PDA

View Full Version : 93-94 Chicago Bulls



blom85
05-30-2012, 10:27 PM
Anyone old enough to vividly remember this team? I just find it odd that the games greatest player leaves yet his "supporting cast" can come 1 game away from making it to the nba finals. Who was this team without Jordan, also what is very impressive that Scottie Pippen missed 10 games that year and they still managed to win 55 games that year. I'm a Jordan fan and would never be stupid enough to question his skills or whatever, but do we give him too much credit compared to anyone else on those teams? I mean If Kobe would have left after the 2009 season would his "former team" even make the playoffs the fallowing year? Sorry to bring up that last part, I would rather this thread be about the Bulls with out Jordan than a Jordan vs. Kobe thread.

Hawkeye15
05-30-2012, 10:31 PM
Yes, you take Kobe off the Lakers a couple years ago, they are still good. Not winning a chip, but getting a round or two in.

No, we don't give too much credit to Jordan. 6-0 in the finals. Dominated each and everyone of them. Did he have talent around him during his chip years? Yep. So has Kobe, Duncan, Magic, Bird, Russell, and any other multiple ring winner. ELITE help.

Hellcrooner
05-30-2012, 10:33 PM
yes i remember them being robbed by refs vs the knicks.
They could probably have won the ring.
But that wouldnt have looked good on Nike/stern/gatorade/wb/mcdonalds pet project of world brainwash domination.
Hence refs were the henchmen to avoid the hughe finatial disaster of all the money they had invested to create a false new god.

btw it happened in the second round, not in the east finals, if my memory does nto fail me.

Hawkeye15
05-30-2012, 10:35 PM
yes i remember them being robbed by refs vs the knicks.
They could probably have won the ring.
But that wouldnt have looked good on Nike/stern/gatorade/wb/mcdonalds pet project of world brainwash domination.
Hence refs were the henchmen to avoid the hughe finatial disaster of all the money they had invested to create a false new god.

I know you underrate Jordan big time, but you really reach sometimes.

Best player ever. Period. Not because Nike, espn, or any other outlet told me so. Because his production and dominance when the real games started tells me so.

Pierzynski4Prez
05-30-2012, 10:38 PM
92-93 bulls and 93-94 bulls were somewhat different outside of just Jordan. Kukoc, Kerr, Longley, and Wennington were all added to that 92-93 squad.

Hellcrooner
05-30-2012, 10:38 PM
I know you underrate Jordan big time, but you really reach sometimes.

Best player ever. Period. Not because Nike, espn, or any other outlet told me so. Because his production and dominance when the real games started tells me so.

I dont underate him.

He is ONE of the selected few ( magic, Bird, wilt, Oscar, Russell) that has a CASE at being the GOAT ( supposing that thing existed, sicne i dont believe in comparing different positions and eras)

What i dont accept is the capital popes and the media brainwashin campaign around him so he has to be inserted in our butt holes as the unic goat of all sports adn forever and ever and the greatest thing since slic breadv
and will never be surpassed and blah blah.

NO.

is it 1984 or are we living in a brave new world? i feel under an iron heel!!!!

GoPacers33
05-30-2012, 10:41 PM
I just wish he would of stayed unretired and won 8 straight. That would of been amazing

Hawkeye15
05-30-2012, 10:42 PM
I dont underate him.

He is ONE of the selected few ( magic, Bird, wilt, Oscar, Russell) that has a CASE at being the GOAT ( supposing that thing existed, sicne i dont believe in comparing different positions and eras)

What i dont accept is the capital popes and the media brainwashin campaign around him so he has to be inserted in our butt holes as the unic goat of all sports adn forever and ever and the greatest thing since slic breadv
and will never be surpassed and blah blah.

NO.

is it 1984 or are we living in a brave new world? i feel under an iron heel!!!!


Stop paying attention to what you are told, and look at the production. Jordan is the best. Don't tell me I was brainwashed, I am 36, watched every minute of his career. He simply dominated everything thrown at him, and with the advanced numbers we have, Jordan moves even further from the pack.

I really think your argument against Jordan is weak. You are basically telling us we are stupid and influenced by the media. We aren't sitting around the water cooler at work, with me repeating what I heard last night on the news. We understand basketball to a MUCH higher degree.

Jordan is the best. By far and away.

Bruno
05-30-2012, 10:45 PM
Pippen finished 3rd in MVP voting that year if I'm not mistaken. He also finished 5th in 1996.

Pierzynski4Prez
05-30-2012, 10:52 PM
I think Crooner was the only one who was brainwashed, the rest of us just watched him and realized it on our own.

albertc86
05-30-2012, 11:00 PM
Fans don't give Pippen the credit he deserves and I have always said that. Pippen took a huge burden off of Jordan on the defensive end. Jordan had the best wing defender in the league on his team. Had Pippen played for another team, he would've covered Jordan.

Former teammates of Jordan and Pippen said the public missed the greatest 1 on 1 games between Jordan and Pippen during practice.

Hawkeye15
05-30-2012, 11:10 PM
Fans don't give Pippen the credit he deserves and I have always said that. Pippen took a huge burden off of Jordan on the defensive end. Jordan had the best wing defender in the league on his team. Had Pippen played for another team, he would've covered Jordan.

Former teammates of Jordan and Pippen said the public missed the greatest 1 on 1 games between Jordan and Pippen during practice.

So? Cousy took the burden off Russell. Jabbar too the burden off Magic. Mchale took the burden off Bird. Shaq took the burden off Kobe. Ginoboli/Parker/Admiral took the burden off Duncan.

Every great who has won multiple chips has AMAZING help. Every single one of them. Its WHY they have multiple chips.

Fact is, Jordan led everyone in history in not only basic stats, but advanced stats, eye test, dominance, success rate, and any other concept you can possibly imagine, unless your "best ever" starts with a minimum of 6'7".

Draco
05-30-2012, 11:21 PM
I just find it odd that the games greatest player leaves yet his "supporting cast" can come 1 game away from making it to the nba finals.

That team won three chips together and learned how to win with Jordan. That's a lot of wars. I think it'd have been odd for them to forget how to practice, how to play and how to win the way Jordan demanded.

JordansBulls
05-30-2012, 11:23 PM
Anyone old enough to vividly remember this team? I just find it odd that the games greatest player leaves yet his "supporting cast" can come 1 game away from making it to the nba finals. Who was this team without Jordan, also what is very impressive that Scottie Pippen missed 10 games that year and they still managed to win 55 games that year. I'm a Jordan fan and would never be stupid enough to question his skills or whatever, but do we give him too much credit compared to anyone else on those teams? I mean If Kobe would have left after the 2009 season would his "former team" even make the playoffs the fallowing year? Sorry to bring up that last part, I would rather this thread be about the Bulls with out Jordan than a Jordan vs. Kobe thread.
Bulls were never 1 game from the NBA Finals, they got as far as the Raptors did in 2001.




1993

Michael Jordan 17.2
Horace Grant 9.1
Scottie Pippen 8.6
B.J. Armstrong 7.5
Scott Williams 3.9
Trent Tucker 2.8
Will Perdue 2.5
John Paxson 1.9
Stacey King 1.9
Bill Cartwright 1.2
Rodney McCray 0.9
Darrell Walker 0.6
Ed Nealy 0.2
Corey Williams 0.2
Joe Courtney 0
Ricky Blanton 0
Jo Jo English -0.1
58.4




1994
Scottie Pippen 11.2
Horace Grant 10
B.J. Armstrong 7.5
Steve Kerr 6.1
Bill Wennington 3.5
Toni Kukoc 3.2
Pete Myers 3
Scott Williams 1.7
Luc Longley 1.3
Bill Cartwright 1.3
Corie Blount 1.2
John Paxson 0.6
Stacey King 0.4
Will Perdue 0.2
Jo Jo English 0
Dave Johnson -0.2
51


For instance MJ alone had 17.2 Win Shares in 1993, but in 1994 these guys added up to be 18.8 Win Shares as they were not on the 1993 team.



Kerr 6.6
Wennington 3.5
Kukoc 3.2
Myers 3
Longley 1.3
Blount 1.2
18.8


The record doesn't tell us a lot here. The Bulls in 1992-93 were a bit below the expected win%, while the Bulls in 1993/94 were clearly above. With 6.19 SRS in 1993 the Bulls were clearly stronger. And, when we just take the 78 games with Jordan in 1993, we even get a 6.5 SRS. If we now compare that to the 3.05 SRS with Pippen, we see the difference between a team winning 59 games and a team winning 50 games.
It is also the case that the Bulls in 1993 underperformed during the regular season. When we look at the playoffs, we can see them beating teams which had in average a 5.05 SRS by 5.9 points, which makes it a 10.95 SRS, a clear championship caliber team, much better than what we saw during the regular season. The Bulls didn't come close to that kind of level without Jordan. In 1994/95 the Bulls with Jordan again had 6.17 SRS, while they were at 3.82 SRS without him. The SRS with Jordan is pretty close to the average performance level of championship teams (6.7 SRS), without him they weren't at that level.

Additional to that: Nearly 50% of the playing time was taken by new players, it was a different team.

Draco
05-30-2012, 11:27 PM
Fans don't give Pippen the credit he deserves and I have always said that. Pippen took a huge burden off of Jordan on the defensive end. Jordan had the best wing defender in the league on his team. Had Pippen played for another team, he would've covered Jordan.

Former teammates of Jordan and Pippen said the public missed the greatest 1 on 1 games between Jordan and Pippen during practice.

And that's what made Pippen, Pippen. Had Pippen played for another team he would have been a different player. And who knows how many migraine headaches he might have had.

Chronz
05-30-2012, 11:52 PM
MJ had the best support around him, no question about it.

Bravo95
05-31-2012, 01:34 AM
Finals should have been Hawks vs Sonics that season. :sigh:

ewing
05-31-2012, 08:25 AM
Anyone old enough to vividly remember this team? I just find it odd that the games greatest player leaves yet his "supporting cast" can come 1 game away from making it to the nba finals. Who was this team without Jordan, also what is very impressive that Scottie Pippen missed 10 games that year and they still managed to win 55 games that year. I'm a Jordan fan and would never be stupid enough to question his skills or whatever, but do we give him too much credit compared to anyone else on those teams? I mean If Kobe would have left after the 2009 season would his "former team" even make the playoffs the fallowing year? Sorry to bring up that last part, I would rather this thread be about the Bulls with out Jordan than a Jordan vs. Kobe thread.


