I'm concerned. In fact, they were so in synch and so versatile that they could play in whatever style was preferred by any other team and beat that other team at their own style.

Let's think a little about context. The 86 Celtics were highly motivated throughout the season, having lost the championship in 85 and realizing they had something really special (probably for limited duration) with Walton on board. And their performance reflected that tremendous motivation.

In contrast, the 62-63 Celtics were pretty much on cruise control throughout the season. They were in the middle of an eight-year championship run and had repeatedly proven to themselves that they could dominate on command. So, they played for the long haul rather than knocking themselves out every night. And, in an eight-team league, the average nightly competition was stronger than in 1985-65 when there were roughly three times as many teams.

So the fact that the 85-86 Celtics won a higher percentage of their regular season games, and probably excited their fans (including most on this board) on a nightly basis more than the earlier team did, is virtually meaningless in any debate about the two teams.

But let each team get high sky high for one winner-take-all game or series, and Bill Russell wouldn't lose. He just wouldn't! Period! End of story! Over 20 winner-take-all games in his career, against all comers, his record was 20-0. And my own belief is that, given the seething intensity and pride that resulted in harnessed energy instead of waving towels, neither Russ nor the rest of the 62-63 team would have allowed the game score (or series result) to be particularly close.

I'm not in the habit of dissing Celtics teams, and I'm definitely not dissing the great, great team of 1985-86 that gave me so much pleasure. It's not any failing of theirs, but simply the monstrous dominance-on-demand of the earlier team, that is the basis for what I'm saying.

One more factor: The 1962-63 starters boasted one of the great fast breaks (arguably the greatest) of all-time, led by the combination of Russell to Cousy to whomever. And here's the kicker. The second team would usually replace them and maintain or increase the pace. (Havlicek, and K.C. replacing Heinsohn and Cousy, with Russell a given on both units....get my point?)

Now, in terms of team speed and endurance, the 1985-86 team was arguably not superior to Celtics opponents in 62-63. In a big game, those 62-63 Celtics opponents typically withered under the constant pressure of the two units, and I see no reason why the 85-86 team wouldn't have withered as well.

But the bottom line really is that most of us are really fortunate to have seen either or both teams at their best.

Sam

Bobc

Just finished reading Sam's post on the superiority of the 62-63 Celtics vs the 85-86 Celts. Well Bob, there is another side to the story,and with the world of basketball shut down for a while, this may be a good time to liven up the board with a little banter about the generational differences between the 2 teams. I'm 79 years old and have been a Celtic fan since they first entered the league. As a matter of fact I have always considered the Celts of the Russell years to be my favorite teams. But I do see it differently than Sam does since I believe the 85-86 Celts would handle the 62-63 Celts with ease. As a matter of fact I believe there are many teams since the 1980's on to the present that were better than the 62-63 Celts.
I intend no put down of the 62-63 Celtics, but since Sam has so frequently sited the skills of Russell and company on this board, I thought that those of you that have not seen those teams or the way the game was played are entitled to the other side of the story. I'll start with a few facts tomorrow.

Swish

I saw the tail end of the Russell era in 69 as a kid. I did see a playoff game on Classic ESPN on Tommy H that showed the playoff clincher vs Wilts team with Nate Thurmond from 65 I believe. Russell was great, to see him battling the twin towers was astonishing, he was so great, and that team swarmed the Wilt team and outquicked them and wore them out.

However that Wilt team is no comparison to the 86 Celtics that have the best frontline in the history of the game and a healthy enough Bill Walton who routinely made great timely plays that year on both ends. Styles make fights, who on that team is gonna stop McHale?Satch or Tommy, then whos gonna stop Bird? I loved Havlicek, but can't see him coming close to stopping Larry either. Great as Russell was I can't see him stopping Parish/McHale/Walton, he can stop one, but can't see him stopping the other tower and theres not enough length at the other BIG positions of the 63 C's that could stop that frontline and then you have to deal with Bird too, Satch could make him work, but couldn't come close to taking anything away. Come on, Bird is too clever, too good, I see him raining 3's and that left handed hook shot mercilously.I see Bird drawing the great Russell out to the perimeter on switches and then shooting it in his face and passing/feeding the ball down low at will.Tommy would get eatin up by whichever BIG was not covered by Russell.

I don't see the 86 team being worn down enough over 7 games, I see too much size and rebounding power on the 86 team and its not a team that has the size factor slow them down as the Warriors might have done with Wilt and Nate. The 86 team had incredible movement, ball movement and passing that has not been seen on a BIG team since them. So they would be able to play their game on this other great Celtic team. Plus with all that size the 86 team could defend constant and hard. Remember Walton getting like 7 blocked shots in the regular season game at LA that year with McHale out? Even without McHale that team could play its own version of shutdown D. Third quarters we owned cause of the defense that season. That 63 team better be able to run cause in the halfcourt that 86 team could defend anyone.

