Author Topic: Bill Russell  (Read 19092 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Bill Russell
« Reply #30 on: March 12, 2013, 12:35:23 PM »

Offline CelticConcourse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6162
  • Tommy Points: 383
  • Jeff Green
And people need to stop with this nonsense that the league was watered down and it wasn't back in the old days.  I mean have people actually looked at some of the teams from the 67-68 season.

The San Diego Rockets may be one of the worst teams ever from that year.  http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SDR/1968.html

How about the Seattle Supersonics http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/1968.html

How about this 29 win team that actually made the playoffs that year http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1968.html

Or the Baltimore Bullets http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BAL/1968.html

In other words 4 of the 12 teams that year were just down right awful.  The Royals, Warriors, and Pistons had some good players, but had an awful lot of scrubs as well.  Now granted that was the first year of the ABA, but there wasn't much difference the prior year when there were 10 teams as the Bullets weer horrid in 66-67 and the Bulls and Pistons weren't much better (so 3 of 10 that weren't exactly stellar teams).  The reality is there will always be great teams and there will always be awful teams.  It is just the nature of sport.

Who cares?

I don't think it diminishess anything Russell & the Celtics accomplished during that time period.

You can't really blame Russell and Co. for playing in a bad era, can you?
Jeff Green - Top 5 SF

[Kevin Garnett]
"I've always said J. Green is going to be one of the best players to ever play this game"

Re: Bill Russell
« Reply #31 on: March 12, 2013, 01:49:28 PM »

Online Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33431
  • Tommy Points: 1532
And people need to stop with this nonsense that the league was watered down and it wasn't back in the old days.  I mean have people actually looked at some of the teams from the 67-68 season.

The San Diego Rockets may be one of the worst teams ever from that year.  http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SDR/1968.html

How about the Seattle Supersonics http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/1968.html

How about this 29 win team that actually made the playoffs that year http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1968.html

Or the Baltimore Bullets http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BAL/1968.html

In other words 4 of the 12 teams that year were just down right awful.  The Royals, Warriors, and Pistons had some good players, but had an awful lot of scrubs as well.  Now granted that was the first year of the ABA, but there wasn't much difference the prior year when there were 10 teams as the Bullets weer horrid in 66-67 and the Bulls and Pistons weren't much better (so 3 of 10 that weren't exactly stellar teams).  The reality is there will always be great teams and there will always be awful teams.  It is just the nature of sport.

Who cares?

I don't think it diminishess anything Russell & the Celtics accomplished during that time period.

You can't really blame Russell and Co. for playing in a bad era, can you?
No.  My point was merely there are crappy teams in every generation.  Look at this thread and the amount of times people talk about how watered down the league is today and how it was different back then.  My point was merely it is hogwash.  There are good teams and bad teams in every generation.  None is different than any other.  That is my point.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Bill Russell
« Reply #32 on: March 12, 2013, 02:13:34 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
I honestly think the league is deeper now than it's ever been.  Can't underestimate that basketball is now a truly global sport, with the NBA as its unquestioned pinnacle.  And everyone from stars to role players are staying effective through their mid-to-late 30s a lot more often than they used to.  It was significantly shallower 15-20 years ago at Jordan's peak, though.

I don't like speculating on how good Russell would be today overall, but I'm very confident that he wouldn't win 11 titles in 13 years.  It's just too unlikely in the modern era.  For someone to do that again you'd need a much smaller league with much less player movement, which is precisely what Russell had.

Re: Bill Russell
« Reply #33 on: March 12, 2013, 03:03:33 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5308
  • Tommy Points: 862
I don't think its easy to say that the league is deeper now or then.

The league is bigger, with more teams, so the pool of top-level basketball players is spread among a lot more teams.

That said, there are also a lot more players available from more colleges as the NCAA has grown and the international pool of players as the international game has grown.   

On the other hand, the NFL and MLB both are also much bigger (as is international football/soccer) so those sports would draw away from the pool.

In the end, it is probably a wash.   The selective nature of NBA basketball talent that Russell competed against was probably similar to that which is in the NBA today.

You might try to argue that today's athletes are better trained and taken care of (nutrition, medicine, etc.).   But if you magically transported a player from one era to the other, you have to assume he'd get those sort of benefits of the new era.

Same point has to be made about rule changes.