The Bulls were a great pressure defensive team at that time. They added another big versitle defensive guard in Pete Myers and just didnt let people set up. Pippen also step up and was great that year. That squad really maxed there potential. I dont think that takes anything away from MJ especially when you considering that if you added him they are an odds on fav to win it all

Lakerfan In NY
05-31-2012, 08:49 AM
1-9 in playoff w/o S Pippen. I'm just saying....

JordansBulls
05-31-2012, 08:53 AM
1-9 in playoff w/o S Pippen. I'm just saying....

In 1990 the Bulls without Pippen won game 4 on the road against Barkley's Sixers in a blowout despite Philly having a higher SRS rating than the Bulls that year.
In 1997 the Bulls won game 5 of the ECF with Pippen playing 7 minutes.

Point is is that Jordan could win without Pippen, but you aren't beating all time great teams like the '86 Celtics or '87 Celtics without having a decent cast around you.


Bulls would probably still have lost those series from 1985-1987 even if you added a prime Pippen to those teams.

JasonJohnHorn
05-31-2012, 08:55 AM
I always believed that Jordan is over rated, one of the greatest ever, yes, but not as high as most people put him. That said I remember having conversations with people when he retired and NOBODY I talked to thought the Bulls would even make the playoffs, yet they do, and then push NY to game 7! WOW! I was dumb founded. I think that is when Pippen and Jackson really proved themselves, Pippen as a player who can lead and dominate (he was an MVP candidate that year) and Jackson with his coaching, proving that he didn't need Jordan to win games.

They did pick up a couple of players to help ease the absence of Jordan. Kucok finally came in after he had been draft some years before, and Ron Harper signed with the team, and he was a solid player.

valade16
05-31-2012, 08:59 AM
MJ had the best support around him, no question about it.

So you would take the 92-93 Bulls supporting cast over the 86 Celtics supporting cast? Over the Showtime Lakers supporting cast? Over the Bad Boy Pistons supporting cast?

Something tells me I doubt it...

Da Knicks
05-31-2012, 09:23 AM
Jordan had a great cast but he is one of the greatest ever, is he clearcut goat like the media wants us to believe? ehh i dont know the internet and espn really shoved that notion to keep making basketball popular...

Chronz
05-31-2012, 01:31 PM
So you would take the 92-93 Bulls supporting cast over the 86 Celtics supporting cast? Over the Showtime Lakers supporting cast? Over the Bad Boy Pistons supporting cast?

Something tells me I doubt it...
You would be correct. Relevance?

valade16
05-31-2012, 02:02 PM
You would be correct. Relevance?

You said best supporting cast. It was my bad, I thought you meant best as in best ever as opposed to just hyperbole meaning "really great" supporting cast.

Disregard.

Chronz
05-31-2012, 02:06 PM
You said best supporting cast. It was my bad, I thought you meant best as in best ever as opposed to just hyperbole meaning "really great" supporting cast.

Disregard.
I just got a new thread topic

jayjay33
05-31-2012, 02:13 PM
Stop paying attention to what you are told, and look at the production. Jordan is the best. Don't tell me I was brainwashed, I am 36, watched every minute of his career. He simply dominated everything thrown at him, and with the advanced numbers we have, Jordan moves even further from the pack.

I really think your argument against Jordan is weak. You are basically telling us we are stupid and influenced by the media. We aren't sitting around the water cooler at work, with me repeating what I heard last night on the news. We understand basketball to a MUCH higher degree.

Jordan is the best. By far and away.

I really hate when people say that you can't possibly know that. Different players for and against, different rules, different coachs...etc HC is right the fact that you think jordan is far and away the best with so many varibles that know one can't account for, kinda proves your brain washed.

Anyone who thinks ANY player is without question far and away the best is ever is a blind homer for that particular player.

jayjay33
05-31-2012, 02:21 PM
An when MJ left they had 3 all stars a1HOF'er a HOF coach a great 6 man of the year, one of the bets defensive teams and a ton of outside shooters, and won 50 games and even though they didn't win it their were "good enough" to win the title. All of this with out MJ....add prime Dwade, kobe, tmac...etc to a team that has all of that "without them" and see how many titles they win.

jayjay33
05-31-2012, 02:30 PM
Yes, you take Kobe off the Lakers a couple years ago, they are still good. Not winning a chip, but getting a round or two in.
No, we don't give too much credit to Jordan. 6-0 in the finals. Dominated each and everyone of them. Did he have talent around him during his chip years? Yep. So has Kobe, Duncan, Magic, Bird, Russell, and any other multiple ring winner. ELITE help.

No they aren't....all they had was 1 all star (gasol) and some timing Odom Odom. Without kobe pau had more talent on those 03-06 memphis teams and they got swept.

ChicagoJ
05-31-2012, 02:32 PM
Without MJ I remember all the talk was about now pippen finally gets a chance to show what he can do and be the leader of the team and a star in the league. There was always talk about pippen being in MJ's shadow when MJ was playing. I also think pip gets alot more respect for the player he was now days then he did back then.

He took on that role and played well. Obviously not the same as MJ. As for how good the team was without Jordan, it's been years since I watched that team play. I did watch the first championship series recently and that team was amazing not just Jordan. Full court press on defense throughout games. Just the athleticism was incredible. So, yea MJ had a great team. But, I don't think it takes away from the player he was.

pacofunk64
05-31-2012, 02:49 PM
Perfect example is this years Bulls team. Very very good with DRose but still a good team without him. But when it came to the playoffs you see what happened.

smiddy012
05-31-2012, 03:10 PM
For those of you not willing to admit that Jordan is the clear-cut GOAT, I think I'll take Birds, Magics, Barkleys, and just about every NBA HOFers word over yours... something tells me they know just a little more about basketball than you :eyebrow:

Chronz
05-31-2012, 03:47 PM
For those of you not willing to admit that Jordan is the clear-cut GOAT, I think I'll take Birds, Magics, Barkleys, and just about every NBA HOFers word over yours... something tells me they know just a little more about basketball than you :eyebrow:

Personally I think MJ is the best but this is a horrible argument. What exactly would Bird-Magic and co know about Wilt and Russ that we wouldnt? So by your theory wouldnt that imply that Oscar Robertson knows more about the game than your examples ever could? Not only did he play the game but he saw more generations of players.

Well according to him, MJ wasnt the best. Hell according to Wilt, people werent averaging 50PTS anymore because the league lacked scorers.

The point Im making is dont blindly follow ANYONES opinion even a pros, and definitely dont assume they know more about the game because they played it. Some of the greatest basketball minds we have come from midgets who lacked the athletic ability to make it to the NBA.

smiddy012
05-31-2012, 05:46 PM
Personally I think MJ is the best but this is a horrible argument. What exactly would Bird-Magic and co know about Wilt and Russ that we wouldnt? So by your theory wouldnt that imply that Oscar Robertson knows more about the game than your examples ever could? Not only did he play the game but he saw more generations of players.

Well according to him, MJ wasnt the best. Hell according to Wilt, people werent averaging 50PTS anymore because the league lacked scorers.

The point Im making is dont blindly follow ANYONES opinion even a pros, and definitely dont assume they know more about the game because they played it. Some of the greatest basketball minds we have come from midgets who lacked the athletic ability to make it to the NBA.

Appeal to a reliable authority, it's a logical notion... at least according to the science of logic. There is a difference between "almost every HOFer" and "every HOFer" btw, namely the "almost."

MJ detractors don't acknowledge statistics, that's why they don't understand why MJ is the GOAT. So using stats with them is pointless.

Bruno
05-31-2012, 06:18 PM
Point is is that Jordan could win without Pippen, but you aren't beating all time great teams like the '86 Celtics or '87 Celtics without having a decent cast around you.


but he didn't. fact.

Bos_Sports4Life
05-31-2012, 06:27 PM
For those of you not willing to admit that Jordan is the clear-cut GOAT, I think I'll take Birds, Magics, Barkleys, and just about every NBA HOFers word over yours... something tells me they know just a little more about basketball than you :eyebrow:

Bill Russell:

- 5 MVP's, 11 rings in 13 years as a pro. (1 yr he didn't win, he missed the finals after game 2). Year after? They missed the playoffs.

- Bill was 21-0 in games where the winner took all

- Won gold in only Appearence as captain winning by an avg of of 53.5 points per game

- Won back to back NCAA titles winning 55 consecutive games at one point. Russell won the NCAA MVP as the captain

And people like you try and tell me THAT doesn't qualify as having a strong argument? Give me a break. The dude won 13 titles in 14 healthy seasons as a player...

JordansBulls
05-31-2012, 06:38 PM
but he didn't. fact.

Yeah but that doesn't matter when you have the better numbers and win all of the accolades. Not like Pippen ever won league or finals mvp or had better stats or better advanced stats than MJ. He did win 2 titles as the only allstar on the Bulls as well as in 1991 and 1998 Bulls only had MJ who made the allstar team. So that is a fact as well.:D

valade16
05-31-2012, 07:12 PM
Bill Russell:

- 5 MVP's, 11 rings in 13 years as a pro. (1 yr he didn't win, he missed the finals after game 2). Year after? They missed the playoffs.

- Bill was 21-0 in games where the winner took all

- Won gold in only Appearence as captain winning by an avg of of 53.5 points per game

- Won back to back NCAA titles winning 55 consecutive games at one point. Russell won the NCAA MVP as the captain

And people like you try and tell me THAT doesn't qualify as having a strong argument? Give me a break. The dude won 13 titles in 14 healthy seasons as a player...

If titles only were a measure of greatness Robert Horry would be a top 10 best ever...

There are several reasons why Jordan is the best ever, but the most simple way to put it is: everything. Jordan was and did everything.

Russell had the rings. He was one of the best defenders in the game.

But his offense... eh. He averaged 15.1 PPG in an era where Wilt averaged 50 in a season. He shot 44% from the Field and 56% from the FT line.

His PER is 18.9. He had 4 seasons over 20 in his career. His WS/48 is .193.

Also his one dominating statistic was rebounding, yet he only led the league in rebounding 5 times. Jordan lead the league in scoring 10 times, including 8 straight. That is pure domination on a level rarely seen.

Simply put, Jordan is the combination of one of the best ever at Offense, perimeter defense, team accomplishments, individual achievements, and statistics.

Several players have excelled at some of those categories, but none have excelled at all of those categories like Jordan, which is why he is the GOAT.

Bos_Sports4Life
05-31-2012, 10:40 PM
If titles only were a measure of greatness Robert Horry would be a top 10 best ever...