Thinking about that 86 team its such a shame what happened to Len Bias, we woulda had 6 or 7 with him. Theres no team with this kind of skill and size that the great Russell teams had to face ever. Sorry Sam

The 86 team would be worn down in one game, not just seven. I was waiting for someone to start pairing off players for comparisons. That's not how you compare either the Celtics of the 60s or the Celtics of the 80s. What "stopped" Celtics opponents in the 60s was not so much the individual players as the team style. They just ran the other team into the ground, being the first professional basketball team to prove that a good offense is the best defense. There's nothing about the style of the Celtics of the 80s that would stop that. You can't block 'em if you can't catch 'em.

And no one has yet answered my comment about Russell's refusing to lose. That's an intangible that really became a tangible because it was so overpowering. I'll take the victor in 20-0 in winner-take-all games any day over a few inches on a bunch of slow guys. Because those dragging tongues would offset any height advantages.

Sorry, Cow.

Sam

Sam

That 86 team wore out the league in 86, the starters were always resting in the 4th, I'll give you the 63 team had a deeper backcourt, but how are you gonna stop McHale with that 63 team? Bird would also get whatever he wanted as Russell would have his hands full with Parish and Walton, its not like Parish/Walton are pushovers. With all due respect, if you really analyze this the Russell teams never had to play a BIG team like this 86 team. Anytime Russell comes over to help on Bird whos gonna stop that flash pass on the money in the post to a HoFer?

Russell is the greatest winner and defensive player in the history of the game, but this 86 team can beat most all star teams from any era. They only had one healthy year together, but how much doiminance did that frontline reek in 86? Sorry Bird, McHale, Parish and Bill Walton is too much for any team to match up with. Russell for once doesn't have enough help to deal with this frontline and that teams overall chemistry.

cow

Cow,

Just to clarify, that playoff game against the Warriors was in 1964. That was Nate Thurmond's rookie season, and he was not yet close to the player he would become. That rookie season, he played out of position as a power forward and averaged only 10.4 rebounds and 7.0 points per game. Compare that to his 1967-68 season, when he averaged 22.0 rebounds and 20.5 points per game.

Thurmond's strength was as a defender and shot blocker. In 1973-74 (the first year blocks were tracked) with Thurmond's career on the downswing, he was still able to get 2.9 blocks per game. As a rookie playing out of position, his defensive impact wouldn't have been anything like it would become.

I don't remember the Warriors from Wilt's brief tenure in San Francisco (I was only seven or eight at the time), but I do remember later looking at that roster and wondering why they didn't win a title. Besides Wilt and Nate, they had Tom Meschery, Guy Rodgers, and Al Attles. But Nate was young and the (ahem) chemistry issue with Wilt was everpresent, so they were no match for the finely tuned Celtic machine. The following season, things fell apart, Wilt was traded back to Philly, and the Warriors finished a woeful 17-63. After Wilt left, Thurmond moved to his natural center position and blossomed.

Sorry about roaming so far off topic, but I felt compelled to stick up for my man Nate.

Outside

Cow,

With all due respect, I'm afraid we're on completely different wave lengths. You think that seeing an aged '69 team through a child's eyes and watching video of a 1964 championship final in a series the Celtics won 4-1 while hardly having to break a sweat qualifies you to comment on how the '62-'63 team would have performed in a winner-take-all game or series with so much pride at stake.

Just one example of how very wrong you are. I have commented on how one of the most differentiating assets of the '62-'63 team was the ability (when the chips were down) to come at the opponent in waves of Hall-of-Famers with mostly young legs that were usually fresh because of the team's incredible depth. The 1969 team you saw did not possess that asset. That's how off-center your perspective on the 62-63 team is.

And, if you lack an understanding of something that obvious, you surely lack an understanding of some of the less obvious factors. Such as how the '62-'63 team would never stand around letting an opponent utilize any advantage the opponent might have. They were constantly plotting and using their myriad assets to keep the opponent off-balance, further diminishing any advantage the competitor might have. Just two examples of many I could cite:

• Ever hear of a full-court press? Not some dinky guard pressure. A real five-man full-court press. They had the ability and depth to use it early and often. Do you seriously think they would have allowed DJ to bring the ball up? No, someone else would have had to do so, thus disrupting the '86 offensive system. Do you seriously believe the press wouldn't have forced the '86 team to lose a lot of shot clock seconds getting into their offensive set, so that Larry and Kevin wouldn't have found it so easy to get to their preferred spots and rushed, off-balance shots could have eventuated.