Thus my take is that just as Russell and Wilt dominated their era, they would probably have dominated this modern era.    Maybe not to the tune of winning quite so many of those championships - because it is simply structurally more difficult for a team to repeat as a title winner year after year these days.   But as a player, I'm certain Russell would be just as dominant.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Bill Russell
« Reply #34 on: March 13, 2013, 07:25:54 AM »

Offline CelticConcourse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6162
  • Tommy Points: 383
  • Jeff Green
And then there's that thing called the "CBA" ;D I wonder how much Russell or Wilt would have been paid in today's NBA
Jeff Green - Top 5 SF

[Kevin Garnett]
"I've always said J. Green is going to be one of the best players to ever play this game"

Re: Bill Russell
« Reply #35 on: March 13, 2013, 07:36:07 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20000
  • Tommy Points: 1323
Quote
I honestly think the league is deeper now than it's ever been.

The league was not deeper then.   Lesser teams means better players top to bottom.   There would not be scrubs on the old league.

Quote
  Can't underestimate that basketball is now a truly global sport, with the NBA as its unquestioned pinnacle.  And everyone from stars to role players are staying effective through their mid-to-late 30s a lot more often than they used to.  It was significantly shallower 15-20 years ago at Jordan's peak, though.

Global = more fanbase not better players.  The league was weak in the Jordan years.   But in Russell's era, which I might add was a full twenty between Jordan and Russell almost, teams were loaded with all americans.

How old are you, Fairweather?

Teams were loaded in the 80s  too.   This three all star thing happened all the time then.   C's , 76ers and Lakers were loaded and you could have made two of today's teams with their talent levels.   I beat their benches could tear up half the league.

Re: Bill Russell
« Reply #36 on: March 13, 2013, 09:11:07 AM »

Online Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33431
  • Tommy Points: 1532
Quote
I honestly think the league is deeper now than it's ever been.

The league was not deeper then.   Lesser teams means better players top to bottom.   There would not be scrubs on the old league.

Quote
  Can't underestimate that basketball is now a truly global sport, with the NBA as its unquestioned pinnacle.  And everyone from stars to role players are staying effective through their mid-to-late 30s a lot more often than they used to.  It was significantly shallower 15-20 years ago at Jordan's peak, though.

Global = more fanbase not better players.  The league was weak in the Jordan years.   But in Russell's era, which I might add was a full twenty between Jordan and Russell almost, teams were loaded with all americans.

How old are you, Fairweather?

Teams were loaded in the 80s  too.   This three all star thing happened all the time then.   C's , 76ers and Lakers were loaded and you could have made two of today's teams with their talent levels.   I beat their benches could tear up half the league.
But have you actually looked at the teams I posted links to in this thread.  Sure there were some great teams in the 60's, as there were in the 70's, and 80's, and 90's, and 00's, and today, and there were also a lot of crappy teams.  I mean this is the Knicks from 85-86  http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/NYK/1986.html.  Ewing and Gerald Wilkins as rookies (and Ewing played in just 50 games) and absolutely no one else of note unless you count Cartwright as note.  I mean the Bulls made the playoffs that year and were 30-52.  The Bucks were the 2nd best team in the East that year and not only didn't have a single all time great on their team, they didn't even have a single HOFer. 

Everybody always looks back on teams of yore with a greater appreciation and always just remembers the greats without remembering the dredge that is always at the bottom of the league. 

If this years Heat team actually does what it should and wins the title it would be a top 2 or 3 team in every single year in NBA history.  They have 3 HOFers in their prime (James, Wade, Bosh) one of which is by far the best player in the league.  They add a 4th HOFer that is still a very effective shooter (Allen).  They have some very strong and effective role players like Battier, Haslem, and Chalmers.  Heck even Cole, Miller, Anderson, and Lewis are pretty darn good when you consider they are the 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th players on the Heat.  I wouldn't count them out against any of the greatest teams in history. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Bill Russell
« Reply #37 on: March 13, 2013, 09:34:40 AM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Quote
I honestly think the league is deeper now than it's ever been.

The league was not deeper then.   Lesser teams means better players top to bottom.   There would not be scrubs on the old league.

I can't parse this - are you saying the league isn't deeper now, and fewer teams means better players top to bottom?  That isn't necessarily true, if fewer people are playing the game.  A simple example - there are about 2x as many Americans now as in the 50s.  If all else is equal, you'd expect about 2x as many good players today from America just based on sheer numbers.  Bigger talent pool = more high-level players.