1. Horry didn't win titles as the main man, Or even a top 3 player on his teams. Russell? He won titles as the Man

2. He was a 5x League MVP


There are several reasons why Jordan is the best ever, but the most simple way to put it is: everything. Jordan was and did everything.

Russell had the rings. He was one of the best defenders in the game.

But his offense... eh. He averaged 15.1 PPG in an era where Wilt averaged 50 in a season. He shot 44% from the Field and 56% from the FT line.

His PER is 18.9. He had 4 seasons over 20 in his career. His WS/48 is .193.

Also his one dominating statistic was rebounding, yet he only led the league in rebounding 5 times. Jordan lead the league in scoring 10 times, including 8 straight. That is pure domination on a level rarely seen.



Numbers are great and all but is it possible to quanitfy defense with numbers? Nope. However, you can compare the team's defense directly before and after a player left and can get an idea on a players impact..

Can someone say with an absolute fact Russell's defense alone didn't have a bigger impact than every other players more complete game? Nope

What I can do is this..

Did the celtics win a title before Russell? No

Did the celtics substain success directly after Russell? No, they went from winning for the 11th time in 13 yrs to missing the playoffs.

Did the celtics Need a good offense around him to make up for his lack of offense? Nope, The Celtics won with a bottom 2 FG% SIX TIMES during those 13 seasons.

Was Russell Surrounded by a great team defense? Nope

Fact is- Russell did not play on a good offensive team (Often bottom 2) and played on a team that played average defense without while he was on the team..




YR Drtg Rank Diff from League Avg. Diff from 2nd place
1956 90.4 6/8 -1.5
--------------------------------------------------------
1957 82.4 1/8 4.8 2.5
1958 82.0 1/8 5.2 3.9
1959 83.0 1/8 5.8 4.4
1960 83.9 1/8 6.2 1.8
1961 83.0 1/8 8.2 4.6
1962 84.3 1/8 8.7 6.3
1963 86.6 1/9 9.0 6.1
1964 82.7 1/9 11.5 5.6
1965 83.1 1/9 9.9 8.1
1966 87.3 1/9 7.1 4.0
1967 90.8 1/10 4.9 1.7
1968 92.0 2/12 4.6 -
1969 88.4 1/14 6.8 2.8
------------------------------------------------------------
1970 98.5 7/16 0.6 -

*1956 (the yr before Russell)
* 1957 (the yr after Russell)

(1) The Celtics led the league in defense in 12 of Russells' 13 years

(2) From 1958-1966 they dominated the league defensively like no team I can find for a 9 year period

(3) From 1961-1965 the ran off 5 consecutive historically dominant seasons. Look at those numbers.

(4) Before Russell they were a bottom defensive team and immediately jumped 6.3 relative points and 8.0 raw points to the top.

(5) After Russell they dropped to the middle of the pack, losing 6.2 relative points and 10.1 raw points.

According to Neil's method at B-R, who is slightly underestimating Boston's pace relative to the simple method (because he's assuming fewer turnovers are in play), those uber-dominant Celtics teams are the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th best defensive teams of all time, relative to competition. And there's nothing remotely comparable in NBA history for such sustained defensive dominance.

Basically, Show me 1 player in the history of the NBA that had a simmilar impact on a teams offense or defense..



Fact is.

Russell has the Accolades (NCAA MVP/5 NBA MVP)

Russell has the titles (2 NCAA Titles/11 NBA Titles)

Stats? Well its pointless comparing when you can't quantify Russells impact on defense using his stats.

Win shares has Russell as the 17th best and Winshares per 48 has him at 24th. Manu? Hes 10th all time. Using THOSE stats as the reason too put MJ #1 doesn't seem to logical. But if thats the case be consistant

Chronz
05-31-2012, 10:47 PM
Basically, Show me 1 player in the history of the NBA that had a simmilar impact on a teams offense or defense..
Wilt

Coincidentally they are from the same era. I wonder why that is, because 1 player has a tremendous impact on his team and in a league with so few teams, that impact is compounded.

Bos_Sports4Life
05-31-2012, 11:13 PM
Wilt

Coincidentally they are from the same era. I wonder why that is, because 1 player has a tremendous impact on his team and in a league with so few teams, that impact is compounded.

Did Wilt have Russell beat in Talent/Ability? Absolutely 100%. However, Basketball IS a team sport and how well you work with others counts..


1. Wilt didn't mind losing..And didn't like the pressure that came with Winning...

"In a way, I like it better when we lose. It’s over and I can look forward to the next game. If we win, it builds up the tension and I start worrying about the next game.”- Wilt Chamberlain


2. He chased stats/Cared about Records. Wilt was simply more interested in his own Agendas.

For example, He played much softer once he was close too fouling out.

3. Wilt was a PAIN to work with . Warriors/76'ers were both willing to trade him for lesser talents. Russell? he exudes a sense of camarederie whenever he steps into the court or inside the locker room.


Also, EVERY TIME Russell was Favored? He won. Every time he had Home court advantage? He won. Every time it went to a deciding game? He won..

Wilt? He lost With home court FIVE times

'60-61- He got SWEPT by the 38-41 Nationals

'65-66- Lost in 5 Games Against Boston

'67-68- Won 62 games in the reg season. Lost Against Russell and the Celtics in game 7 At Home.

'68-69- Wilt teamed up With West/Baylor, Lost against the Old Celtics...Once against at Home

'72-73- Won 60 Games but lost in 5 in the Finals

He lost THREE times while having HCA Against Russell...

Chronz
06-01-2012, 01:17 PM
You asked a question and I answered it. Thats why MJ was better than Russ despite your stats. Because your same stats show that Wilt was superior to Russ. So if you want to stop hyping up Russ over MJ then I suggest you stop being so selective with the stats you use.

But if you wish to engage in this debate, lets dance.


Did Wilt have Russell beat in Talent/Ability? Absolutely 100%. However, Basketball IS a team sport and how well you work with others counts..

Yup, it is a TEAM sport. Thats why Im not going to favor Russ over Wilt because of his chips. That was the teams doing. And Wilt was a product of his time, his role/caliber of support/coaches changed so frequently and drastically that he was never given a stable culture to nurture a specific role the way Russ was able to.
He always tried to be the best at whatever his coaches/owners asked of him, even if he was defiant in doing so he stuck with the gameplan. I wont deny he didnt make it easy.


1. Wilt didn't mind losing..And didn't like the pressure that came with Winning...

"In a way, I like it better when we lose. It’s over and I can look forward to the next game. If we win, it builds up the tension and I start worrying about the next game.”- Wilt Chamberlain

So? He still played to WIN. But I imagine, even with the pressure of having to carry a team in a fashion Russell could only dream of, he still got more out of his squads. Truly a legend. Russell didnt have to carry that kind of burden. Even his contemporaries knew how lucky Russ was, Nate Thurmond used to envy the support he had. Lot of player quipped how less influential Russ would be if he wasnt in the PERFECT situation. Just as lots of players have quipped about Wilt being a cancer. What we should focus on is the impact the 2 had. And according to your measure of influence, Wilt was very much in the conversation and succeeding him in most years IMO.




2. He chased stats/Cared about Records. Wilt was simply more interested in his own Agendas.

For example, He played much softer once he was close too fouling out.

Wait, your saying players play less aggressively when in foul trouble? MY GOD. Your certain of this? LMFAO . NO ****. Anyways, there COUNTLESS instances of Wilt playing impressive defense despite foul trouble, in fact heres a snippet from the archives;

in a fiercely battled Game 4, the Lakers center was playing with five fouls late in the game. Having never fouled out in his career – a feat that he was very proud of – he played aggressive defense despite the risk of fouling out, and blocked two of Lucas' shots in overtime, proving those wrong who said he only played for his own stats;

he ended scoring a game-high 27 points.[90] But in that game, he had fallen on his right hand, and was said to have "sprained" it; it was actually broken. For Game 5, Chamberlain's hands were packed into thick pads normally destined for defensive linesmen in American Football; he was offered a painkilling shot, but refused because he feared he would lose his shooting touch if his hands became numb. In Game 5, Chamberlain recorded 24 points, 29 rebounds, 8 assists and 8 blocked shots. (While blocked shots were not an official NBA stat at that time, announcer Keith Jackson counted the blocks during the broadcast.[citation needed]) Chamberlain's outstanding all-around performance helped the Lakers win their first championship with a decisive 114–100 win. Chamberlain was named Finals MVP,[41] and was admired for dominating the Knicks in Game 5 while playing injured.



~Wilt on never fouling out~
It was not by accident that I never fouled out of a game, either. I was taught early in my career by an old Philly coach that my value was on the court, not on the bench, which is where I'd be if I was in foul trouble. So I worked extremely hard to keep from making dumb over-the-back fouls.


~Wilt on playing with foul trouble ~
You cant change your game with 5 fouls though, not in Overtime, thats not the time to slack off.

So again, he was a product of his coaching, upbringing, support, and ownership. Wilt displayed an ability to thrive in MANY roles, so when I speak of wanting Wilt on my team, it comes with the knowledge that if you gave him a coach worth a damn, and adequate support he could lead them to a title in a fashion few have achieved. You can take Russ, just make sure you SURROUND HIM with HOF'ers in their prime.


Wilt cared about stats, so did MJ (another player superior to Russ). His affinity for those stats didnt always mean it was at the detriment of the team. I say always because early in his career he lusted over them, but its also true his owners insisted on him scoring as much as he could to draw in bigger crowds. As he matured and became more of a complete player, thats when Wilt was at his best. It is this version of Wilt that we may have seen earlier had the support/coaching been in place. In his later days he basically copied Russell's role to enhanced perfection.



3. Wilt was a PAIN to work with . Warriors/76'ers were both willing to trade him for lesser talents. Russell? he exudes a sense of camarederie whenever he steps into the court or inside the locker room.

He ALSO worked with horrid coaches and the great ones spoke highly of his willingness to do what they wanted. Even the ones he butted heads with, he stuck with their flawed gameplan.

And spare me the Bill Simmons cliches, the Warriors HAD to trade him because they were a floundering franchise in more ways than 1 and Philly had to trade him because Wilt forced his way to LA, he felt their management reneged a promise made to him by their deceased owner. A move Wilt regretted to his grave.



Also, EVERY TIME Russell was Favored? He won. Every time he had Home court advantage? He won. Every time it went to a deciding game? He won..
Wilt? He lost With home court FIVE times

LOL so much for it being a TEAM game. Teammates and injuries matter.



'60-61- He got SWEPT by the 38-41 Nationals
The teams record underscores their actual ability. They had superior efficiency differentials than the Warriors. Besides Wilt held up his end.


