60's C's/90's Bulls

["Greg Odegaard" <gmodegaa@longvred.rmc.com>]

Points on the big topic of the week m/l;

----------
> From: R. Bentz Kirby <bocelts@scsn.net>
> Subject: Re: If he wore green and white?
> 
> Well, I pointed out that dunking is UP.  And I think that might account
for some of
> the stats.  The old Celtics won with team play, defense and offense.  I
think that >the  shooting skills have diminished as far as the outside jump
shot goes.  

The art of the jump shot is in serious jepordy of being a lost art.  Most
of the sports world agrees on this fact.  Like traditional centers look at
how desperate most teams are for one clutch, ala Reggie Miller, shooter. 
Sound familiar?

> On Sat, 30 May 1998 17:11:10 -0400, Bentz wrote:
> >
> > >I would say that Jordan is in the class with Russell, Chamberlain,
Bird, Magic,
> > >Kareem.  I am not sure that anyone else is in that class.  

Include Oscar Roberston, Jerry West, Cousy and Mikan for sure (how can they
be left out, they defined the game in their times?), and maybe Dr. J.

> > Bentz's claims about shooting skills are somewhat exagerated.

> > Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be much of a correlation between
> > expansion and FG% (and, if anything, it's positive).  By 1968-69, the
> >
> > Bill Cooper

The dilution of skills due to expansion works both ways Bill;  again there
is little doubt that shooting skills are decreased, and to say that
expansion has not contributed to a perceived lower overall skill level, is
wrong.  A dilution of the skills does not just show up in the areas of
shooting and offense, it shows up most in the areas of defense.  Like in
Baseball and pitching, offenses for the most part should thrive on the piss
poor team defense that at least 1/2 of the league throws on the court. 
Scoring should sky rocket as HR's and runs production has in the diluted
majors of baseball.  It has not, it is at it's lowest level since the
advent of the 24 second clock. At least 1/3 of the teams in this league
have virtually no clue how to consistently score points.  It is a pure crap
shoot.

The bottom line is that the 8 to 13 teams of the 60's played each other
anywhere from 5 to 12 times each season, and except for the bottom 2 or 3,
more at the end of the decade, all the teams were very good.  Russell had
to play Wilt at least 9 times most seasons.  This made getting to 60 wins
very hard.  If MJ had to play the Pacers, Jazz, Fakers, Sonics and Suns 9
times each year how wins could we possibly expect them to pull down, while
travelling coach?

This argument of 60's Celtics versus 90's Bulls is mute mostly due to
style, salary cap challenges and physical atributes of teams of each era,
but given the comparison to an expert of math and analysis (science) the
Celtics would win 7 out of 10 meetings in the finals.  The 60's Lakers were
a team of similar comparison to these Bulls and the C's won 6 out of 6
meetings.  Why because they were the greatest ever and they knew how to win
regardless of the method and style, and they had Bill Russell.

Thank you,
Greg