And there have been scrubs in every era of the league; we just don't remember them because, well, they're scrubs.  And the Celtics of old didn't have many.

Quote
  Can't underestimate that basketball is now a truly global sport, with the NBA as its unquestioned pinnacle.  And everyone from stars to role players are staying effective through their mid-to-late 30s a lot more often than they used to.  It was significantly shallower 15-20 years ago at Jordan's peak, though.

Global = more fanbase not better players.  The league was weak in the Jordan years.   But in Russell's era, which I might add was a full twenty between Jordan and Russell almost, teams were loaded with all americans.

How old are you, Fairweather?

Teams were loaded in the 80s  too.   This three all star thing happened all the time then.   C's , 76ers and Lakers were loaded and you could have made two of today's teams with their talent levels.   I beat their benches could tear up half the league.

No, a global sport also means a broader talent pool for players.  The major influx of foreign players over the last 20 years speaks for that.  Ginobili, Kirilenko, Yao, Bogut, Ibaka - 5 very good recent players from 5 different continents.  And those are just off the top of my head - there are dozens of other examples.

When a few teams are stacked like you're mentioning, it's offset by how unstacked the bad teams in the league are.  Like Moranis said, look at the rosters and records for the worst teams in the 80s.  The league being top-heavy doesn't mean the entire league was deeper. 

Bottom line, the NBA has the biggest talent pool it's ever had, and more longevity across the board too.  That's led to a major increase in depth over the past couple of decades.

Re: Bill Russell
« Reply #38 on: March 13, 2013, 09:49:42 AM »

Offline Lightskinsmurf

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1949
  • Tommy Points: 134
Might be the biggest homer thread I've read on here, not sure.

Re: Bill Russell
« Reply #39 on: March 13, 2013, 09:57:49 AM »

Offline mmmmm

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5308
  • Tommy Points: 862
Quote
I honestly think the league is deeper now than it's ever been.

The league was not deeper then.   Lesser teams means better players top to bottom.   There would not be scrubs on the old league.

I can't parse this - are you saying the league isn't deeper now, and fewer teams means better players top to bottom?  That isn't necessarily true, if fewer people are playing the game.  A simple example - there are about 2x as many Americans now as in the 50s.  If all else is equal, you'd expect about 2x as many good players today from America just based on sheer numbers.  Bigger talent pool = more high-level players.

And there have been scrubs in every era of the league; we just don't remember them because, well, they're scrubs.  And the Celtics of old didn't have many.

Quote
  Can't underestimate that basketball is now a truly global sport, with the NBA as its unquestioned pinnacle.  And everyone from stars to role players are staying effective through their mid-to-late 30s a lot more often than they used to.  It was significantly shallower 15-20 years ago at Jordan's peak, though.

Global = more fanbase not better players.  The league was weak in the Jordan years.   But in Russell's era, which I might add was a full twenty between Jordan and Russell almost, teams were loaded with all americans.

How old are you, Fairweather?

Teams were loaded in the 80s  too.   This three all star thing happened all the time then.   C's , 76ers and Lakers were loaded and you could have made two of today's teams with their talent levels.   I beat their benches could tear up half the league.

No, a global sport also means a broader talent pool for players.  The major influx of foreign players over the last 20 years speaks for that.  Ginobili, Kirilenko, Yao, Bogut, Ibaka - 5 very good recent players from 5 different continents.  And those are just off the top of my head - there are dozens of other examples.

When a few teams are stacked like you're mentioning, it's offset by how unstacked the bad teams in the league are.  Like Moranis said, look at the rosters and records for the worst teams in the 80s.  The league being top-heavy doesn't mean the entire league was deeper. 

Bottom line, the NBA has the biggest talent pool it's ever had, and more longevity across the board too.  That's led to a major increase in depth over the past couple of decades.

Per my post up above, I don't contend that the talent pool in the 60s was deeper or thinner than today.   I think there are contributing factors to both directions.   Just as there are more athletes to draw from to feed the NBA pool, they are spread across a larger pool and there are also other sports competing for their talents.

Even if we accept that the overall quality is about the same though, there is an effect of expansion that has been overlooked so far in this conversation.

In an 82 game season, in an expanded league, all other things equal, you play each team less often.  So you get less exposure to both the scrub teams and the elite teams.  You tend to play more games against the middle.