'65-66- Lost in 5 Games Against Boston
'67-68- Won 62 games in the reg season. Lost Against Russell and the Celtics in game 7 At Home.
'68-69- Wilt teamed up With West/Baylor, Lost against the Old Celtics...Once against at Home

'72-73- Won 60 Games but lost in 5 in the Finals

He lost THREE times while having HCA Against Russell...

Thats because Boston had the better team. And when he did have the support his team was decimated by injuries. He did come up short and had ample chances to win, but if your going to blame him for losing at least recognize the injuries and superior competition.

Wilt got the most out of those teams, he gets unfairly criticized for several of those defeats. There isnt much you can do when your team is outclassed, your swarmed, and/or playing in a horrible offense.

Wilt did stat pad, but I dont measure Wilt just by his stats.

AIRMAR72
06-01-2012, 02:35 PM
I always believed that Jordan is over rated, one of the greatest ever, yes, but not as high as most people put him. That said I remember having conversations with people when he retired and NOBODY I talked to thought the Bulls would even make the playoffs, yet they do, and then push NY to game 7! WOW! I was dumb founded. I think that is when Pippen and Jackson really proved themselves, Pippen as a player who can lead and dominate (he was an MVP candidate that year) and Jackson with his coaching, proving that he didn't need Jordan to win games.

They did pick up a couple of players to help ease the absence of Jordan. Kucok finally came in after he had been draft some years before, and Ron Harper signed with the team, and he was a solid player.

rubbish

Bos_Sports4Life
06-01-2012, 07:36 PM
You asked a question and I answered it. Thats why MJ was better than Russ despite your stats. Because your same stats show that Wilt was superior to Russ. So if you want to stop hyping up Russ over MJ then I suggest you stop being so selective with the stats you use.

I never used stats that were HIS stats, I simply used #'s that showed Russells Impact...

FACT: The celtics finnished in the bottom 2 in FG% 6 TIMES during his 11 title rins

FACT: The celtics played League Average defense the yr Directly before Russell and the Year directly Following Russell

So....They had an offense that was one of the least efficient (bottom 2) WHILE having a team that played average defense without him.




Yup, it is a TEAM sport. Thats why Im not going to favor Russ over Wilt because of his chips. That was the teams doing. And Wilt was a product of his time, his role/caliber of support/coaches changed so frequently and drastically that he was never given a stable culture to nurture a specific role the way Russ was able to.
He always tried to be the best at whatever his coaches/owners asked of him, even if he was defiant in doing so he stuck with the gameplan. I wont deny he didnt make it easy.

He was never Given a stable job Because of HIM...

Heck...Would he have handled Red Auerbach's personality? Because a lot of people don't think he would have. Red...As great as he was, was a hard ***





So? He still played to WIN.

Wilt cared about his OWN stats. That isn't debatable in any way at all...Every historian will tell you that.

Russell? He cared ZERO about numbers.




But I imagine, even with the pressure of having to carry a team in a fashion Russell could only dream of, he still got more out of his squads. Truly a legend. Russell didnt have to carry that kind of burden. Even his contemporaries knew how lucky Russ was.


Lucky?? Meh

RUSSELLS OFFENSIVE HELP

Now, on too fg %/Attempts/ppg

LG RANK

1956-57: 1st in attempts/4th in %/1st in ppg
1957-58: 1st in attempts/3rd in %/2nd in ppg
1958-59:1st in attempts/4th in %/1st in ppg
1959-60:1st in attempts/3rd in %/1st in ppg
1960-61:1st in attempts/8th in %/2nd in ppg
(Up until this time, only 8 teams in nba)

- As u'll notice, the celtics avg finnish in % is 4.4/8, including dead LAST in 1960. Bill had some Great offensive players huh? Or what about Average?

* As of now, there's 9 teams

1961-62:1st in attempts/5th in %/3rd in ppg
62-63: 1st in attempts/9th in %/3rd in ppg
63-64: 1st in attempts/9th in %/2nd in ppg
64-65: 1st in attempts/8th in %/3rd in ppg
65-66:3rd in attempts/8th in %/7th in ppg

- As you see, The celtics finnished dead last TWICE MORE in FG % and finnishing 8th out of 9 2 times, in this 5 yr stretch they finnished on avg of 7.8/9 teams in %, thats not close too AVERAGE, Still thinking he played with sooo many greats??

* As of now, there's 10 teams
66-67: 6th in attempts/4th in %/4th in ppg

* There are 12 teams now
67-68: 7th in attempts/7th in fg %/8th in ppg

* There are 14 teams now
68-69: 3rd in attempts/9th in %/10th in ppg

Sooo, they were 4/10 , 7/12, 9/14 in these 3 in fg %.



RUSSELLS DEFENSIVE HELP


YR Drtg Rank Diff from League Avg. Diff from 2nd place
1956 90.4 6/8 -1.5
--------------------------------------------------------
1957 82.4 1/8 4.8 2.5
1958 82.0 1/8 5.2 3.9
1959 83.0 1/8 5.8 4.4
1960 83.9 1/8 6.2 1.8
1961 83.0 1/8 8.2 4.6
1962 84.3 1/8 8.7 6.3
1963 86.6 1/9 9.0 6.1
1964 82.7 1/9 11.5 5.6
1965 83.1 1/9 9.9 8.1
1966 87.3 1/9 7.1 4.0
1967 90.8 1/10 4.9 1.7
1968 92.0 2/12 4.6 -
1969 88.4 1/14 6.8 2.8
------------------------------------------------------------
1970 98.5 7/16 0.6 -

*1956 (the yr before Russell)
* 1957 (the yr after Russell)


This CLEARLY shows his defense WITHOUT him was AVERAGE




Nate Thurmond used to envy the support he had. Lot of player quipped how less influential Russ would be if he wasnt in the PERFECT situation. Just as lots of players have quipped about Wilt being a cancer. What we should focus on is the impact the 2 had. And according to your measure of influence, Wilt was very much in the conversation and succeeding him in most years IMO.

What Great support? Was his offense efficient? NO.

Was he surrounded by elite defense? NO

This is BOTH shown.




Wait, your saying players play less aggressively when in foul trouble? MY GOD. Your certain of this? LMFAO . NO ****. Anyways, there COUNTLESS instances of Wilt playing impressive defense despite foul trouble, in fact heres a snippet from the archives

It's not the fact he played a bit less Agressive, it's the fact he legit cared about the record of not fouling out. The record itself, not the fact he cared he was helping his team..




You can take Russ, just make sure you SURROUND HIM with HOF'ers in their prime.

This is FLAWED..

1. The Celtics without Russell and WITH Havlicek, Nelson, etc., went 0-5. Happened again in '62. Russell misses a stretch of games due to injury, Celtics can't win. Russell comes back to the lineup, Celtics win again. We saw it in '58. Russell gets injured in the Finals, Celtics don't win title. With a healthy Russell, they win eight straight. This is not a coincidence


2. How come the collection of HOF'ers managed very poor team shooting %'s more than 1/2 the time?


3. He was the ONLY member of ALL 11 of those teams. He won Before Jones and the c's continued too win after Guys like Cousy/Tommy ect. The season he retired? The celtics Faded. They didn't win again until Cowens/JoJo white.


4 Show graphs that show Tommy's impact..or Cousy's Ect. I supplied Very telling evidence of Russells impact on defense (He made average defensive teams into Historically GREAT defenses). I also supplied evidence showing Russell more times than not did NOT have great offensive help.




Wilt cared about stats, so did MJ (another player superior to Russ). His affinity for those stats didnt always mean it was at the detriment of the team. I say always because early in his career he lusted over them, but its also true his owners insisted on him scoring as much as he could to draw in bigger crowds. As he matured and became more of a complete player, thats when Wilt was at his best. It is this version of Wilt that we may have seen earlier had the support/coaching been in place. In his later days he basically copied Russell's role to enhanced perfection.


Yes, In his final seasons Wilt FINALLY caught on and started doing what Russell did. Resault? He won.

FACT: Wilt didn't care about winning as much as Russell. Historians agree with this. Wilt has even admited that. Russell's sole goal was to win, He was OBSESSED with winning. Wilt? I wouldn't trust him in a big game..

Russell? He NEVER lost with HCA, NEVER lost a series deciding game and when he played? He won 11-0 In championships...

You can say MJ/WILT were both superior. But People obviously thought otherwise during Russells time. He won an NCAA MVP/2 NCAA Titles and followed that up with Winning 5 more NBA MVP's and 11 More titles.




He ALSO worked with horrid coaches and the great ones spoke highly of his willingness to do what they wanted. Even the ones he butted heads with, he stuck with their flawed gameplan.

And spare me the Bill Simmons cliches, the Warriors HAD to trade him because they were a floundering franchise in more ways than 1 and Philly had to trade him because Wilt forced his way to LA, he felt their management reneged a promise made to him by their deceased owner. A move Wilt regretted to his grave.


Why didn't Auerbach Trade Russell for Wilt?

1. Wilt as you say was the "better player"

2. Russell wasn't really worshipped at all in Boston. Wouldn't need to deal with any type of blacklash






Thats because Boston had the better team. And when he did have the support his team was decimated by injuries. He did come up short and had ample chances to win, but if your going to blame him for losing at least recognize the injuries and superior competition.


NO ONE expected the celtics in '69 to win it. NO ONE.

They shocked people by just getting there. Wilt played this team at HOME...




Wilt did stat pad, but I dont measure Wilt just by his stats.

I'd rather have the guy thats sole purpose is too win...

Red obviously saw something and made him the highest paid player in the league at the time, even higher than wilt....And I trust Red's opinion over basically anyones

Chronz
06-01-2012, 08:23 PM
I never used stats that were HIS stats, I simply used #'s that showed Russells Impact...
Exactly, those sames stats favor Wilt. That was my point. I answered your question with facts.


FACT: The celtics finnished in the bottom 2 in FG% 6 TIMES during his 11 title rins
FACT: The offense got worse with Russell.


So....They had an offense that was one of the least efficient (bottom 2) WHILE having a team that played average defense without him.

Yup, care to show us how their offense fared without him?


Heck...Would he have handled Red Auerbach's personality? Because a lot of people don't think he would have. Red...As great as he was, was a hard ***

Cousy wasnt Reds type of player at first either but the 2 learned to coexist, either way having the support Russ had along with excellent coaching wouldve been enough. Im not saying he needed the SAME level of support, it should be obvious he didnt because he was able to take a horrible team to G6 against the C's and completely crushed them when he did have the team.