• Ever hear of leaning on a player, in the way that Rick Mahorn used to lean so hard on McHale that McHale would lean right back and Mahorn would suddenly jump back, leaving McHale to fall on his butt? That ploy would be child's play to someone like beefy 6' 5" Jim Loscutoff. You don't have to be equal to an opponent's height in order to give the opponent fits.

These are just two of the myriad ways in which the Hall-of-Fame depth and versatility of the earlier team would have offered a conniving Red untold ways to disrupt the later team. And that's why your constant attempts to match up players, e.g. Larry against Havlicek or McHale against Satch, are irrelevant. The '62-'63 team prevented the competition from depending on individual matchups by dictating the dynamics of the contest, e.g. in the two ways I described above.

Another asset of the earlier team involved what I called "shared instincts" that transcended chemistry and sometimes seemed to approach telepathy. They had been together so long that, if Russell had switched as you mentioned, teammates would very likely have anticipated the switch and rotated accordingly.

You mentioned how Larry's team carved up opponents. As I said before, things that consistently worked against Larry's opponents wouldn't so readily have worked against the '62-'63 team. This is where your lack of recognition of the full arsenal of the '62-'63 team understandably encourages you and others to make certain assumptions. I just happen to feel many of those assumptions are overly simplistic and are not really warranted.

I don't at all blame you or anyone else for focusing so strongly on the greatness of the '86 team. I think they were great too. But basketball is often a matter of which team makes the better adjustments to neutralize the other's greatness. I think the '62-'63 team would be in the superior position to thwart their opponent's advantages.

Sam

Sorry but I'll have to drop out of this discussion for a while because I have another priority to attend do. I'll be glad to resume it later, although it's all so hypothetical that I'm not certain it serves much purpose.

Sam

Sam

I'm not comparing the 69 team, and I did not see the 63 team. I agree that backcourt depth could have given that team some problems, but wasn't KC the best press defender? Cooz while not Ernie D I just don't see him stopping Ainge or DJ from bringing up the ball and as much as you love Loscutoff I don't see a 6'5" PF being able to consistantly stop McHale, do you really think Kevin would have trouble shooting over him?

Show me the rosters of the two final playoff opponents if you can remember of the 63 team, then lets compare that to the 86 team, I'd be curious how they stack up. Thanks Sam

cow

sam wrote:Cow,

With all due respect, I'm afraid we're on completely different wave lengths. You think that seeing an aged '69 team through a child's eyes and watching video of a 1964 championship final in a series the Celtics won 4-1 while hardly having to break a sweat qualifies you to comment on how the '62-'63 team would have performed in a winner-take-all game or series with so much pride at stake.

Just one example of how very wrong you are. I have commented on how one of the most differentiating assets of the '62-'63 team was the ability (when the chips were down) to come at the opponent in waves of Hall-of-Famers with mostly young legs that were usually fresh because of the team's incredible depth. The 1969 team you saw did not possess that asset. That's how off-center your perspective on the 62-63 team is.

And, if you lack an understanding of something that obvious, you surely lack an understanding of some of the less obvious factors. Such as how the '62-'63 team would never stand around letting an opponent utilize any advantage the opponent might have. They were constantly plotting and using their myriad assets to keep the opponent off-balance, further diminishing any advantage the competitor might have. Just two examples of many I could cite:

• Ever hear of a full-court press? Not some dinky guard pressure. A real five-man full-court press. They had the ability and depth to use it early and often. Do you seriously think they would have allowed DJ to bring the ball up? No, someone else would have had to do so, thus disrupting the '86 offensive system. Do you seriously believe the press wouldn't have forced the '86 team to lose a lot of shot clock seconds getting into their offensive set, so that Larry and Kevin wouldn't have found it so easy to get to their preferred spots and rushed, off-balance shots could have eventuated.

• Ever hear of leaning on a player, in the way that Rick Mahorn used to lean so hard on McHale that McHale would lean right back and Mahorn would suddenly jump back, leaving McHale to fall on his butt? That ploy would be child's play to someone like beefy 6' 5" Jim Loscutoff. You don't have to be equal to an opponent's height in order to give the opponent fits.

These are just two of the myriad ways in which the Hall-of-Fame depth and versatility of the earlier team would have offered a conniving Red untold ways to disrupt the later team. And that's why your constant attempts to match up players, e.g. Larry against Havlicek or McHale against Satch, are irrelevant. The '62-'63 team prevented the competition from depending on individual matchups by dictating the dynamics of the contest, e.g. in the two ways I described above.

Another asset of the earlier team involved what I called "shared instincts" that transcended chemistry and sometimes seemed to approach telepathy. They had been together so long that, if Russell had switched as you mentioned, teammates would very likely have anticipated the switch and rotated accordingly.

You mentioned how Larry's team carved up opponents. As I said before, things that consistently worked against Larry's opponents wouldn't so readily have worked against the '62-'63 team. This is where your lack of recognition of the full arsenal of the '62-'63 team understandably encourages you and others to make certain assumptions. I just happen to feel many of those assumptions are overly simplistic and are not really warranted.