I'll leave to to folks to think about how that might affect your assessment of the play of guys like Russell and Wilt.   And obviously, whether a schedule is 'balanced' or loaded affects this.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Bill Russell
« Reply #40 on: March 13, 2013, 10:04:37 AM »

Online Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33431
  • Tommy Points: 1532
Quote
I honestly think the league is deeper now than it's ever been.

The league was not deeper then.   Lesser teams means better players top to bottom.   There would not be scrubs on the old league.

I can't parse this - are you saying the league isn't deeper now, and fewer teams means better players top to bottom?  That isn't necessarily true, if fewer people are playing the game.  A simple example - there are about 2x as many Americans now as in the 50s.  If all else is equal, you'd expect about 2x as many good players today from America just based on sheer numbers.  Bigger talent pool = more high-level players.

And there have been scrubs in every era of the league; we just don't remember them because, well, they're scrubs.  And the Celtics of old didn't have many.

Quote
  Can't underestimate that basketball is now a truly global sport, with the NBA as its unquestioned pinnacle.  And everyone from stars to role players are staying effective through their mid-to-late 30s a lot more often than they used to.  It was significantly shallower 15-20 years ago at Jordan's peak, though.

Global = more fanbase not better players.  The league was weak in the Jordan years.   But in Russell's era, which I might add was a full twenty between Jordan and Russell almost, teams were loaded with all americans.

How old are you, Fairweather?

Teams were loaded in the 80s  too.   This three all star thing happened all the time then.   C's , 76ers and Lakers were loaded and you could have made two of today's teams with their talent levels.   I beat their benches could tear up half the league.

No, a global sport also means a broader talent pool for players.  The major influx of foreign players over the last 20 years speaks for that.  Ginobili, Kirilenko, Yao, Bogut, Ibaka - 5 very good recent players from 5 different continents.  And those are just off the top of my head - there are dozens of other examples.

When a few teams are stacked like you're mentioning, it's offset by how unstacked the bad teams in the league are.  Like Moranis said, look at the rosters and records for the worst teams in the 80s.  The league being top-heavy doesn't mean the entire league was deeper. 

Bottom line, the NBA has the biggest talent pool it's ever had, and more longevity across the board too.  That's led to a major increase in depth over the past couple of decades.

Per my post up above, I don't contend that the talent pool in the 60s was deeper or thinner than today.   I think there are contributing factors to both directions.   Just as there are more athletes to draw from to feed the NBA pool, they are spread across a larger pool and there are also other sports competing for their talents.

Even if we accept that the overall quality is about the same though, there is an effect of expansion that has been overlooked so far in this conversation.

In an 82 game season, in an expanded league, all other things equal, you play each team less often.  So you get less exposure to both the scrub teams and the elite teams.  You tend to play more games against the middle.

I'll leave to to folks to think about how that might affect your assessment of the play of guys like Russell and Wilt.   And obviously, whether a schedule is 'balanced' or loaded affects this.
Fair point, but it also means you are less familiar with the teams which works both ways and the teams you do play are more up to play the top teams than they might have been if they had 8 games as opposed to just 2.  Also, for much of the Celtics run in the 60's they were winning titles by winning 2 playoff series.  It is a heck of a lot easier to win 2 series than 4.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Bill Russell
« Reply #41 on: March 13, 2013, 10:22:56 AM »

Offline mmmmm

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5308
  • Tommy Points: 862
Quote
I honestly think the league is deeper now than it's ever been.

The league was not deeper then.   Lesser teams means better players top to bottom.   There would not be scrubs on the old league.

I can't parse this - are you saying the league isn't deeper now, and fewer teams means better players top to bottom?  That isn't necessarily true, if fewer people are playing the game.  A simple example - there are about 2x as many Americans now as in the 50s.  If all else is equal, you'd expect about 2x as many good players today from America just based on sheer numbers.  Bigger talent pool = more high-level players.

And there have been scrubs in every era of the league; we just don't remember them because, well, they're scrubs.  And the Celtics of old didn't have many.

Quote
  Can't underestimate that basketball is now a truly global sport, with the NBA as its unquestioned pinnacle.  And everyone from stars to role players are staying effective through their mid-to-late 30s a lot more often than they used to.  It was significantly shallower 15-20 years ago at Jordan's peak, though.

Global = more fanbase not better players.  The league was weak in the Jordan years.   But in Russell's era, which I might add was a full twenty between Jordan and Russell almost, teams were loaded with all americans.