Wilt cared about his OWN stats. That isn't debatable in any way at all...Every historian will tell you that.
Where did I deny that? LOL, again so did MJ (another superior player), it doesnt mean Wilt didnt play to win.


Russell? He cared ZERO about numbers.
Good for him, he was also incapable of carrying a teams offense so its for the best.


Lucky?? Meh
Extremely lucky. LOL at your numbers, again these SAME NUMBERS are in favor of Wilt.


RUSSELLS OFFENSIVE HELP

Now, on too fg %/Attempts/ppg

LG RANK

1956-57: 1st in attempts/4th in %/1st in ppg
1957-58: 1st in attempts/3rd in %/2nd in ppg
1958-59:1st in attempts/4th in %/1st in ppg
1959-60:1st in attempts/3rd in %/1st in ppg
1960-61:1st in attempts/8th in %/2nd in ppg
(Up until this time, only 8 teams in nba)

- As u'll notice, the celtics avg finnish in % is 4.4/8, including dead LAST in 1960. Bill had some Great offensive players huh? Or what about Average?

* As of now, there's 9 teams

1961-62:1st in attempts/5th in %/3rd in ppg
62-63: 1st in attempts/9th in %/3rd in ppg
63-64: 1st in attempts/9th in %/2nd in ppg
64-65: 1st in attempts/8th in %/3rd in ppg
65-66:3rd in attempts/8th in %/7th in ppg

- As you see, The celtics finnished dead last TWICE MORE in FG % and finnishing 8th out of 9 2 times, in this 5 yr stretch they finnished on avg of 7.8/9 teams in %, thats not close too AVERAGE, Still thinking he played with sooo many greats??

* As of now, there's 10 teams
66-67: 6th in attempts/4th in %/4th in ppg

* There are 12 teams now
67-68: 7th in attempts/7th in fg %/8th in ppg

* There are 14 teams now
68-69: 3rd in attempts/9th in %/10th in ppg

Sooo, they were 4/10 , 7/12, 9/14 in these 3 in fg %.



RUSSELLS DEFENSIVE HELP


YR Drtg Rank Diff from League Avg. Diff from 2nd place
1956 90.4 6/8 -1.5
--------------------------------------------------------
1957 82.4 1/8 4.8 2.5
1958 82.0 1/8 5.2 3.9
1959 83.0 1/8 5.8 4.4
1960 83.9 1/8 6.2 1.8
1961 83.0 1/8 8.2 4.6
1962 84.3 1/8 8.7 6.3
1963 86.6 1/9 9.0 6.1
1964 82.7 1/9 11.5 5.6
1965 83.1 1/9 9.9 8.1
1966 87.3 1/9 7.1 4.0
1967 90.8 1/10 4.9 1.7
1968 92.0 2/12 4.6 -
1969 88.4 1/14 6.8 2.8
------------------------------------------------------------
1970 98.5 7/16 0.6 -

*1956 (the yr before Russell)
* 1957 (the yr after Russell)


This CLEARLY shows his defense WITHOUT him was AVERAGE

God damnit man your a broken record. Im the one who gave you the most accurate numbers remember, youve already tried this on me bro SEVERAL TIMES, do you seriously not remember me?

Here let me copy and paste the many rebuttals Ive given you time and time again.

Yea and in the years before Russ the ranks looked like so;
1951-52: 3rd in attempts/2nd in FG%/1st in ppg
1952-53: 3rd in attempts/1st in FG%/1st in ppg
1953-54: 2nd in attempts/1st in FG%/1st in ppg
1954-55: 1st in attempts/1st in FG%/1st in ppg
1955-56: 1st in attempts/2nd in FG%/1st in ppg

All your proving is that he made them worse offensively not that he didnt have great support.







What Great support? Was his offense efficient? NO.
According to the stats you use to correlate team influence, yes they were efficient, that was until he showed up and made them worse. Again this is according to your OWN EVIDENCE.


Was he surrounded by elite defense? NO
Well at least youve grown, last time we were having this conversation you described his defensive support as average, which I then ridiculed by saying your the only person to describe Satch Sanders and KC Jones as mediocre defenders. Your learning the art of debate thats for sure. So no they werent elite. Thats why hes such a unique/great player. But if basketball were solely about defense, your argument would be bulletproof.


This is BOTH shown.
No idea what this means but your now showing everything. You focusing on 1 end and your downplaying the fact that by your same measures, Wilt fares better.



It's not the fact he played a bit less Agressive, it's the fact he legit cared about the record of not fouling out. The record itself, not the fact he cared he was helping his team..
Then why was he able to remain so dominant defensively in spite of foul trouble on MANY occasions? Of course he cared, he took pride in doing things no one else could. Well Moses Malone could, he actually beat the record.


This is FLAWED..

1. The Celtics without Russell and WITH Havlicek, Nelson, etc., went 0-5. Happened again in '62. Russell misses a stretch of games due to injury, Celtics can't win. Russell comes back to the lineup, Celtics win again. We saw it in '58. Russell gets injured in the Finals, Celtics don't win title. With a healthy Russell, they win eight straight. This is not a coincidence

LOL the only thing flawed is your selective research. Nobody said it was a coincidence and nobody is saying he didnt make them better. But your not being realistic. The Celtics ALSO went 39-33 the year before Russ and sported the leagues 2nd best efficiency differential. Then they added the ROY ON TOP OF ADDING RUSS. No **** they became a dynasty.



2. How come the collection of HOF'ers managed very poor team shooting %'s more than 1/2 the time?
Because the TEAM includes Russ whos offensive game was described by Red as *******. Check out what they were able to do the year before. The Celtics changed their philosophy to a defensive mindset but that doesnt mean he didnt have great support.



3. He was the ONLY member of ALL 11 of those teams. He won Before Jones and the c's continued too win after Guys like Cousy/Tommy ect. The season he retired? The celtics Faded. They didn't win again until Cowens/JoJo white.

Yup, I never said Russ wasnt a great player.


4 Show graphs that show Tommy's impact..or Cousy's Ect. I supplied Very telling evidence of Russells impact on defense (He made average defensive teams into Historically GREAT defenses). I also supplied evidence showing Russell more times than not did NOT have great offensive help.

False, you showed before and after team stats that hint at Russell's influence then you IGNORED applying the same methodology on the OFFENSIVE end that hint at the fact that Russ made his teams WORSE OFFENSIVELY.

This is why your argument falls apart, your bias is EASILY visible.



Yes, In his final seasons Wilt FINALLY caught on and started doing what Russell did. Resault? He won.
Actually Wilt did it better and it was because he had the support/system in place to do so, sadly he didnt have this early in his career. Also he won 2 titles in 2 vastly different roles so lets not simplify things, his title with the Sixers was truly a work of art. Efficient Offense and Defense throughout the entire season, it ranks up there with the best titles ever won and that Sixers team was thought of as one of the absolute best. Sadly they were injured the following year and werent able to repeat.


Why didn't Auerbach Trade Russell for Wilt?

1. Wilt as you say was the "better player"

2. Russell wasn't really worshipped at all in Boston. Wouldn't need to deal with any type of blacklash

For the same reason he paid Russell 1 dollar more than Wilt. It was his boy and his system and he didnt want to mess with a winning product.


NO ONE expected the celtics in '69 to win it. NO ONE.

They shocked people by just getting there. Wilt played this team at HOME...
Doesnt change the fact that the Celtics sported the higher efficiency marks, nor does it change the fact that the Lakers were coached by the inept Butch.



I'd rather have the guy thats sole purpose is too win...

Red obviously saw something and made him the highest paid player in the league at the time, even higher than wilt....And I trust Red's opinion over basically anyones

Id rather have the superior player who has PROVEN capable of winning in a more impressive fashion and has a proven ability to raise a modicum of talent available to contention status.

Russ without all the help he had, doesnt win.

smiddy012
06-01-2012, 08:37 PM
Bos_Sports4Life pushes Russell like he's a Jehovah's Witness, always that same spiel seemingly out of no where and so out of place.

Chronz
06-01-2012, 08:39 PM
For **** sake man Ive given you the most precise numbers available, use them;


-YR- Celtics Offensive RTG - League AVG - Differential
1957 85.1 - 83.7 - +1.4
1958 86.4 - 85.8 - +0.6
1959 89.3 - 87.6 - +1.7
1960 93.0 - 90.7 - +2.3
1961 90.3 - 92.4 - -2.1
1962 94.0 - 94.3 - -0.4
1963 94.1 - 95.6 - -1.5
1964 90.8 - 93.7 - -2.9
1965 91.6 - 93.1 - -1.5
1966 92.8 - 93.1 - -0.3
1967 98.8 - 97.3 - +1.5
1968 97.1 - 97.7 - -0.6
1969 94.2 - 96.1 - -1.8


I guess they dont push the same agenda you prefer but stats from Dean O mean more than your stats.

Chronz
06-01-2012, 08:46 PM
Bos_Sports4Life pushes Russell like he's a Jehovah's Witness, always that same spiel seemingly out of no where and so out of place.

Hes trying to paint a picture of a support system in which;
A) The Celtics sucked offensively
B) The Celtics were elite defensively.

Therefore the team only won because of Russ.

He "PROVES" this by showing how bad the Celtics were defensively BEFORE and AFTER. But totally IGNORES applying the same methodology to the teams offense.

So basically in his mind, the Celtics would suck on both offense and defense without him.

Do you know what kind of team that would make the Celtics? It would make them a laughingstock, the absolute worst team in the league. Somehow that laughingstock managed to put up the 2nd best efficiency marks for an entire regular season BEFORE Russ even showed up.

Thats called selective bias.

When you apply the same before and after logic to the team Wilt joined as a rookie you get a player whos team made a bigger leap. They went from laughingstock (A real laughing stock mind you, the kind that misses the playoffs, gets outscored badly) into the 2nd best team in the league. Keep in mind that Russ wasnt the only addition the Celtics made in his rookie year either, they added the ROY on top of Russ.

The Celtics kept replenishing the talent over the years. Wilts best support when he came into the league was already old, declining and soon retiring.

Bos_Sports4Life
06-01-2012, 09:33 PM
Hes trying to paint a picture of a support system in which;
A) The Celtics sucked offensively
B) The Celtics were elite defensively.

Therefore the team only won because of Russ.

He "PROVES" this by showing how bad the Celtics were defensively BEFORE and AFTER. But totally IGNORES applying the same methodology to the teams offense.


Did the offense decline some? Sure.

However, the change in defense was much more positive than the offense change was negative.