I don't at all blame you or anyone else for focusing so strongly on the greatness of the '86 team. I think they were great too. But basketball is often a matter of which team makes the better adjustments to neutralize the other's greatness. I think the '62-'63 team would be in the superior position to thwart their opponent's advantages.

Sam

Cow and all others that might be interested in the other side of the story.

I have been reading Sam's opinions on the virtures of the Russell years Celtics since 2007(Boston.com board). He is of the opinion that the 1962-63 Celtic team is the greatest team ever,and he has stated that opinion on many, many, ocassions over the past 4 years. He's certainly entitled to his opinion.
Like Sam I have been a Celtic fan since they played their Ist game in 1950 (I was 18 at the time) and have been with them for all 61 yrs. Russell and Cousy were my favorite players back in those early years but as the years have gone by others have joined the list. I don't think that I have ever had a favorite team which makes it quite easy for me to take on this subject with a open mind. I realize that I will be going against the grain by not supporting "my" Old Timers generation. And I strongly believe that the Generational factor plays a big role in discussions like this.
So where do we start? I guess a rebuttle to the above statement is as good as any. Time for a break now. Very limited typing skills make commuticating my thoughts a ratter time consuming process.Be back in an hour.

Swish

the 63 era Celts were the best of THEIR time

The 86 Celts were the best of their tiME

And if by some quirk of fate they could be brought back to their health at those years and play each other in a seven game series.

My money is that a team in green will win!

(there is going way out on a limb!)

beat

Beat,

Smooth move!

Pete

Only 2 paragraphs in Sam's statement are worthy of comment. All the others are opinion only. Well writen as usual by Sam, who has a talent for making convincing arguments, but never the less theyn are only opinions.
Paragraph # 2
So who are these "Waves" of Hall of Famers? Its not easy to get elected to the h-O-F. as a player. Only 85 players have made it in 51 years. Thats about 1.6 per year. All were selected based on there achievements against there peers. The 8 Celts on the 62-63 were as follows. Cousy, Russell, Ramsey, Havlicek, S.Jones,Heinsohn,Lovellette and K.C. Jones. All but Havlicek played most of their career at a time when the total number of players in the league was about 100-115 per year.

The impact that a player had on the game Can to some extent be gauged by how quickly he was elected to the Hall when he was eligible to be considered. For the 62-63 Celtics the wait was as follows.
Cousy-1 yr. (The 5 yr, rule was waived because he had come out of retirement to play a few games) Russell-6yrs, Ramsey-!8 yrs. Havlicek- 6yrs, S. Jones-!5yrs, Heinsohn-21yrs. Lovellette-24yrs.and K.C Jones-22yrs.

For the 85-86 H-O-F Celts its as follows.
Walton-6yrs, Bird-6yrs, McHale-6yrs, Parish-6yrs, Johson-20yrs.
They played at a time when the competition for H-O-F came from some 325 players per year.
I will point out the huge difference in the level of competition that existed
between the 2 Generations later today. As to Loscutoff handling McHale, ( paragraph 5), I will just pointout that he was 6'5" and 220 lbs. and in 62-63 he played in 63 games, averaged 9.6 minutes per game and 3.3 points per game.
Swish

Swish

Very interesting take on years to get into the HOF. I only ask in reference to how one is selected and if the process was a bit different years ago than it is now. In attempting to find that out I stumbbled upon this 2007 article about some of the best players that have been overlooked for the HOF some since have made it but Jo Jo White is not one of them. Interesting take on why Jo Jo should be there.

Here is the piece

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?id=2394981


beat

beat wrote:Swish

Very interesting take on years to get into the HOF. I only ask in reference to how one is selected and if the process was a bit different years ago than it is now. In attempting to find that out I stumbbled upon this 2007 article about some of the best players that have been overlooked for the HOF some since have made it but Jo Jo White is not one of them. Interesting take on why Jo Jo should be there.

Here is the piece

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?id=2394981


beat

Beat
I don't have a clue as to why White's not in the H-O-F nor do I have any clue as to the selection process. When I get a chance to put some serious research into it I'll see what I can come up with. I would guess that it is the human element that makes the system less than perfect. In the mean time Jo Jo and the others will have to sit back and wonder if and when their turn will come. It must be differcult to except the rejection when in their opinion some of the players in the H_O-F are not any better. In my opinion, some of those players of the 50's would have trouble even making the roster of a NBA team of the late 60's forward. But like I said earlier they were rewarded for their play, as it should be, against their PEERS.
Because the pool of outstanding players is so much greater now(the total number of players is now around 450) perhaps it is time to increase the number selected yearly.

Swish