Were the 1960s a good era in basketball?
The 1960s are very underrated IMO.

1. Players had far more stamina, playing in a much more uptempo pace while still logging far more minutes (Baylor, Chamberlain, Robertson, Russel, West would all average 45+ minutes per game).

2. Players were far more versatile, as their were far more guards than point guards. Russel averaged nearly 5 assists per game in his prime and Chamberlain even won an assist title. Robertson, West, and Baylor were all constant triple double threats.

3. Small league= more competition. 128 players vs 400 players. All the talent was condensed into fewer teams and resulted in far more competition. While the Celtics won most of the rings in the 60s, they had only 3 60 win seasons, contrary to say 2006 where there were 3 60 win teams. Every team had all stars and every team had hall of famers

4. Undersized myth. The average height of an NBA center was 6'10", and there were actually 5 players taller than Wilt Chamberlain, including the 7'3" Swede Halbrooks.

5. The lower field goal percentage myth. People link the 60s, where teams shot a low percentage as a sign of weakness. The truth was however, that refs called far less fouls, as the total PF in the 2000s are only slightly smaller than the amount called in the 1960s, despite nearly 1000 more field goal attempts annually by teams of the 1960s. This did cause rebound inflation, which is another reason people discredit the 60s

While I am not suggesting the 1960s are as good as the 80s and 90s, or even today for that matter, to think it was a time when 6'6" white centers ruled the league is absolutely false, and people should give more credit to Bill Russel, Wilt Chamberlain, and the legends who ruled the first great era of basketball.