The defense led the NBA in DRtg 12 times in 13 seasons. Not only did it lead the league, it often led the league by an average of 4 points. They have 4 defenses ranked in the top 10 all time realtive to competition.


The offensive diff??

'55-'56
(Yr before Bill)

2nd In FG%/1st in points

56-57

4th in FG%/1st in points

So, They finnished 1st in points both seasons While dropping 2 spots in FG%.

Factor in the fact Russell will be grabbing extra boards, The diff seems too be pretty minimal. The diff in defense however? Seems too be HUUUGE..


Another stat to chew on..

Russell had more Defensinve win shares than the team had offensive win shares 3 straight seasons...

Now while win shares in that era is flawed, it's still telling..

62-63
Offensive Win shares outside of Russell-11.0
Russell's Defensive win shares-12.6

63-64
Offensive Win shares outside of Russell-5.5
Russell's Defensive win shares-16.0

64-65
Offensive Win shares outside of Russell- 10.0
Russell's Defensive win shares- 14.4

TOTAL-

OWS Outside of Bill- 26.5

Russells DWS- 43.0

Lakers + Giants
06-01-2012, 09:58 PM
Chronz, you just love making people look stupid huh? I have an enormous amount of respect for you. You are truly amazing. What a ****in stud. :drool:

Chronz
06-01-2012, 10:01 PM
Did the offense decline some? Sure.

However, the change in defense was much more positive than the offense change was negative.
No ****, otherwise he would have been a net negative player. Nobody on this planet would be stupid enough to think Russell was a bum.

Im done here bro, we dont understand each other and we never will. All I wanted to do was answer your simple question. You didnt like the truth so we went off tangent. This is about MJ's support, how about comparing Russells help vs his. Now thats something I would be interested in hearing.

Chronz
06-01-2012, 10:09 PM
Chronz, you just love making people look stupid huh? I have an enormous amount of respect for you. You are truly amazing. What a ****in stud. :drool:

Thanks babe

Bos_Sports4Life
06-01-2012, 10:23 PM
No ****, otherwise he would have been a net negative player. Nobody on this planet would be stupid enough to think Russell was a bum.

Im done here bro, we dont understand each other and we never will. All I wanted to do was answer your simple question. You didnt like the truth so we went off tangent.


You were the one who made it sound as if the offense had a sizeable diff..

You say Russell isn't in the league as a guy like MJ because of his offense. HOWEVER..

Could MJ almost single handedly make a league average offense one of the best of all time?? Because the answer is without a doubt a no.


So...Since we know Russells defense>MJ's offense (and impact wise, it really isn't even that close), who's too say that diff isn't enough to make up for the diff between MJ's defense and Russells offense? While MJ was one of the best guards ever on defense, a guard can only do so much impact wise..


This is about MJ's support, how about comparing Russells help vs his. Now thats something I would be interested in hearing.

It's deff close..

Bulls were 57-25 In '92-93, I think pippen is one of the most underrated players and doesn't get his due

Dnovakovic099
06-01-2012, 10:35 PM
You were the one who made it sound as if the offense had a sizeable diff..

You say Russell isn't in the league as a guy like MJ because of his offense. HOWEVER..

Could MJ almost single handedly make a league average offense one of the best of all time?? Because the answer is without a doubt a no.


So...Since we know Russells defense>MJ's offense (and impact wise, it really isn't even that close), who's too say that diff isn't enough to make up for the diff between MJ's defense and Russells offense? While MJ was one of the best guards ever on defense, a guard can only do so much impact wise..



It's deff close..

Bulls were 57-25 In '92-93, I think pippen is one of the most underrated players and doesn't get his due

I hear you man and I am a Bulls fan. A player can get zero points a game and hurt his team offensevly and still be the GOAT if he has enough of an impact. An impact of a player can be greater on one end then another players botg end impacts if it is great enough. Now im not saying that this is the case because I havent seen either player play that much because I am 20 and I havent really digged deep into the numbers either. However for some to just dismiss your argument because Russ had a negative impact on offense is just silly.

ne3xchamps
06-01-2012, 10:52 PM
I just wish he would of stayed unretired and won 8 straight. That would of been amazing

Yeah it would have. There's no doubt in my mind the bulls would have won 8 straight.

Chronz
06-01-2012, 11:03 PM
You were the one who made it sound as if the offense had a sizeable diff..

LOL dear god man, do yourself a favor and drop the subject because its clear as day you dont understand what is being said. Ive been clear and concise on what my stance has been. You asked a simple question and I answered it. Your BEFORE AND AFTER barometer favors Wilt. THATS IT. I dont know where you get this idea that Im making it seem like anything other than the TRUTH.

Ive said it NUMEROUS times now that your same methodology favors Wilt.

Let me be clear. THE SAME LOGIC YOU APPLY FOR RUSS FAVORS WILT.

Im not making it seem like anything other than what it is. If you dont like the TRUTH then stop regurgitating the same flawed argument.

Chronz
06-01-2012, 11:04 PM
Yeah it would have. There's no doubt in my mind the bulls would have won 8 straight.

He wouldve lost without a Horace

Bos_Sports4Life
06-01-2012, 11:10 PM
LOL dear god man, do yourself a favor and drop the subject because its clear as day you dont understand what is being said. Ive been clear and concise on what my stance has been. You asked a simple question and I answered it. Your BEFORE AND AFTER barometer favors Wilt. THATS IT. I dont know where you get this idea that Im making it seem like anything other than the TRUTH.

Ive said it NUMEROUS times now that your same methodology favors Wilt.

Let me be clear. THE SAME LOGIC YOU APPLY FOR RUSS FAVORS WILT.

Im not making it seem like anything other than what it is. If you dont like the TRUTH then stop regurgitating the same flawed argument.



And i have yet to find out how it favors wilt. I don't remember seeing any type of chart that suggests wilt made his offense or defense all time greats

Chronz
06-01-2012, 11:19 PM
And i have yet to find out how it favors wilt. I don't remember seeing any type of chart that suggests wilt made his offense or defense all time greats

Its greater because the NET influence was higher. Do the analysis yourself, or do you need to be told everything by someone else?

Lakers + Giants
06-01-2012, 11:20 PM
Thanks babe

:faint::love:

Bos_Sports4Life
06-01-2012, 11:30 PM
Its greater because the NET influence was higher. Do the analysis yourself, or do you need to be told everything by someone else?

I would like some proof, you are the one claiming it...maybe YOU should support it with evidence

Bos_Sports4Life
06-01-2012, 11:46 PM
'58-59 Warriors (Season Before Wilt)

8th in FG %/7th in PPG

1959-'60 Warriors (Wilt's first season)

6th in FG%/3rd in PPG





'67-'68 Lakers 52-30 (Season Before Wilt)

1st in FG% (.477)/2nd in PPG

'68-69 Lakers 55-27 (1st yr of Wilt)

1st in FG% (.469)/ 6th in PPG


During the following 2 instances, He had very minimal impact on team efficiency. Warriors went up 2 spots while the Lakers efficiency stayed the same.

cooldavid3169
06-01-2012, 11:48 PM
Jordan was overrated but he was still the best basketball player to play the game period.

Chronz
06-02-2012, 01:41 AM
I would like some proof, you are the one claiming it...maybe YOU should support it with evidence

'58-59 Warriors (Season Before Wilt)

8th in FG %/7th in PPG

1959-'60 Warriors (Wilt's first season)

6th in FG%/3rd in PPG
'67-'68 Lakers 52-30 (Season Before Wilt)

1st in FG% (.477)/2nd in PPG

'68-69 Lakers 55-27 (1st yr of Wilt)

1st in FG% (.469)/ 6th in PPG

During the following 2 instances, He had very minimal impact on team efficiency. Warriors went up 2 spots while the Lakers efficiency stayed the same.

Well at least you tried, :clap: for that. Not sure where your getting this notion that Warriors went up 2 spots and the Lakers stayed the same but here is the truth.

NET INFLUENCE

Warriors Pre-Wilt: Scored 103.3 PPG (4.9PTS below lg avg)on a league WORST .381FG%, they only allowed 106.3. Simple math says they were a net negative of 3PTS. The 2nd worst mark in the league.

Warriors With-Wilt: Scored 118.6PPG (+3.3 above lg avg) on .409%, and allowed 116PPG. In other words +2.63PTS above average.

From year 1 to year 2 the Warriors pt differential shot up 5.63PTS. Their SRS went from -2.28 to +2.77, a 5.05 pt increase.


Compare that to the Celtics;
Pre-Russ: +.65Pts, +.72SRS vs With-Russ: +5.36, +5.36SRS.
That comes out to a NET gain of +4.65PTS and +4.07SRS.

Now its true that Russ missed alot of games but its also true the Celtics added the ROY along with the addition of Russ for 48 games. So just for comparison sakes, lets give Russ the ridiculously unfair advantage of comparing the Celtics before Russ and the Celtics 2 years later with Russ playing the majority of the season along with the additions of Tommy AND Sam Jones.

The Celtics net gains look like + 4.85PTS, +4.3 SRS

So basically the addition of Sam Jones, an improving Russ+Tommy is what it takes to equal to impact that simply adding Wilt had for the Warriors. A declining Warriors cast at that.


If you want to focus solely on defense then in terms of PTS Per 100 Possessions (According to Dean Oliver) the Celtics D improved by 5.7Pts, when Russ retired the Celtics defense declined by about 6PTS.

Wilt only improved the Warriors defensive rating by 1PT, the Sixers first full season with Wilt their defensive efficiency improved by 2PTS. When he joined the Lakers their defense improved by 1.3PTS and the Sixers defense declined by 3PTS. When Wilt retired the Lakers defense declined by 2.5PTS. So team influence #'s support the idea that Russell was miles ahead of Wilt defensively.

So if I had a team full of stars, Russ could make an impact as equally dominant as Wilts offense without ever touching the ball. The difference for me is that Wilts defense was better than Russells offense (in terms of team influence).

I take no offense to someone picking Russ ahead of Wilt, its a personal choice. But you asked a simple question, Show me 1 player in the history of the NBA that had a simmilar impact on a teams offense or defense..

Wilt had a GREATER NET INFLUENCE BEFORE AND AFTER. Even when you give Russell that advantage of adding Tommy+Sam Jones.

With all that said, can we agree, in terms of team influence its a close comparison during their era?

Lakers + Giants
06-02-2012, 02:04 AM
I would like some proof, you are the one claiming it...maybe YOU should support it with evidence

Bro, just admit you got raped in this argument (cuz it's not even a debate).