How old are you, Fairweather?

Teams were loaded in the 80s  too.   This three all star thing happened all the time then.   C's , 76ers and Lakers were loaded and you could have made two of today's teams with their talent levels.   I beat their benches could tear up half the league.

No, a global sport also means a broader talent pool for players.  The major influx of foreign players over the last 20 years speaks for that.  Ginobili, Kirilenko, Yao, Bogut, Ibaka - 5 very good recent players from 5 different continents.  And those are just off the top of my head - there are dozens of other examples.

When a few teams are stacked like you're mentioning, it's offset by how unstacked the bad teams in the league are.  Like Moranis said, look at the rosters and records for the worst teams in the 80s.  The league being top-heavy doesn't mean the entire league was deeper. 

Bottom line, the NBA has the biggest talent pool it's ever had, and more longevity across the board too.  That's led to a major increase in depth over the past couple of decades.

Per my post up above, I don't contend that the talent pool in the 60s was deeper or thinner than today.   I think there are contributing factors to both directions.   Just as there are more athletes to draw from to feed the NBA pool, they are spread across a larger pool and there are also other sports competing for their talents.

Even if we accept that the overall quality is about the same though, there is an effect of expansion that has been overlooked so far in this conversation.

In an 82 game season, in an expanded league, all other things equal, you play each team less often.  So you get less exposure to both the scrub teams and the elite teams.  You tend to play more games against the middle.

I'll leave to to folks to think about how that might affect your assessment of the play of guys like Russell and Wilt.   And obviously, whether a schedule is 'balanced' or loaded affects this.
Fair point, but it also means you are less familiar with the teams which works both ways and the teams you do play are more up to play the top teams than they might have been if they had 8 games as opposed to just 2.  Also, for much of the Celtics run in the 60's they were winning titles by winning 2 playoff series.  It is a heck of a lot easier to win 2 series than 4.

The 'less familiar' and getting 'up to play' factors work both ways, though.  Ultimately, talent vs talent is going to be the decider in the long run.

I think what the main effect of the expanded league (that otherwise has, say the same average level of talent) on the schedule is that it allows elite teams to rack up more wins.   That's because they play more games against crappy and mediocre teams, both of whom they will usually beat, and fewer games against elite teams against which things might be more 50/50.

Similarly, it makes the crappy teams rack up even more losses.

This means, by corollary that elite players will tend to have amplified regular season stats in an expanded league.

On the other hand, I do agree that the expanded levels to the playoffs make it more difficult for teams to dominate year after year in the playoffs.   Winning just one title means your team has to both be healthy and play 'hot' for several weeks in a row - and hope no other team is playing hotter at the same time.   Doing it multiple years in a row is tough.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Bill Russell
« Reply #42 on: March 13, 2013, 10:34:06 AM »

Offline Lord of Mikawa

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 883
  • Tommy Points: 66
  • Anti-Lakers&Anti-Heat
Might be the biggest homer thread I've read on here, not sure.
Doubtful. Players like West, Baylor, Wilt among others could have played in today's league. Most NBA players are straight up garbage as a team unit.
Signed to a 6 year $0 contract with the Celtics Blog forum!

Re: Bill Russell
« Reply #43 on: March 13, 2013, 11:08:47 AM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30912
  • Tommy Points: 1604
  • What a Pub Should Be
Might be the biggest homer thread I've read on here, not sure.
Doubtful. Players like West, Baylor, Wilt among others could have played in today's league. Most NBA players are straight up garbage as a team unit.

Basically, I look at it this way.  Guys like West, Baylor, Russell, Wilt, etc... are either playing with 2010s conditioning and modern medicine or you have to throw the modern guys back to 1950s-1960s conditioning.

You wouldn't be dropping a 1963 Bill Russell into 2013.

That's why I think the elite of the elite could very possibly play in today's NBA. 

 


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Bill Russell
« Reply #44 on: March 13, 2013, 11:18:22 AM »

Online Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33431
  • Tommy Points: 1532
Quote
I honestly think the league is deeper now than it's ever been.

The league was not deeper then.   Lesser teams means better players top to bottom.   There would not be scrubs on the old league.

I can't parse this - are you saying the league isn't deeper now, and fewer teams means better players top to bottom?  That isn't necessarily true, if fewer people are playing the game.  A simple example - there are about 2x as many Americans now as in the 50s.  If all else is equal, you'd expect about 2x as many good players today from America just based on sheer numbers.  Bigger talent pool = more high-level players.

