People would look at the NBA in the early 70s entirely different if it had the ABA talent. People would consider it a much stronger stretch for the league.
63 of the 84 ABA players entered the NBA at merger (1976). 10 were all-stars in the 1st season.
And with that ABA talent in the NBA, you could have seen results altered. Including champions, all-stars, stats, accolades in general, etc
It also would have made the NBA more exciting in general, as the ABA was fast paced, fun, and had a style that the NBA overall was missing.
Here is some of the talent that was in the ABA at some point during its run.
Julius Erving
Rick Barry
Artis Gilmore
George Gervin
Connie Hawkins
George McGinnis
Moses Malone
Spencer Haywood
Maurice Lucas
David Thompson
John Williamson
Etc etc
The league went from 1967 to 1976.
The NBA in the late 60s and early/mid 70s still had great talent and legendary teams.
I am just saying that the NBA in the late 60s/early 70s/early mid 70s may have been praised more today, and no doubt results could have been altered with all of βοΈtalent consistently in the NBA
The first NBA finals post merger in 1977 featured 5 ABA players starting in the championship series.
Julius Erving
George McGinnis
Maurice Lucas
Caldwell Jones
Dave Twardzik
What does that tell you?
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I can't even begin to tell you how exciting it was to watch the Jason Williams Kings.
"The first impression one gets from watching the Kings play basketball is the right impression: the razzle-dazzle bunch enjoys the game and eachother and it shows" - David Dupree
I put that team against any team today (Same with the Bibby, Webber, Stojakovic Kings) and they win in a 7 game series
Era, depth, competition matters
No team today plays with close to the same exciting style, you kids today just don't get it. You missed out on some great hoop.
When you see Garnett sell out and say that he questions if players from 20+ years ago could play in todays game, and you remember that you played for the late 90s/early 00s Kings.
Listen, if 6'3" SG Lu Dort is the hill you are going to die on trying to prove evolution of the game, you lost the debate before it even started.
Not only did the NBA have overall bigger SGs than Dort in the past (Like 6'6" Jim Jackson below), but guys who were FAR more skilled.
Nobody said that Dort isn't rugged, or that he isn't a great athlete.
But don't be ridiculous. Dort is not proof of anything.
And if you think Dort is an evolved athlete for the NBA, you don't know the history of the game.
So stop it with the BS.
Clyde Drexler was a 6'7" SG that was far more versatile, a better overall athlete (better footwork, higher leaper, better body control/coordination, etc), and was FAR MORE skilled as a player (do I even need to say that?)
Want to know why we are still in awe of Michael Jordan?
πBecause since he retired nobody has matched what he could do on a basketball court. Double team? Triple team? didn't matter.
I've never seen better from an athleticism, skill, control and determination standpoint.
Go ahead... double him... triple him... it doesn't matter.
His movement was so smooth..... nobody has moved liked him since.
I watched Jordan live throughout the 90s, and I watched him with the Wizards.
All of these years later and I still get the same feeling watching his games and highlights. I see him do stuff that we never see today, in a style that is unmatched.