Bos_Sports4Life
06-02-2012, 02:56 AM
Bro, just admit you got raped in this argument (cuz it's not even a debate).

Actually, The person in hand think the debate is actually pretty close :laugh:

cutiepie80
06-02-2012, 03:02 AM
Bottom line.................................

They didn't get passed the ECF and didn't win a ring.

Sincerely,
MJ

Bos_Sports4Life
06-02-2012, 03:14 AM
Now its true that Russ missed alot of games but its also true the Celtics added the ROY along with the addition of Russ for 48 games. So just for comparison sakes, lets give Russ the ridiculously unfair advantage of comparing the Celtics before Russ and the Celtics 2 years later with Russ playing the majority of the season along with the additions of Tommy AND Sam Jones.

The Celtics net gains look like + 4.85PTS, +4.3 SRS

So basically the addition of Sam Jones, an improving Russ+Tommy is what it takes to equal to impact that simply adding Wilt had for the Warriors. A declining Warriors cast at that.


But the Celtics traded Macauley for Russell (Macauley was a hof player himself)...So they did lose him


If you want to focus solely on defense then in terms of PTS Per 100 Possessions (According to Dean Oliver) the Celtics D improved by 5.7Pts, when Russ retired the Celtics defense declined by about 6PTS.

Wilt only improved the Warriors defensive rating by 1PT, the Sixers first full season with Wilt their defensive efficiency improved by 2PTS. When he joined the Lakers their defense improved by 1.3PTS and the Sixers defense declined by 3PTS. When Wilt retired the Lakers defense declined by 2.5PTS. So team influence #'s support the idea that Russell was miles ahead of Wilt defensively.


I honestly can't find anything that directly supports a player making such an impact russell had on defense. I obviously didn't watch games however..

The celtics the season Before/After played OK defense (Average) and were not only #1 on defense 12 times in 13 yrs, they were often #1 by a large margin.



So if I had a team full of stars, Russ could make an impact as equally dominant as Wilts offense without ever touching the ball. The difference for me is that Wilts defense was better than Russells offense (in terms of team influence).

I'd fully agree with the fact Wilt's D>Russells O

However,

I think Russell is a bit underrated on offernse. His blocks leading to transition/Rebounding/Passing were all elite. His FG% For his time was also not bad at all..

Also, Could Wilt make an AVERAGE offense into Historically great ofenses?

From what I have seen, It seems like Russells impact on defense out weighs Wilt's Impact on offense..

The evidence supporting this is telling imo

* The chart showing the Celtics DRtg

* The fact Russell had more DW's than the Celtics had OWS's outside of himself during a 3 yr stretch.



With all that said, can we agree, in terms of team influence its a close comparison during their era?


The problem I have with Wilt is the following...

* Russell was easier to deal with

* Russell cared more about winning. I honestly believe if a player doesn't care about stats AT ALL...Its deff a plus

* He brought comradery

* He was mentally tougher



In conclusion, I think Russell is underrated by many. Many believe (Not talking about you) Russell supplied Ben wallace type defense that lucked out by playing for great offenses. Thats a pretty common theory too


IMO Russell/MJ are the 2 greatest ever. Neither lost with HCA, Both were driven by winning, Both were mentally tough ect.

bbcmillionaire
06-02-2012, 03:35 AM
Lmao I love when people say Jordan is/over-rated. Shooting damn near 50% from the field and winning 10 scoring titles, lol what else is there to say? Let's not mention defense

Lakers + Giants
06-02-2012, 03:49 AM
Actually, The person in hand think the debate is actually pretty close :laugh:

Um, no. Chronz keeps posting facts while you keep posting facts that help Chronz's case, LMAO.

Dnovakovic099
06-02-2012, 08:20 AM
Um, no. Chronz keeps posting facts while you keep posting facts that help Chronz's case, LMAO.

You are so wrong its not even funny.

Dnovakovic099
06-02-2012, 08:24 AM
Well at least you tried, :clap: for that. Not sure where your getting this notion that Warriors went up 2 spots and the Lakers stayed the same but here is the truth.

NET INFLUENCE

Warriors Pre-Wilt: Scored 103.3 PPG (4.9PTS below lg avg)on a league WORST .381FG%, they only allowed 106.3. Simple math says they were a net negative of 3PTS. The 2nd worst mark in the league.

Warriors With-Wilt: Scored 118.6PPG (+3.3 above lg avg) on .409%, and allowed 116PPG. In other words +2.63PTS above average.

From year 1 to year 2 the Warriors pt differential shot up 5.63PTS. Their SRS went from -2.28 to +2.77, a 5.05 pt increase.


Compare that to the Celtics;
Pre-Russ: +.65Pts, +.72SRS vs With-Russ: +5.36, +5.36SRS.
That comes out to a NET gain of +4.65PTS and +4.07SRS.

Now its true that Russ missed alot of games but its also true the Celtics added the ROY along with the addition of Russ for 48 games. So just for comparison sakes, lets give Russ the ridiculously unfair advantage of comparing the Celtics before Russ and the Celtics 2 years later with Russ playing the majority of the season along with the additions of Tommy AND Sam Jones.

The Celtics net gains look like + 4.85PTS, +4.3 SRS

So basically the addition of Sam Jones, an improving Russ+Tommy is what it takes to equal to impact that simply adding Wilt had for the Warriors. A declining Warriors cast at that.


If you want to focus solely on defense then in terms of PTS Per 100 Possessions (According to Dean Oliver) the Celtics D improved by 5.7Pts, when Russ retired the Celtics defense declined by about 6PTS.

Wilt only improved the Warriors defensive rating by 1PT, the Sixers first full season with Wilt their defensive efficiency improved by 2PTS. When he joined the Lakers their defense improved by 1.3PTS and the Sixers defense declined by 3PTS. When Wilt retired the Lakers defense declined by 2.5PTS. So team influence #'s support the idea that Russell was miles ahead of Wilt defensively.

So if I had a team full of stars, Russ could make an impact as equally dominant as Wilts offense without ever touching the ball. The difference for me is that Wilts defense was better than Russells offense (in terms of team influence).

I take no offense to someone picking Russ ahead of Wilt, its a personal choice. But you asked a simple question, Show me 1 player in the history of the NBA that had a simmilar impact on a teams offense or defense..

Wilt had a GREATER NET INFLUENCE BEFORE AND AFTER. Even when you give Russell that advantage of adding Tommy+Sam Jones.

With all that said, can we agree, in terms of team influence its a close comparison during their era?

Wilt had the LeBron problem only he was way worse. You can post the best stats in the world and be the greatest player ever, but if your ego gets in the way of winning you will never be the GOAT.

valade16
06-02-2012, 04:36 PM
Could MJ almost single handedly make a league average offense one of the best of all time?? Because the answer is without a doubt a no.

So...Since we know Russells defense>MJ's offense (and impact wise, it really isn't even that close), who's too say that diff isn't enough to make up for the diff between MJ's defense and Russells offense? While MJ was one of the best guards ever on defense, a guard can only do so much impact wise..


If Russell's Defense is better than MJ's offense than it isn't by nearly as much as you're saying. MJ led the league in scoring (on perhaps the best efficiency a Guard has ever had while doing so) for 10 years including 8 straight. He was clearly the best offensive player playing.

And MJ won the Defensive Player of the Year. What award did Russell ever win for his offensive prowess? His rebounding and blocked shots led to easy fast breaks? If that is the best you can say about a persons offense then you aren't saying much as every decent to good big man that does this will notice the same effects...

Russell was amazing at Defense. But how can you say someone who was only amazing at one side of the ball is as good/better than someone who was amazing at both sides of the ball?

Bos_Sports4Life
06-02-2012, 07:27 PM
If Russell's Defense is better than MJ's offense than it isn't by nearly as much as you're saying. MJ led the league in scoring (on perhaps the best efficiency a Guard has ever had while doing so) for 10 years including 8 straight. He was clearly the best offensive player playing.


Russells defensive impact out weighs MJ's offensive impact. It really isn't even THAT close either..

Russell made average defensive teams into ALL TIME GREAT defensive teams by just adding himself. Could MJ make an average offense into a top 10 offense of all time? The answer is without a doubt NO




And MJ won the Defensive Player of the Year. What award did Russell ever win for his offensive prowess? His rebounding and blocked shots led to easy fast breaks? If that is the best you can say about a persons offense then you aren't saying much as every decent to good big man that does this will notice the same effects...

Actually, When a team is in the bottom 2 in FG% 6 times out of the 11 titles, I'd say the rebounding is pretty key.

Now obviously MJ's defense> Russ Offense, However...Russels Defense outweighed Mj's Offense

Now, I don't really think 1 is better than the other. Both have 5 League MVP's and Neither EVER lost with HCA...Both have the accolades and titles..




Russell was amazing at Defense. But how can you say someone who was only amazing at one side of the ball is as good/better than someone who was amazing at both sides of the ball?


This is an extremely flawed way of looking at things..

It's all about total Impact

* Russell made an average defenses into all time great defenses

* Russell won back too back NCAA titles winning 55 straight. He also won a NCAA MVP

* After his dominance in College he won 11 titles in 13 yrs (Injured during the finals 1 season and didn't play). He also won 5 League MVP's.

* Russell was a perfect 11-0 In deciding games


So, 13 titles in 15 yrs/6 MVP's...

valade16
06-02-2012, 07:33 PM
Russell made average defensive teams into ALL TIME GREAT defensive teams by just adding himself. Could MJ make an average offense into a top 10 offense of all time? The answer is without a doubt NO

When was this? Where is the season where the only quality player they added was Russell?

Bos_Sports4Life
06-02-2012, 07:38 PM
When was this? Where is the season where the only quality player they added was Russell?

YR Drtg Rank Diff from League Avg. Diff from 2nd place
1956 90.4 6/8 -1.5
--------------------------------------------------------
1957 82.4 1/8 4.8 2.5
1958 82.0 1/8 5.2 3.9
1959 83.0 1/8 5.8 4.4
1960 83.9 1/8 6.2 1.8
1961 83.0 1/8 8.2 4.6
1962 84.3 1/8 8.7 6.3
1963 86.6 1/9 9.0 6.1
1964 82.7 1/9 11.5 5.6
1965 83.1 1/9 9.9 8.1
1966 87.3 1/9 7.1 4.0
1967 90.8 1/10 4.9 1.7
1968 92.0 2/12 4.6 -
1969 88.4 1/14 6.8 2.8
------------------------------------------------------------
1970 98.5 7/16 0.6 -


This is EXTREMELY telling...

The season before/After they were average. The 13 seasons he was on the team? They led the league in Drtg 12 times, often by big margins...

So yes, In conclusion it seems like Russell played on AVERAGE defensive teams outside of himself.

valade16
06-02-2012, 07:48 PM
YR Drtg Rank Diff from League Avg. Diff from 2nd place
1956 90.4 6/8 -1.5
--------------------------------------------------------
1957 82.4 1/8 4.8 2.5
1958 82.0 1/8 5.2 3.9
1959 83.0 1/8 5.8 4.4
1960 83.9 1/8 6.2 1.8
1961 83.0 1/8 8.2 4.6
1962 84.3 1/8 8.7 6.3
1963 86.6 1/9 9.0 6.1
1964 82.7 1/9 11.5 5.6
1965 83.1 1/9 9.9 8.1
1966 87.3 1/9 7.1 4.0
1967 90.8 1/10 4.9 1.7
1968 92.0 2/12 4.6 -
1969 88.4 1/14 6.8 2.8
------------------------------------------------------------
1970 98.5 7/16 0.6 -


This is EXTREMELY telling...

The season before/After they were average. The 13 seasons he was on the team? They led the league in Drtg 12 times, often by big margins...

So yes, In conclusion it seems like Russell played on AVERAGE defensive teams outside of himself.

My poijnt was he wasn't the only player added, was he? :eyebrow:

Bos_Sports4Life
06-02-2012, 07:59 PM
My poijnt was he wasn't the only player added, was he? :eyebrow:

* Players left and players went...He was the ONLY constant during those 11 title runs.

* The yr DIRECTLY Before and DIRECTLY after the Celtics managed only average defense.

* The celtics During 12 of Russells 13 yrs They were #1. They were #2 the only other season.


So yes, Taking into consideration those 3 FACTS, I'm going to assume he was the only Player worth noting that made any real huge impact on the teams defense.

valade16
06-02-2012, 08:27 PM
* Players left and players went...He was the ONLY constant during those 11 title runs.

* The yr DIRECTLY Before and DIRECTLY after the Celtics managed only average defense.

* The celtics During 12 of Russells 13 yrs They were #1. They were #2 the only other season.


So yes, Taking into consideration those 3 FACTS, I'm going to assume he was the only Player worth noting that made any real huge impact on the teams defense.

Only player worth noting? Please list all the other HOFers amd All-Stars he played with and try to say that with a straight face...

Bos_Sports4Life
06-02-2012, 08:59 PM
Only player worth noting? Please list all the other HOFers amd All-Stars he played with and try to say that with a straight face...


Umm...Why couldn't those "Hofer'ers" do it the season directly Before and directly after Russell?? But during every single season of HIS Career the team led the league in Drtg??

How come the team survived the impacts of losing Cousy, Tommy, Ramsey, Sharman ect and the Defense remained dominant, but directly following Russell the team slipped into Average defense?

Chronz
06-02-2012, 10:56 PM
I love before and after analysis but there are so many variables that go into it that the results are sometimes murky. Like do you know of a team that went from allowing the most PPG to allowing the least the following year?

Bos_Sports4Life
06-02-2012, 11:47 PM
I love before and after analysis but there are so many variables that go into it that the results are sometimes murky. Like do you know of a team that went from allowing the most PPG to allowing the least the following year?

I have no reason to believe Russell wasn't 90% of the reason the celtics defense was so dominant...

in '07 the celtics were ranked 24th in FG% Against
In '08 the celtics were ranked 1st in FG% Against

Sure, Other Variables took place (Posey as 6th man, more vet leadership, players buying in ect) but KG was without a doubt the main reason for this turnaround..

If KG can have that type of impact, Than who's to say Russell couldn't have, Esp considering Russell was the better defensive player by a decent margin. (Realitive to era)

Russell where ever he went, Won. 2 NCAA Titles with SF including 55 straight. (Also won NCAA MVP/Final 4 MVP). Dominated the olympics winning gold his only trip as team captain (winning by 53.5 on avg). And than won 11 More titles in the NBA which includes 5 NBA MVP's.

Combine his accolades/titles won in college/pro with the titles he won as College/Pro, I don't see how he doesn't get his due. Some people don't even rank him top 10...

Chronz
06-02-2012, 11:53 PM
Of course you have no reason, your in love with the guy, but even those Celtics dont meet the criteria I set. I dont know what the defensive RTG was for the team but I can try to round it up. All I know is they went from first to last in ppg. Hint: Its from the same era coincidentally(or not).

And for the record I dont think any player is ever single handidly responsible for a worst to first type of leap.

Chronz
06-02-2012, 11:58 PM
Another hint, the only player the team added was the guy who said "Russell winning all those titles doesnt mean he was better than us great centers, he was a great player but he was also in a great situation".

Bos_Sports4Life
06-03-2012, 12:10 AM
Another hint, the only player the team added was the guy who said "Russell winning all those titles doesnt mean he was better than us great centers, he was a great player but he was also in a great situation".

Russell won EVERYWHERE...College, Olympics, NBA (With him being the ONLY constant)..

So thats 4 diff sets of teammates he won with..(13 titles in 15 yrs, including a gold)

Also, Bird had McHale/Parrish as teammates. Magic had Kareem/Worthy. MJ? He had a team that won 55 without him. So all in all it's safe to say these guys had legit help. So why Punnish Russell for having help?

If you punnish guys for being in great situations, Might as well punnish them also, right?

And I question how great of a situation Russell was in, Being the 1st superstar african american In a racist city doesn't seem "great" to me.

Fact is, He has the Accolades (1x NCAA MVP/5x NBA MVP) and the titles (2x NCAA Champ/11x NBA Champ) too make a pretty good case imo.

Chronz
06-03-2012, 12:18 AM
Russell won EVERYWHERE...College, Olympics, NBA (With him being the ONLY constant)..

So thats 4 diff sets of teammates he won with..(13 titles in 15 yrs, including a gold)

Also, Bird had McHale/Parrish as teammates. Magic had Kareem/Worthy. MJ? He had a team that won 55 without him. So all in all it's safe to say these guys had legit help. So why Punnish Russell for having help?

If you punnish guys for being in great situations, Might as well punnish them also, right?

And I question how great of a situation Russell was in, Being the 1st superstar african american In a racist city doesn't seem "great" to me.

Fact is, He has the Accolades (1x NCAA MVP/5x NBA MVP) and the titles (2x NCAA Champ/11x NBA Champ) too make a pretty good case imo.

I was giving you hints, not trying to rekindle a debate broski, its not my fault that was the player in questions opinion.

Mosesmoreno#1
06-03-2012, 12:25 AM
Kukoc!!!!

AWC713
06-03-2012, 12:42 AM
I just wish he would of stayed unretired and won 8 straight. That would of been amazing

nothing pisses me off more than this.

Jordan came back in 95 and lost in the first round to the Magic. There shouldnt be an astrick either. The bulls didnt have a legit center (pippen lead the team in RPG with 5.9, Rodman came next year)

Shaq and penny had their way with the bulls, and Hakeem likewise would not have been an easy matchup for the bulls.

AWC713
06-03-2012, 12:56 AM
^^im jsut not saying its a shoe-in that he wins 8 in a row.

he lost in 95. its not tha big of a gaff. the magic were a very solid team, and shaq abolsutely dominated the mismatch

HesterJordan23
06-03-2012, 01:11 AM
1. Horry didn't win titles as the main man, Or even a top 3 player on his teams. Russell? He won titles as the Man

2. He was a 5x League MVP




Numbers are great and all but is it possible to quanitfy defense with numbers? Nope. However, you can compare the team's defense directly before and after a player left and can get an idea on a players impact..

Can someone say with an absolute fact Russell's defense alone didn't have a bigger impact than every other players more complete game? Nope

What I can do is this..

Did the celtics win a title before Russell? No

Did the celtics substain success directly after Russell? No, they went from winning for the 11th time in 13 yrs to missing the playoffs.

Did the celtics Need a good offense around him to make up for his lack of offense? Nope, The Celtics won with a bottom 2 FG% SIX TIMES during those 13 seasons.

Was Russell Surrounded by a great team defense? Nope

Fact is- Russell did not play on a good offensive team (Often bottom 2) and played on a team that played average defense without while he was on the team..




YR Drtg Rank Diff from League Avg. Diff from 2nd place
1956 90.4 6/8 -1.5
--------------------------------------------------------
1957 82.4 1/8 4.8 2.5
1958 82.0 1/8 5.2 3.9
1959 83.0 1/8 5.8 4.4
1960 83.9 1/8 6.2 1.8
1961 83.0 1/8 8.2 4.6
1962 84.3 1/8 8.7 6.3
1963 86.6 1/9 9.0 6.1
1964 82.7 1/9 11.5 5.6
1965 83.1 1/9 9.9 8.1
1966 87.3 1/9 7.1 4.0
1967 90.8 1/10 4.9 1.7
1968 92.0 2/12 4.6 -
1969 88.4 1/14 6.8 2.8
------------------------------------------------------------
1970 98.5 7/16 0.6 -

*1956 (the yr before Russell)
* 1957 (the yr after Russell)

(1) The Celtics led the league in defense in 12 of Russells' 13 years

(2) From 1958-1966 they dominated the league defensively like no team I can find for a 9 year period

(3) From 1961-1965 the ran off 5 consecutive historically dominant seasons. Look at those numbers.

(4) Before Russell they were a bottom defensive team and immediately jumped 6.3 relative points and 8.0 raw points to the top.

(5) After Russell they dropped to the middle of the pack, losing 6.2 relative points and 10.1 raw points.

According to Neil's method at B-R, who is slightly underestimating Boston's pace relative to the simple method (because he's assuming fewer turnovers are in play), those uber-dominant Celtics teams are the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th best defensive teams of all time, relative to competition. And there's nothing remotely comparable in NBA history for such sustained defensive dominance.

Basically, Show me 1 player in the history of the NBA that had a simmilar impact on a teams offense or defense..



Fact is.

Russell has the Accolades (NCAA MVP/5 NBA MVP)

Russell has the titles (2 NCAA Titles/11 NBA Titles)

Stats? Well its pointless comparing when you can't quantify Russells impact on defense using his stats.

Win shares has Russell as the 17th best and Winshares per 48 has him at 24th. Manu? Hes 10th all time. Using THOSE stats as the reason too put MJ #1 doesn't seem to logical. But if thats the case be consistant

so who did russell play?

Chronz
06-03-2012, 01:49 AM
Lacey Chabert used to be so fine