And there have been scrubs in every era of the league; we just don't remember them because, well, they're scrubs.  And the Celtics of old didn't have many.

Quote
  Can't underestimate that basketball is now a truly global sport, with the NBA as its unquestioned pinnacle.  And everyone from stars to role players are staying effective through their mid-to-late 30s a lot more often than they used to.  It was significantly shallower 15-20 years ago at Jordan's peak, though.

Global = more fanbase not better players.  The league was weak in the Jordan years.   But in Russell's era, which I might add was a full twenty between Jordan and Russell almost, teams were loaded with all americans.

How old are you, Fairweather?

Teams were loaded in the 80s  too.   This three all star thing happened all the time then.   C's , 76ers and Lakers were loaded and you could have made two of today's teams with their talent levels.   I beat their benches could tear up half the league.

No, a global sport also means a broader talent pool for players.  The major influx of foreign players over the last 20 years speaks for that.  Ginobili, Kirilenko, Yao, Bogut, Ibaka - 5 very good recent players from 5 different continents.  And those are just off the top of my head - there are dozens of other examples.

When a few teams are stacked like you're mentioning, it's offset by how unstacked the bad teams in the league are.  Like Moranis said, look at the rosters and records for the worst teams in the 80s.  The league being top-heavy doesn't mean the entire league was deeper. 

Bottom line, the NBA has the biggest talent pool it's ever had, and more longevity across the board too.  That's led to a major increase in depth over the past couple of decades.

Per my post up above, I don't contend that the talent pool in the 60s was deeper or thinner than today.   I think there are contributing factors to both directions.   Just as there are more athletes to draw from to feed the NBA pool, they are spread across a larger pool and there are also other sports competing for their talents.

Even if we accept that the overall quality is about the same though, there is an effect of expansion that has been overlooked so far in this conversation.

In an 82 game season, in an expanded league, all other things equal, you play each team less often.  So you get less exposure to both the scrub teams and the elite teams.  You tend to play more games against the middle.

I'll leave to to folks to think about how that might affect your assessment of the play of guys like Russell and Wilt.   And obviously, whether a schedule is 'balanced' or loaded affects this.
Fair point, but it also means you are less familiar with the teams which works both ways and the teams you do play are more up to play the top teams than they might have been if they had 8 games as opposed to just 2.  Also, for much of the Celtics run in the 60's they were winning titles by winning 2 playoff series.  It is a heck of a lot easier to win 2 series than 4.

The 'less familiar' and getting 'up to play' factors work both ways, though.  Ultimately, talent vs talent is going to be the decider in the long run.

I think what the main effect of the expanded league (that otherwise has, say the same average level of talent) on the schedule is that it allows elite teams to rack up more wins.   That's because they play more games against crappy and mediocre teams, both of whom they will usually beat, and fewer games against elite teams against which things might be more 50/50.

Similarly, it makes the crappy teams rack up even more losses.

This means, by corollary that elite players will tend to have amplified regular season stats in an expanded league.

On the other hand, I do agree that the expanded levels to the playoffs make it more difficult for teams to dominate year after year in the playoffs.   Winning just one title means your team has to both be healthy and play 'hot' for several weeks in a row - and hope no other team is playing hotter at the same time.   Doing it multiple years in a row is tough.
Boston in 65-66 schedule

Knicks 10-0
Warriors 8-2
Lakers 7-3
Bullets 7-3
Hawks 7-3
Pistons 6-4
Royals 5-5
Sixers 4-6


And the standings that year:

Sixers 55-25
Celtics 54-26
Royals 45-35
Lakers 45-35
Bullets 38-42
Hawks 36-44
Warriors 35-45
Knicks 30-50
Pistons 22-58

You tell me, what schedule would you rather have, that one where you play each of the other 8 teams 10 times (many times back to back), or the schedule of today where you play your division 4 times, other conference teams 3 times, and the other conference 2 times.  In which schedule do you have more games against awful teams?  In which schedule do you have more games against great teams?  In which schedule do you have more games against the middle of the road teams?

It would seem to me that despite playing teams like the Sixers 10 times, that Boston in 65-66 in fact played a pretty darn easy schedule because you balance those Sixers games with 10 games against the Knicks and 10 games against the Pistons (who inexplicably Boston had the third worst record against despite them being the worst team in the league).
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip