PDA

View Full Version : Who is the best center of all time?



JasonJohnHorn
10-18-2012, 05:34 PM
Who is the best center of all time?

KB-Pau-DH2012
10-18-2012, 05:36 PM
Brook Lopez

knicks=love
10-18-2012, 05:37 PM
^ how the hell is he left off this poll?

Ebbs
10-18-2012, 05:38 PM
Ugh after the Hakeem/Shaq discussion I was hoping no one would make this thread.

I don't know I have to really adjust my concept of best.

Most dominant = Wilt
Most physical = Shaq
Most polished = Hakeem
Most accomplished = Russell
Kareem is in this argument to obviously.

Eh honestly I don't know without spending a ton of time.

Wilt
Shaq
Hakeem
Kareem
Russell
:hide:

Im_in_Mia_bish
10-18-2012, 05:39 PM
hakeem
kareem
shaq
wilt
russell
choose 1.

abe_froman
10-18-2012, 05:41 PM
kareem or russell,i always bounce between the two(glad you included moses though,he seems to always get lost in the mix)

iDefend10
10-18-2012, 05:43 PM
I Voted Dream, but I don't know man thats tough. You can make a case for Wilt, Dream, Kareem, Russell, Shaq, Moses.

Da Knicks
10-18-2012, 05:47 PM
Gotta go with the dream on this one, just too many moves down low and the shooting and defense to go with it.

Ebbs
10-18-2012, 05:48 PM
Howard doesn't deserve to be on the poll especially with Mourning, Parrish, Walton, and probably a few others off of it.

macc
10-18-2012, 05:54 PM
I never saw Wilt so it's tough for me to put him at the top. In my lifetime I would say it's a tossup between Hakeem and Shaq. Just depends on what you want out of your C. Shaq was just crazy big and dominant. Hakeem was sooo skilled for a big man.

dh144498
10-18-2012, 05:56 PM
best: Hakeem or Shaq
greatest: Kareem or Russell

DoMeFavors
10-18-2012, 05:59 PM
Brook

Gators123
10-18-2012, 06:00 PM
Brook

Robbw241
10-18-2012, 06:03 PM
When evaluating Centers, the question to ask is " How many hundreds of points can they limit Brook Lopez to in a single game?" I think Bill Russell would limit him to only 500 points in a game. Wilt was decent, he scored 100 once but against Brook he would allow 600 at least.

Andrew32
10-18-2012, 06:08 PM
1. Shaq / Kareem

I honestly can't pick between the two.
Shaq had the better Prime / Peak and first 13 years in my personal opinion.

Kareem had the better longevity although I suspect Magic helped him there.

Shaq is a friend of mine though so putting aside my bias for him Kareem probably has the best case for GOAT C but Shaq is VERY close behind him.
__________________________________________________ ______________

After Shaq / Kareem... I'd say its.
3. Russell
4. Hakeem
5. Wilt

If we include Duncan as a C then I'd put him at #4 and move Hakeem and Wilt back one spot each.

After them its probably Moses/Rob.
__________________________________________________ ______________

Brook Lopez is the future GOAT C though.

lakers4sho
10-18-2012, 06:12 PM
Shaq is a friend of mine

Lol, so thats why........................yeah.

davids22
10-18-2012, 06:13 PM
Shaq. In his prime, dude was unstoppable. A force to be reckoned with. A little more work on his game and he would be a clear cut top 5 player of all time.

Ebbs
10-18-2012, 06:14 PM
Lol, so thats why........................yeah.

I'd becurious what he considers "friend" to mean. You met him once and took a picture? Or you have his phone number and keep in touch.

KB-Pau-DH2012
10-18-2012, 06:15 PM
Shaq is a friend of mine though so putting aside my bias for him Kareem probably has the best case for GOAT C but Shaq is VERY close behind him.


So basically, every single one of your incoherent posts the last 2 months have been from a biased perspective.

You're no better than Barkley, who is also Shaq's close friend and always trashes Kobe.



Are you sure your real name isn't Charles Barkley?

Ebbs
10-18-2012, 06:20 PM
So basically, every single one of your incoherent posts the last 2 months have been from a biased perspective.

You're no better than Barkley, who is also Shaq's close friend and always trashes Kobe.



Are you sure your real name isn't Charles Barkley?

It be cool to have Chuck on PSD. Mavs fans love Chuck

3RDASYSTEM
10-18-2012, 06:32 PM
Greatest(rings-MEDIAHYPE)= RUSSELL
Best skilled = DREAM-ALCINDOR-DROB
Most dominant/physicalfreak - SHAQ-WILT
Flat out best(game) - SHAQ-ALCINDOR-WILT-M.MALONE
HONORABLE MENTION - DROB-MIKAN-EWING

Best ever is a 3way tie with SHAQ/ALCINDOR/WILT with DREAM right there

M.MALONE has as many nba mvps as SHAQ/KOBE/AI combined, he was a straight beast with it

Raidaz4Life
10-18-2012, 06:37 PM
Ugh.... voted Kareem but still feel guilty that so many other people could not have my vote. Wanted to vote Hakeem but felt I was too biased since he is my favorite. I wish they all could play one season in their primes to see how their stat lines turned out.

Lakersfan2483
10-18-2012, 06:38 PM
Kareem although Wilt has a legit case.

xxplayerxx23
10-18-2012, 06:39 PM
Wilt.

jerellh528
10-18-2012, 06:50 PM
gimme kaj

C-Style
10-18-2012, 06:51 PM
You got Jon Koncak but no George Mikan? lol

also Hakeem? dude shot 50%

jerellh528
10-18-2012, 06:53 PM
1. Shaq / Kareem

I honestly can't pick between the two.
Shaq had the better Prime / Peak and first 13 years in my personal opinion.

Kareem had the better longevity although I suspect Magic helped him there.

Shaq is a friend of mine though so putting aside my bias for him Kareem probably has the best case for GOAT C but Shaq is VERY close behind him.
__________________________________________________ ______________

After Shaq / Kareem... I'd say its.
3. Russell
4. Hakeem
5. Wilt

If we include Duncan as a C then I'd put him at #4 and move Hakeem and Wilt back one spot each.

After them its probably Moses/Rob.
__________________________________________________ ______________

Brook Lopez is the future GOAT C though.


pics or its not true lol.

Hawkeye15
10-18-2012, 06:58 PM
Kareem.

PleaseBeNice
10-18-2012, 07:07 PM
JasonJohnHorn is evolving into JordansBulls

Bornknick73
10-18-2012, 07:11 PM
Legacies are based mostly on accomplishments...using that logic its Russell by a mile.

Hawkeye15
10-18-2012, 07:21 PM
Ugh.... voted Kareem bust still feel guilty that so many other people could not have my vote. Wanted to vote Hakeem but felt I was too biased since he is my favorite. I wish they all could play one season in their primes to see how their stat lines turned out.

yep. agreed

b@llhog24
10-18-2012, 07:22 PM
Wilt

b@llhog24
10-18-2012, 07:28 PM
Lol, so thats why........................yeah.

:laugh:


Shaq. In his prime, dude was unstoppable. A force to be reckoned with. A little more work on his game and he would be a clear cut top 5 player of all time.

Except he is.


Legacies are based mostly on accomplishments...using that logic its Russell by a mile.

Actually it would be KAJ if that were the case.

Vinylman
10-18-2012, 07:46 PM
I give a slight edge to KAJ over Shaq ...

but they are a clear 1/2 for me

To bad Shaq was a POS and really didn't do all he could of with his talent... if he had, he would clearly be #1 and probably in the GOAT discussion

theheatles
10-18-2012, 07:57 PM
1. Shaq
2. Hakeem
3. Kareem
4. Wilt
5. Russell

PleaseBeNice
10-18-2012, 08:26 PM
Shaq

JordansBulls
10-18-2012, 08:38 PM
This is probably the only list all time in any sport where the top 5 players for this position can go in any order for many people.

R. Johnson#3
10-18-2012, 08:50 PM
I can really only vote for those in my lifetime. My vote goes to Hakeem.

looka09
10-18-2012, 09:53 PM
Shaq

heyman321
10-18-2012, 10:00 PM
Someone please explain to me how the argument "Wilt played in a time against inferior slow, crappy white guys" is invalid because I don't understand how he isn't overrated. There is no conceivable way someone can average 50/30 a game unless the competition is crap. I'm willing to listen.

on the note of the question, it's Hakeem.

C-Style
10-18-2012, 10:13 PM
Definitely Kareem, for one thing Kareem dominated the league for almost 20 years, his durability alone was unmatched... Hakeem is definitely up there though...
As for as the moves, gotta be the sky hook, everyone knows that move is unguardable, it baffles me that the new 7ft do not practice this move enough... the dream shake is nice tooo bout that damn sky hook is a thing to watch...

LA_Raiders
10-18-2012, 10:50 PM
Kareem

JasonJohnHorn
10-18-2012, 11:02 PM
How is it that Howard and Ewing have one vote each but Moses and Robinson have none? Fawk!

Howard? Seriously... who was that? I dunno even know why I put Howard on the list?

jmoney85
10-18-2012, 11:09 PM
brook lopez

Andrew32
10-18-2012, 11:10 PM
How is it that Howard and Ewing have one vote each but Moses and Robinson have none? Fawk!

Howard? Seriously... who was that? I dunno even know why I put Howard on the list?

Haha yeah thats on you bro.
I would have just put Kareem, Shaq, Russell, Hakeem and Wilt.

Maybe Moses / D-Rob also even though I don't think they have any case at all.

JasonJohnHorn
10-18-2012, 11:17 PM
Someone please explain to me how the argument "Wilt played in a time against inferior slow, crappy white guys" is invalid because I don't understand how he isn't overrated. There is no conceivable way someone can average 50/30 a game unless the competition is crap. I'm willing to listen.

on the note of the question, it's Hakeem.

The league actually allowed black players at that time. I'm not sure if you know this, but Wilt himself was actually black. Russell too.

You have to remember that Wilt, as an old man, played against a young/prime Kareem and still out rebounded him! And the only reason he wasn't still scoring over 30 a game is because he was on a team with Jerry West, Gail Goodrich and Englin Baylor.

He played against guys like Dolph Shayes, and Red Kerr... Walt Bellemy. Dave Debusschere. Nate Thurmond. Jerry Lucas. Bob Lanier. Wes Unseld. Elvin Hayes. He played against Russell... and it's not like today where there are 30 teams in the league and Dwight only has to face Bynum twice a year because they are in different conferences, Wilt had to play against Russell a dozen times during the regular season.

Just got to backetball-reference and check out the numbers some of these other guys were putting up. I will admit that some of them were a little undersized, you had a few centers and power forwards who were 6'8 6'9, but Howard himself is 6'10...Ben Wallace is like 6'8. Chuck Hayes was playing center and he's like 5'7. Today you see a lot of guys who are undersized for center.

Wilt was dominant. He was amazing. We missed out as fans of the game for not getting to see him play and not having many of his games still on tape.

Mishmin
10-18-2012, 11:19 PM
No Travis Knight? Well then I just don't even know

LoveMeOrHateMe
10-18-2012, 11:19 PM
Kareem

But if you take rings out of the equation for everyone then probably hakeem

Russell is so overrated I don't have him in my top 4 centers

Kareem
Hakeem
Wilt
Shaq
Russell

LoveMeOrHateMe
10-18-2012, 11:22 PM
If Kareem isn't no.1 then lol
5 mvp's
6 time champ
Most points ever etc.

Jint.
10-18-2012, 11:24 PM
Hakeem for me

DillyDill
10-18-2012, 11:28 PM
Imma go with Kareem the most accomplished of them all. All-time leading scorer, most allstar appreances, longevity and durability and the most unstoppable shot the league has every seen (Skyhook).

LoveMeOrHateMe
10-18-2012, 11:30 PM
Holy cow just looked at the votes and Hakeem has the lead over Kareem smh embarrassing psd needs an age policy

Bos_Sports4Life
10-18-2012, 11:32 PM
Kareem

But if you take rings out of the equation for everyone then probably hakeem

Russell is so overrated I don't have him in my top 4 centers

Kareem
Hakeem
Wilt
Shaq
Russell


Russells Defense is beyond legendary and was the Reason he captured back to back NCAA titles and after won 11 NBA titles in a 13 yr stretch (13 titles in 15 yrs) and if you want too go back too hs, he won 18 titles in 21 yrs..this is how good his defense is..

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 where im getting at is the 50's-60's celtics won on defense and the driving force behind the defense was Bill Russell, He was by far the biggest part of this defense as you can see. The defense outside of Russell? it was meh, nothing special, as The graph shows.

asandhu23
10-18-2012, 11:40 PM
I think I need to put this up again...


Two of the NBA's greatest players, Bill Russel and Wilt Chamberlain, are often criticized for playing in a "weak" era. This is far from the truth, as the 1960s were a very good time for basketball. A much smaller league meant more competition for fewer spots. The fact that only the 121 best basketball players in the world could play in the NBA condensed the talent pool to nine teams. In the modern NBA, over half of the teams don't even have one all star player, nevertheless hall of famers. Examining the teams in the mid 1960s, all nine of them had Hall of Fame talents:

Boston Celtics: Bill Russel, John Havlicek, Sam Jones, Tommy Heinsolm
Cincinnati Royals: Oscar Robertson, Jerry Lucas
Philadelphia 76ers: Hal Greer
New York Knicks: Willis Reed
San Francisco Warriors: Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond
St. Louis Hawks: Bob Pettit
Los Angeles Lakers: Jerry West, Elgin Baylor
Detroit Pistons: David Bing, Dave Debusschere
Baltimore Bullets: Walt Bellamy

Russel and Chamberlain faced various legends on a nightly basis, yet still were known as the best players of their generation. Throughout the decade, the two were subject to strong competition Some of the great players Russel and Chamberlain faced included:

1960-1964:

Dolph Schayes
Bob Pettit
Walt Bellamy
Jerry Lucas

1965-1968:

Willis Reed
Elvin Hayes
Wes Unseld
Nate Thurmond

1969-1972:

Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Bob Lanier
Artis Gilmore
Billy Cunningham
Dave Cowens

One reason fans tend to lash out at these legends is the absurd stats of not only Russel and Chamberlain, but average players as well, as it was not uncommon for a player to average 15-20 rebounds per game. There are several reasons for the high rebound rates of these players:

a. A high tempo offense. The average team in 1965 shot about 600 more shots than a team in 1985 and about 1400 more shots than a team in 2005.

b. Less fouls called. In 1965, the average team had 2076 personal fouls per season. In 2005, 1856 personal fouls were called. But keep in mind that 1400 more shots were attempted, yet only 200 less fouls called. The result, a lowing field goal percentage, and more shots allowed to be rebounded.

When adjusting the field goal percentage to 45% and reducing the shots taken to the normal rate today, the rebounding rate drops to a more familiar rate for most players. Elgin Baylor would dropped to around 9 boards a game and Nate Thurmond to around 12. However, both Bill Russel and Wilt Chamberlain, even with the adjusted stats, still averaged between 16-20 rebounds per game, showing that they truly did dominate like few others.

Another common misperception is that Bill Russel and Wilt Chamberlain played against only 6'6" white centers. That is completely false. Here are the NBA players from 1960-1972 6'11" or taller who played at least 3 years in the NBA: (list does not include Wilt Chamberlain)

Kareem Abdul Jabbar: 7'2"
Dennis Awtrey: 6'11"
Walt Bellamy: 6'11"
Tom Boerwinkle: 7'0"
Nate Bowmen: 6'11"
Mel Counts: 7'0"
Walter Dukes: 7'0"
Jim Eakins: 6'11"
Ray Felix: 6'11"
Hank Finkel: 7'0"
Artis Gilmore: 7'2"
Swede Halbrook: 7'3"
Reggie Harding: 7'0"
Bob Lanier: 6'11"
Jim McDaniels: 6'11"
Otto Moore: 6'11"
Dave Newmark: 7'0"
Rich Niemann: 7'0"
Billy Paultz: 6'11"
Craig Raymond: 6'11"
Elmore Smith: 7'0"
Chuck Share: 6'11"
Ronald Taylor: 7'1"
Nate Thurmond: 6'11"
Walt Wesley: 6'11"

Two other factors to keep in mind:

a. The NBA was less interested in promoting itself 40 years ago, and therefore, did not see the need to measure players with their shoes on. Almost all players today are listed 1-2 inches taller than their actual height.

b. The NBA had 1/3 of the players that they do now. That means Bill Russel and Wilt Chamberlain faced these 25 guys 3 times more often than they would in the modern nba scheduling.

The truth is, height will never be more of a factor than skill. With several exceptions, players over 7' are typically not very successful. At a collegian level, only three 7 footers have made all-American first team in the last twenty years: Shaquille O'Neal, Andrew Bogut, and Chris Mihm. In this years all star game, Dirk Nowitzki, Pau Gasol, and Chris Kaman were the only three of 30 players selected to be 7 feet, and all are known far more for their skill sets than dominating with size. If height was such a significant factor, then Manute Bol, Shawn Bradly, and Gheorghe Muresan would be hall of fame players, not just fan favorite scrubs.

The overall talent of the 1960s is greatly underestimated as well. The stamina that players in the 1960s have is far greater than anything seen today

1965 Top 3 in minutes played per game
1. Oscar Robertson, 45.6 mpg
2. Bill Russel, 45.2 mpg
3. Wilt Chamberlain, 44.4 mpg

2005 Top 3 in minutes played per game
1. Lebron James, 42.3 mpg
2. Allen Iverson, 42.3 mpg
3. Gilbert Arenas 40.9 mpg

In addition, teams never walked up the court and held the ball for 12
seconds, and then have four players watch as the fifth tries to get to the hoop. Most teams in the 60s tried to get a fast break after every rebound and in the half court set, the ball moved and players were setting screens and cutting to the basket. Yet players were doing this on a nightly basis, without fancy trainers giving massages and various methods to help muscle recovery. In addition, players were far more versatile as Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Dave Debusschere, and other players could play 3 or 4 positions. Many performances that players had would be considered triple doubles in todays game, but assist rules were far stricter in the 1960s, as the average team in the 1960s made 1000 more field goals per year than a team in 2005, yet averaged 100 less assists.

The 1960s produced some of the leagues finest stars, and it is an absolute travesty that these legends are debunked for playing in a weak era when it is clearly not the case.





http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100224214633AAvvebd

Andrew32
10-18-2012, 11:53 PM
I gotta be honest.

The competition Wilt faced in the early 60's was terrible.

Not only that but since he played 48mpg he spent a good portion of the game going against even crappier backups.

Outside of Russel Bellamy was the only guy worth mentioning from that time who might actually have the size to go against Wilt but he was only a good offensive player.
He was a terrible defender.

amos1er
10-19-2012, 12:25 AM
1. Kareem - 6 rings, 2 finals MVP's, 6 MVP's, 19 All-Star games, 10 All NBA First Teams, 5 All NBA Defensive first teams, 2 scoring titles, 5 times lead the league in blocks, 1 time rebounding champion, and the NBA All Time Leading Scorer, not to mention he had the unguardable skyhook.

2. Shaq - 4 rings, 3 finals MVP's, 1 MVP, 15 All-Star games, 8 All NBA First Teams, 3 All NBA defensive Second Teams, 2 scoring titles, number 6 on the All-Time Scoring list.

3. Wilt - 2 rings, 1 finals MVP, 4 MVP's, 13 All-Star Games, 7 All NBA First Teams, 11 times Rebounding champion, 2 All NBA Defensive First teams, 7 scoring titles, and 5 on the All-Time Scoring List.

4. Russell - 11 rings, 5 MVP's, 12 All-Star games, 3 All-NBA First Teams, 1 All- NBA Defensive First Team, and 5 times Rebounding Champion.

5. Hakeem - 2 rings, 2 Finals MVP's, 1 MVP, 12 All-Star Games, 2 DYOP's, 6 All-NBA First Teams, 5 All-NBA Defensive First Teams, 3 Times led the League in Blocks, and number 9 on the All-Time Scoring List.

There is my order...Hakeem and Russell are debatable, but I gave the edge to Russell out of respect for the old timers. Though Hakeem might have a good case for being ahead of him.

amos1er
10-19-2012, 12:45 AM
I was asking myself how it's possible that Hakeem is leading in votes. Then I realized that out of him, Kareem, Shaq, and Wilt; he was the only non-Laker. Then I got my answer. :facepalm:

Bos_Sports4Life
10-19-2012, 01:11 AM
I was asking myself how it's possible that Hakeem is leading in votes. Then I realized that out of him, Kareem, Shaq, and Wilt; he was the only non-Laker. Then I got my answer. :facepalm:

They should ALL be belong Russ

5x MVP/11x NBA Champ

O yea, 2x NCAA Champ/Gold at the lympics to boot'

He won 13 titles in 15 seasons and 1 of the 2 yrs he didnt win? he didn't play due to injury.

amos1er
10-19-2012, 03:21 AM
They should ALL be belong Russ

5x MVP/11x NBA Champ

O yea, 2x NCAA Champ/Gold at the lympics to boot'

He won 13 titles in 15 seasons and 1 of the 2 yrs he didnt win? he didn't play due to injury.

He was def the greatest defensive center of all time, but his overall stats and career achievements (other than rings) just don't compare to the likes of Kareem, Wilt, and Shaq. The real question here is, if you put any one of those 3 on those championship Celtic teams, would they win just as much if not more than him?

Don't get me wrong, if he were still playing today, he would be one of the first guys I would build my franchise around, but I would probly take Shaq, Kareem, or Wilt above him.

Hawkeye15
10-19-2012, 04:35 AM
I was asking myself how it's possible that Hakeem is leading in votes. Then I realized that out of him, Kareem, Shaq, and Wilt; he was the only non-Laker. Then I got my answer. :facepalm:

or the top 5 centers ever are of marginal difference?

Its all subjective. I can't argue to a strong degree which one out of Wilt, Shaq, Dream, Russell, and Kareem are the best.

naps
10-19-2012, 05:01 AM
Any of Wilt/Shaq/Hakeem/Kareem/Russell. Every single of them has a case. My personal favorites are Wilt/Shaq. If I wanted to build a team around someone I would probably take Shaq over anyone in the history of the game not named Jordan. So I guess it's Shaq for me personally but I can't argue with any who picks any of the other 4.






I was asking myself how it's possible that Hakeem is leading in votes. Then I realized that out of him, Kareem, Shaq, and Wilt; he was the only non-Laker. Then I got my answer. :facepalm:

Hmm...Let's see...




1. Kareem - 6 rings, 2 finals MVP's, 6 MVP's, 19 All-Star games, 10 All NBA First Teams, 5 All NBA Defensive first teams, 2 scoring titles, 5 times lead the league in blocks, 1 time rebounding champion, and the NBA All Time Leading Scorer, not to mention he had the unguardable skyhook.

2. Shaq - 4 rings, 3 finals MVP's, 1 MVP, 15 All-Star games, 8 All NBA First Teams, 3 All NBA defensive Second Teams, 2 scoring titles, number 6 on the All-Time Scoring list.

3. Wilt - 2 rings, 1 finals MVP, 4 MVP's, 13 All-Star Games, 7 All NBA First Teams, 11 times Rebounding champion, 2 All NBA Defensive First teams, 7 scoring titles, and 5 on the All-Time Scoring List.

4. Russell - 11 rings, 5 MVP's, 12 All-Star games, 3 All-NBA First Teams, 1 All- NBA Defensive First Team, and 5 times Rebounding Champion.

5. Hakeem - 2 rings, 2 Finals MVP's, 1 MVP, 12 All-Star Games, 2 DYOP's, 6 All-NBA First Teams, 5 All-NBA Defensive First Teams, 3 Times led the League in Blocks, and number 9 on the All-Time Scoring List.

There is my order...Hakeem and Russell are debatable, but I gave the edge to Russell out of respect for the old timers. Though Hakeem might have a good case for being ahead of him.


Oh and your top three were Lakers at some point in their careers...Irony at its finest :laugh2:

naps
10-19-2012, 05:05 AM
How is it that Howard and Ewing have one vote each but Moses and Robinson have none? Fawk!

Howard? Seriously... who was that? I dunno even know why I put Howard on the list?

Dude, you should slap yourself for putting Howard as an option to begin with. This is an absolute insult to the others. Who voted for Howard? Can you man up and explain please (My guess is Raph)? This poll should only have 5 names.

abe_froman
10-19-2012, 05:16 AM
amons1er is turning out to be the resident laker homer,i wouldnt take his posts too seriously guys(much like cousinsevansduo,domefavors,ect.).

that said,there are really no wrong answers as the top 5(hell even 6)are so tightly packed that arguments can be made for any of them and still be right

xcrisisx
10-19-2012, 05:41 AM
I've only seen shaq and hakeem play, shaq was more dominant
bill russel wins depending on how much accomplishments weigh through
wilt wins if you're a statwhore
kareem was is the only on the list who was without arguement the best of his time and had the longest carreer at a high level

JNA17
10-19-2012, 06:16 AM
how the hell is Kareem or Wilt not killing this poll?

Answer is simply Kareem. All time leading scorer. Wilt because he was a freak in every aspect of the game. Then of course, Hakeem once again being underrated here and Shaq being WAY overrated.

But that's just my opinion anyway.

FarOutIos
10-19-2012, 06:53 AM
I don't understand how Wilt is not always tops on every list. Just because we didn't watch him... doesn't mean we can't realize that his production has never been close to duplicated.

He averaged 25 rebounds and 50 points per game... for a whole season. The way he dominated was incredible...

the avenger
10-19-2012, 08:12 AM
It's sad to see how some of the greatest players of all time seem to be remembered. I can understand that most of us (that includes me) never saw Russell or Chamberlain play, but why ignore their accomplishments?? I mean...somebody had to be the best in the 60's and 70's and if it was all that easy, why didn't anybody else do it?

Dwight Howard and Jon Koncak (really???)being on this is list is a joke. Ewing and Robinson should be on the list, but they’re both not in the discussion for the best of all time.
Hakeem is way overrated!! Since when is ‘the dream’ competing with guys like Kareem and Wilt? Come on!
1 is between Wilt and Kareem.
3-5 is between Russell, Shaq and…. Moses Malone!!!! Why do people always forget him?? This guy has 3 MVP awards and was a better scorer and rebounder than Hakeem.

bagwell368
10-19-2012, 08:15 AM
I don't understand how Wilt is not always tops on every list. Just because we didn't watch him... doesn't mean we can't realize that his production has never been close to duplicated.

He averaged 25 rebounds and 50 points per game... for a whole season. The way he dominated was incredible...

25 rebounds out of context is a useless stat. The pace of the game and the amount of missed FGA and FTA was much higher before 1980 - even more so before 1970 than since.

His offensive game by the standards of the 7 best Centers that played between 1980-1995 could charitably be called limited. In that era his PPG would have cut by about 2/3 if not more and rebounds by about 1/2.

bagwell368
10-19-2012, 08:21 AM
Dude, you should slap yourself for putting Howard as an option to begin with. This is an absolute insult to the others. Who voted for Howard? Can you man up and explain please (My guess is Raph)? This poll should only have 5 names.

Agree

Gilmore and Motumbo are both stronger choices than Howard or Koncak if you must have all these names.

Heediot
10-19-2012, 09:01 AM
Hakeem in his prime = Best total package (offense/defense/passing).

Overall, Kareem was the most well rounded and had the longevity and titles.

bagwell368
10-19-2012, 09:03 AM
Hakeem in his prime = Best total package (offense/defense/passing).

Overall, Kareem was the most well rounded and had the longevity and titles.

Ummmm.... but. Moses ate him for breakfast. What was Shaq going to do to him? Titles? Those come with big time teams, not just the player.

The only type of centers he dominated were the Parish types - played like him, but not as big or diversified. Wilt seemed to give the young Jabbar a hard time as well.

Bos_Sports4Life
10-19-2012, 12:06 PM
He was def the greatest defensive center of all time, but his overall stats and career achievements (other than rings) just don't compare to the likes of Kareem, Wilt, and Shaq. The real question here is, if you put any one of those 3 on those championship Celtic teams, would they win just as much if not more than him?

Don't get me wrong, if he were still playing today, he would be one of the first guys I would build my franchise around, but I would probly take Shaq, Kareem, or Wilt above him.

career achievements? He has an NCAA MVP, 5 NBA MVP'S, 2 NCAA titles, and 11 NBA TITLES...Thats 6 MVP's/14 Championships..

Awards were not really handed out the way they are in todays game, Defensive 1st teams, finals mvp's ect ect..Awards he would have racked up as well.

Wilt? I wouldn't trust him in a big moment..He had a loser mentality and said himself he didn't have the will to win compared to Russ. Russell was OBSESSED with winning, Wilt was pre occupied with other things (Women, Stats ect)

"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



Now, You also claim Russell's offense doesn't make him a good choice, Thats a bit foolish imo. His defense made a bigger impact than any one of those players offense, that cant be disputed. Its all about all around impact on the game.

Russell made AVERAGE Defenses into All time great defenses by himself. Wilt/Kareem/Shaq didn't make average offenses into all time great offenses..

Also, the 50's/60's celtics also didn't have great offenses..another myth. More than 1/2 the time they finnished in the bottom 2 in FG%. They relied on defense, a defense that was relied upon Russell.

Chronz
10-19-2012, 12:19 PM
Greatest(rings-MEDIAHYPE)= RUSSELL
Best skilled = DREAM-ALCINDOR-DROB
Most dominant/physicalfreak - SHAQ-WILT
Flat out best(game) - SHAQ-ALCINDOR-WILT-M.MALONE
HONORABLE MENTION - DROB-MIKAN-EWING

Best ever is a 3way tie with SHAQ/ALCINDOR/WILT with DREAM right there

M.MALONE has as many nba mvps as SHAQ/KOBE/AI combined, he was a straight beast with it

I like you alot more when your not talking about Iverson

bagwell368
10-19-2012, 12:22 PM
Now, You also claim Russell's offense doesn't make him a good choice, Thats a bit foolish imo. His defense made a bigger impact than any one of those players offense, that cant be disputed. Its all about all around impact on the game.

Sorry. I dispute that. The DWS stats in the old days are very questionable. Also starting in 1960, and fully in force by 1965, every team had a capable or great Center of true 7 foot size. Russells defensive impact went down as they came on line, and his offense was curtailed even more.

He had the best coach, the best GM, and the best roster year in and year out until about 1966.


Russell made AVERAGE Defenses into All time great defenses by himself. Wilt/Kareem/Shaq didn't make average offenses into all time great offenses..

Did you check, including using pace?


Also, the 50's/60's celtics also didn't have great offenses..another myth. More than 1/2 the time they finnished in the bottom 2 in FG%. They relied on defense, a defense that was relied upon Russell.

But the Celts played at a very high pace with high rebounding with resulted in huge FGA counts for the 50's up to 1965.

The last few years the offense really was weak. Experience, glue, and Bailey Howell got them those last two titles.

bagwell368
10-19-2012, 12:23 PM
I like you alot more when your not talking about Iverson

damn right, that's about as good a write up as there is in this thread

Chronz
10-19-2012, 12:24 PM
The league actually allowed black players at that time. I'm not sure if you know this, but Wilt himself was actually black. Russell too.

You have to remember that Wilt, as an old man, played against a young/prime Kareem and still out rebounded him! And the only reason he wasn't still scoring over 30 a game is because he was on a team with Jerry West, Gail Goodrich and Englin Baylor.

He played against guys like Dolph Shayes, and Red Kerr... Walt Bellemy. Dave Debusschere. Nate Thurmond. Jerry Lucas. Bob Lanier. Wes Unseld. Elvin Hayes. He played against Russell... and it's not like today where there are 30 teams in the league and Dwight only has to face Bynum twice a year because they are in different conferences, Wilt had to play against Russell a dozen times during the regular season.

Just got to backetball-reference and check out the numbers some of these other guys were putting up. I will admit that some of them were a little undersized, you had a few centers and power forwards who were 6'8 6'9, but Howard himself is 6'10...Ben Wallace is like 6'8. Chuck Hayes was playing center and he's like 5'7. Today you see a lot of guys who are undersized for center.

Wilt was dominant. He was amazing. We missed out as fans of the game for not getting to see him play and not having many of his games still on tape.

Those listings (weight+height) are from their collegiate days without Shoes. You have to tack on a few lb's and roughly 1 inch to those totals.

Chronz
10-19-2012, 12:31 PM
Did you check, including using pace?


Its a regurgitated argument that he has been corrected on before. He will hint at Russell's defensive impact by showing you cause and effect, but he refuses to do so for his offfense. Simply put, Russell's defensive impact was historical (I have a hard time buying it would hold up this substantially across eras), but even if we were to compare the team influence, he still made his teams offense worse. The overall net gain from this type of analysis is still higher for Wilt, but he will never mention that.

Bos_Sports4Life
10-19-2012, 12:37 PM
Sorry. I dispute that. The DWS stats in the old days are very questionable. Also starting in 1960, and fully in force by 1965, every team had a capable or great Center of true 7 foot size. Russells defensive impact went down as they came on line, and his offense was curtailed even more.

Just look at the DRtg,

Now you can dispute its not 100% exactly accurate, but close enough imo.


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 -

Note, The Defense wasn't just #1 some of those yrs, it absolutely killed who ever finnised #2.


He had the best coach, the best GM, and the best roster year in and year out until about 1966.


Montana/Brady ect both had top 5 coaches with top tier talent when they won sb's..Yet you credit them for winning? The same should be said for russell.

Heck, Michael Jordan's Bulls won what, 55 games when he retired the 1st time? He was coached by a great coach and had a 50+ win team around him yet people give him credit for winning..

Heck, Even with the best team generally speaking..NEVER getting up set is still a very impressive thing to do.

Even when his teams didn't have the most talent, I believe his fading talent played a huge role and his leadership in general was still very key.





But the Celts played at a very high pace with high rebounding with resulted in huge FGA counts for the 50's up to 1965.

efficiency>pace

Pace tells me little other than it could have tired teams out from playing to there optimal level on the other side. However, Give me efficiency any day of the week.




The last few years the offense really was weak. Experience, glue, and Bailey Howell got them those last two titles.

Either way, it was a dynasty in which the defense was clearly the backbone, I think that can be agreed upon.

Leadership/experiance/loyalty/obsession with winning ect were all qualities that helped, And all started when Russell got here it seems.



And another thing that shows how great he is..

*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.

What GREAT team lose 5 in a row in the NBA? A lot of great teams don't lose 3 in a row nevermind 5. Heck,teams like the '86 c's only lost 1 home game all year.

bagwell368
10-19-2012, 01:06 PM
Just look at the DRtg

There was no "DRtg". there is only DWS, and the formula makes me ill actually. It's by far the worst excuse for advanced stat that there is.

Who he played for didn't hurt him, or his team one bit, did it? Therefore since it helped, it gets counted.


efficiency>pace

Pace tells me little other than it could have tired teams out from playing to there optimal level on the other side. However, Give me efficiency any day of the week.

In the abstract probably, but in the case of Russell I broke this down in excruciating detail in our past discussions. The Celts pace MORE then made up for efficiency, which is easy to see as soon as you go to PPG from FG%.


Either way, it was a dynasty in which the defense was clearly the backbone, I think that can be agreed upon.

That is the simple view. They had a very elite offense to start with, then later better than average, and only late did it become mostly D - with below average offense.

Hah. I remember now: You insulted and besmerched players such as: Heinsohn, Sanders, K.C. Jones, Sharman (or very close to that group) for poor efficiency just to put your hero (who took LSD before two games BTW) on a higher pedestal. I'm sorry, but, your fervency on this topic should make everyone concerned about your objectivity.


they win eight straight. This is not a coincidence.

What GREAT team lose 5 in a row in the NBA? A lot of great teams don't lose 3 in a row nevermind 5. Heck,teams like the '86 c's only lost 1 home game all year.

Hakeem's Rockets had to beat 26 teams for a title in 1994 and 26 the next year. That first team was worse than all of Russell's ring teams, and the 2nd one was no better then any but the last two.

Russell's Celtics first 8 Championships meant that they had to compete with 60 teams total - not just one year - total. Hakeem had to beat 52 teams for 2 rings.

Hakeem would have dominated Russell in every way imaginable. There is nothing Russell could do, Hakeem couldn't do better - and this from probably the only PSD poster that saw Russell play AND is a Celts fan.

Enough. He's trailing in the voting for a good reason, he wasn't as good as the others. I'd take Robinson and Moses over him too - easily. Russell would be a defensive PF back up in the NBA today - at best. He may have ushered in the land of the giants - but he was swallowed up by them eventually, only the depth of the Celts, the Coach, and the GM was able to adjust his role and his team in such a way to keep winning. On the Hawks or Pistons of the 60's Russell would have been done.

EDIT ADD: all the Celts poor record shows when Russell didn't play is that Red wasn't able to get a decent back-up in place.

xcrisisx
10-19-2012, 01:14 PM
I don't like how people put players in other era's to compare them... it makes zero sence
people have so little respect for the early years it makes me sick.
Rull was great in his time, he might or might not be today, but that doesn't make him overrated

bagwell368
10-19-2012, 01:35 PM
I don't like how people put players in other era's to compare them... it makes zero sence
people have so little respect for the early years it makes me sick.
Rull was great in his time, he might or might not be today, but that doesn't make him overrated

Usually I don't like to do it. But I did see them both play as well as all the other guys. Also unlike say MLB which the gap between say 1960 and 1989 isn't that big, in the NBA it's mammoth. At least I have subjectives to fall back on. Besides they are only 29 years apart in age, and they almost overlapped Jabbar.

psuedo
10-19-2012, 01:36 PM
Just a comparison for those that voted for Shaq. Wilt was apparently a more impressive athletic specimen(Reputed to bench 500lbs - Shaq claims 450lbs)

story comes from Wilt’s greatest rival, Bill Russell, who knew only too well how powerful Chamberlain was. As he puts it, “I still remember the time when one of our strongest men, Gene Conley, decided to fight Chamberlain for the ball. He [Conley] grabbed it and hung on and Chamberlain just lifted him and the ball right up towards the rim.” – Bill Russell, “Go Up for Glory” p. 126.

"I'm convinced that Wilt Chamberlain is one of the greatest all-around athletes the world has ever seen." – Alex Hannum, “Tall Tales” (by Terry Pluto) p. 327.

Wilt’s leaping ability was incomparable. His “Sergeant” or vertical leap was higher than Michael Jordan’s at 48”. Chamberlain had won the Big 7 High Jump championship in his junior year of college.

"Wilt led them back to the victory, scoring 24 points and grabbing 22 rebounds. He played the entire 48 minutes of the game, not taking a single rest, and ran the 11-year younger Abdul-Jabbar into the ground, beating him on several Lakers fast breaks late in the game. Jerry West said it was “the greatest ball-busting performance I have ever seen.” and “Time” magazine said of it, “In the NBA’s Western Division Title series with Milwaukee, he [Chamberlain] decisively outplayed basketball’s newest giant superstar…”

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/130817-greatness-revisited-why-wilt-chamberlain-is-the-greatest-nba-player-ever

Interesting article - includes a list, with height and weight, of centres that played against him.

bagwell368
10-19-2012, 01:41 PM
Just a comparison for those that voted for Shaq. Wilt was apparently a more impressive athletic specimen(Reputed to bench 500lbs - Shaq claims 450lbs)

story comes from Wilt’s greatest rival, Bill Russell, who knew only too well how powerful Chamberlain was. As he puts it, “I still remember the time when one of our strongest men, Gene Conley, decided to fight Chamberlain for the ball. He [Conley] grabbed it and hung on and Chamberlain just lifted him and the ball right up towards the rim.” – Bill Russell, “Go Up for Glory” p. 126.

"I'm convinced that Wilt Chamberlain is one of the greatest all-around athletes the world has ever seen." – Alex Hannum, “Tall Tales” (by Terry Pluto) p. 327.

Wilt’s leaping ability was incomparable. His “Sergeant” or vertical leap was higher than Michael Jordan’s at 48”. Chamberlain had won the Big 7 High Jump championship in his junior year of college.

"Wilt led them back to the victory, scoring 24 points and grabbing 22 rebounds. He played the entire 48 minutes of the game, not taking a single rest, and ran the 11-year younger Abdul-Jabbar into the ground, beating him on several Lakers fast breaks late in the game. Jerry West said it was “the greatest ball-busting performance I have ever seen.” and “Time” magazine said of it, “In the NBA’s Western Division Title series with Milwaukee, he [Chamberlain] decisively outplayed basketball’s newest giant superstar…”

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/130817-greatness-revisited-why-wilt-chamberlain-is-the-greatest-nba-player-ever

Interesting article - includes a list, with height and weight, of centres that played against him.

Many of the claims about Wilt have been challenged successfully over the years. There is no way in hell he ever benched 500 lbs. He almost for sure could have dead lifted that much, and more. The simple physics of such long arms and bench presses puts that way out of reach. 350 I can believe. Heck even he admitted his 20k women thing was a big fake from the real number.

RaiderLakersA's
10-19-2012, 01:43 PM
Kareem is the best center of all time.

Those of you picking Hakeem clearly fell victim to his recent flavor of the month club hysteria. You're either being prisoners of the moment, or you're just too young to know any better.

And don't even bother positing Shaq, given his woes at the charity stripe. The most physically gifted center of his era? No doubt!!! But the best center ever? No. C'mon, man!

Bos_Sports4Life
10-19-2012, 01:59 PM
There was no "DRtg". there is only DWS, and the formula makes me ill actually. It's by far the worst excuse for advanced stat that there is.

Maybe read up on the forumla used? Just bc it's not officially used doesn't mean a good estimation doesn't exist..





In the abstract probably, but in the case of Russell I broke this down in excruciating detail in our past discussions. The Celts pace MORE then made up for efficiency, which is easy to see as soon as you go to PPG from FG%.

PPG means almost nothing, without taking efficiency into consideration. High paced teams will have a higher ppg simply by taking more shots versus league average. More shots=More baskets. That means basically nothing.

'01-02 Golden state- Perfect example. Shot poorly but was in the top 25% in PPG, so what? They sure as heck didn't have a good offense

'02-03 Golden state, Middle of the pack in fg% and 2ND in ppg, again, so what?

I'm sure they had more simmilar yrs, Same with ny for a few yrs. Those types of offenses are not "good" by any means.




That is the simple view. They had a very elite offense to start with, then later better than average, and only late did it become mostly D - with below average offense.


Late 50's they had good offenses, starting in '62-'63 they became below average.

From '61-'62 too '65-66 they finnished 7.8/9 in offense on average, Thats just flat out not good and than in the late 60's they were poor once again..

The Celtics won 11 times, During those 11 title runs they finnished LAST or next to LAST more than half the time (6 total)




Hah. I remember now: You insulted and besmerched players such as: Heinsohn, Sanders, K.C. Jones, Sharman (or very close to that group) for poor efficiency just to put your hero (who took LSD before two games BTW) on a higher pedestal. I'm sorry, but, your fervency on this topic should make everyone concerned about your objectivity.

I simply said these guys at the end of the day..

* Were replaceable, They kept winning titles when they left like nothing happened.

* Are HOF'ers due to winning. Cousy, Havlicek, Jones ect all belong. KC Jones? Give me a break




Hakeem's Rockets had to beat 26 teams for a title in 1994 and 26 the next year. That first team was worse than all of Russell's ring teams, and the 2nd one was no better then any but the last two.

More teams=More watered down

We all know if you finnish in as a top seed, The 1st rd basically means nothing (95+% of the time)





Russell's Celtics first 8 Championships meant that they had to compete with 60 teams total - not just one year - total. Hakeem had to beat 52 teams for 2 rings.


Russell was still NEVER upset, It didn't happen 1 time.

* He dominated/back bone to back to back NCAA titles winning 50+ straight at one point

* He dominated/back bone to 11 titles in 13 yrs. Heck, If you count only when he was healthy enough to play? 11 titles in 12 yrs..

Thats winning a title 13 times in 14 season when healthy= thats winning it all 92.8% of the time when he was on the court.

The ONLY time he didn't win it? Was against a team that is argued to be the best team of all time..





Hakeem would have dominated Russell in every way imaginable. There is nothing Russell could do, Hakeem couldn't do better - and this from probably the only PSD poster that saw Russell play AND is a Celts fan.

That means absolutely nothing imo. Drop Willy Mo Pena into the 1920's he probably makes the HOF. Does that mean he's better than HOF'ers from the 20's? No.


Enough. He's trailing in the voting for a good reason, he wasn't as good as the others. I'd take Robinson and Moses over him too - easily. Russell would be a defensive PF back up in the NBA today - at best.

And if you dropped Tebow in Baughs era, He's probably a beast also..Does that mean we disscount baugh?


He may have ushered in the land of the giants - but he was swallowed up by them eventually, only the depth of the Celts, the Coach, and the GM was able to adjust his role and his team in such a way to keep winning. On the Hawks or Pistons of the 60's Russell would have been done.

The same team no one gave a chance to win in the late 60's? Yes they were SO GREAT they were heavy underdogs..

Im sure you were one of those people giving that team no chance, Yet now your going to tell me the greatness of that team kept Russell afloat?

Russell was still a BEAST on defense..

He was #1 on DWS and if you don't like that, the voters themself voted for him for DPOY, So it's just a 100% coincidence stats AND voters agree?


EDIT ADD: all the Celts poor record shows when Russell didn't play is that Red wasn't able to get a decent back-up in place.

No, it shows they were more easily replaceable. Its easier to replace a running guard that shoots high volume/low efficiency over a historically great center...Arguing otherwise would be insane.

dh144498
10-19-2012, 02:02 PM
Wilt could bench 1000 pounds, squat 2000 pounds, deadlift 2000 pounds, able to throw a mountain lion as easily as throwing a baseball, banged 20k women, able to leap to the moon as easily as an average human being can leap over an ant pile, can send you flying across the universe with just a flick of his finger. This guy is the greatest specimen of all time.

Auseranami
10-19-2012, 02:06 PM
It has to be Russell. 11 championships!!!

HowFit
10-19-2012, 02:08 PM
Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Russell...in no order, tough to do...

bagwell368
10-19-2012, 02:12 PM
Kareem is the best center of all time.

Those of you picking Hakeem clearly fell victim to his recent flavor of the month club hysteria. You're either being prisoners of the moment, or you're just too young to know any better.

And don't even bother positing Shaq, given his woes at the charity stripe. The most physically gifted center of his era? No doubt!!! But the best center ever? No. C'mon, man!

Moses left Jabbar cowering almost every time they played. Twice or was it three times superb Laker teams got knocked out of the playoffs by Malone led teams that were anything but superb.

Also, Walton when he was healthy used to handle Jabbar pretty well as I recall.

bagwell368
10-19-2012, 02:15 PM
From the classic Russell=GOAT thread.


Russells booster here (and there maintained the Celts offense was low in efficiency), but here are the facts:

How about #1 in FGA and #1 or #2 FGM and #3 or better in Points Scored? Celtics did it 9 times with Russell. Wow, how terrible can you get....

Also they were usually top 3 in assists per game and rebounds per game.

Bos_Sports4Life
10-19-2012, 02:28 PM
From the classic Russell=GOAT thread.


Russells booster here (and there maintained the Celts offense was low in efficiency), but here are the facts:

How about #1 in FGA and #1 or #2 FGM and #3 or better in Points Scored? Celtics did it 9 times with Russell. Wow, how terrible can you get....

Also they were usually top 3 in assists per game and rebounds per game.

Yes, Due to pace :laugh:

Who judges a team based on rebounding by using the raw number? Rebound % is by far the better #..

Just like AST%..

As far as volume, You must LOVE antoine Walker! He scored points..

jmaest
10-19-2012, 02:30 PM
I love how people are voting for Hakeem as if he was anywhere near the caliber of center as Russel, Chamberlain, or Kareem.

People don't realize that Hakeem was undersized and played a very youthful, in experienced Shaq before retiring. Shaq in his prime would have embarrassed Hakeem all over the court.

Hakeem was the first athletic, smaller framed Center since Russell and he could score--although the 'dream shake' was a travelling violation each and every time he used it. And then of course there's that little fact that Hakeem used to hook his defender with his arm so as to create space which was an offensive foul that would never get called.

Hakeem is a great center but greatest of all-time is just wrong. Of all the center's I've seen play, I like Kareem the best. He was consistent and, when younger, was dominant defensively.

I think there are guys who would have been thought of differently had they been on different teams--like Moses Malone who could play with any Center ever, or Ewing had he ever been able to win a title.

I agree with the poster who said Duncan is better than Hakeem. I would say the top 5--that I've seen in my lifetime are:

1- Kareem
2- Duncan
3- Hakeem
4- Shaq
5- Ewing

bagwell368
10-19-2012, 02:42 PM
Maybe read up on the forumla used? Just bc it's not officially used doesn't mean a good estimation doesn't exist..

It's not official, but its posted by BR, and as an inveterate user of their stats in 3 sports, it's easily the shakiest of all the ones I have seen - to the point where it can be misleading if not dead wrong.


PPG means almost nothing, without taking efficiency into consideration. High paced teams will have a higher ppg simply by taking more shots versus league average. More shots=More baskets. That means basically nothing.

As I already proved in the famous Russel=GOAT thread, 9 times the Celts led the league in FGA and were 1st or 2nd in FGM. The fact that they shot above average on FT during the first 2/3 of those seasons lifted them even higher in productivity.

Last I heard at the end of the game it's Points For and Against that decides matters, not percentages.


Late 50's they had good offenses, starting in '62-'63 they became below average.

False.


From '61-'62 too '65-66 they finnished 7.8/9 in offense on average, Thats just flat out not good and than in the late 60's they were poor once again..

In what way? FG%, what about assists, offensive rebounds? FGM, FTM, PPG. Your game of isolating on one stat is old, is unreasonable, and tiring. As was your denigration of Celtic greats in a failed effort to raise Russell.


The Celtics won 11 times, During those 11 title runs they finnished LAST or next to LAST more than half the time (6 total)

Nobody accepts your idea of what is important outside of context. While a turd like Iverson needs to be castigated for his efficiency - a team needs full analysis to see what is going on.

Also this isn't a thread about just Russell. Make your points, nobody is going to waste all the effort as they did in the Russell=GOAT thread which you used up a lot of bandwidth and were still routed.


I simply said these guys at the end of the day..

* Were replaceable, They kept winning titles when they left like nothing happened.

* Are HOF'ers due to winning. Cousy, Havlicek, Jones ect all belong. KC Jones? Give me a break

You said a lot worse than that.


More teams=More watered down

Many x more players world wide, with better coaching, training and diet. Please. The average NBA pro in 1965 couldn't make a team now or 1985. Heck even a HOF like Jerry Lucas couldn't even make a D1 team today.


And if you dropped Tebow in Baughs era, He's probably a beast also..Does that mean we disscount baugh?

Hakeem and Russell are 29 years apart, Tebow and Baugh probably about 75.


Im sure you were one of those people giving that team no chance, Yet now your going to tell me the greatness of that team kept Russell afloat?

I was a kid heavily influenced by relatives and a coach that were Russell fanatics, what do you think?

In retrospect, those last two years Russell was on fumes and needed a very tough #4 to keep him from getting pounded inside. Maybe Russell's greatest feat is levitating those last two titles on will and smarts. Earlier on he fit the talent of the team and visa versa - with a very deep team that was superb on both ends of the floor.


Russell was still a BEAST on defense..

Not like earlier. I was there remember. He was also a lamb on offense.


He was #1 on DWS and if you don't like that, the voters themself voted for him for DPOY, So it's just a 100% coincidence stats AND voters agree?

Awards at the end of the career for a guy with two fist fulls of titles come pretty easily, they don't mean what they say. It's like Jeter winning a Gold Glove (and yes, that's an overly tainted comparison, but you get the idea I hope). Led the league in D - fine. Too bad that's only half the game. His offensive game that year was awful. 6th on the team in eFG%. Howell had a better year overall.

In the playoffs Havlicek, Howell, and Nelson all were more valuable then Russell.

So like I said, Russell wasn't the key piece like earlier mid career Russell had been.


No, it shows they were more easily replaceable. Its easier to replace a running guard that shoots high volume/low efficiency over a historically great center...Arguing otherwise would be insane.

This thread is about who the best Center is and Russell is buried deep in 4th place. I believe that says it all.

bagwell368
10-19-2012, 02:47 PM
I love how people are voting for Hakeem as if he was anywhere near the caliber of center as Russel, Chamberlain, or Kareem.

People don't realize that Hakeem was undersized and played a very youthful, in experienced Shaq before retiring. Shaq in his prime would have embarrassed Hakeem all over the court.

Hakeem was the first athletic, smaller framed Center since Russell and he could score--although the 'dream shake' was a travelling violation each and every time he used it. And then of course there's that little fact that Hakeem used to hook his defender with his arm so as to create space which was an offensive foul that would never get called.

Hakeem is a great center but greatest of all-time is just wrong. Of all the center's I've seen play, I like Kareem the best. He was consistent and, when younger, was dominant defensively.

I think there are guys who would have been thought of differently had they been on different teams--like Moses Malone who could play with any Center ever, or Ewing had he ever been able to win a title.

I agree with the poster who said Duncan is better than Hakeem. I would say the top 5--that I've seen in my lifetime are:

1- Kareem
2- Duncan
3- Hakeem
4- Shaq
5- Ewing

Hakeem had a small frame? He did a nice job dominating Ewing, Robinson, and an old Jabbar, and everyone he faced until he was old and Shaq started to beat him up.

Ever see Karl Malone and his elbows? Smart players take advantage.

Kareem was badly mauled by Moses Malone. He was beat like a drum. Shaq if he came earlier would have done the same, Wilt at the end did the same. What good is a Center who builds up stats in an ABA weakened NBA in his prime that tosses around the Parish types all day long, but gets crushed by Hakeem and all the top quality centers he faced. Answer that.

Playoffs (4 games):

MM: 25.8/18.0
KAJ: 23.5/07.0

Reg Season (12 games):

MM: 22.1/12.4
KAJ: 18.4/05.6

Bos_Sports4Life
10-19-2012, 03:38 PM
It's not official, but its posted by BR, and as an inveterate user of their stats in 3 sports, it's easily the shakiest of all the ones I have seen - to the point where it can be misleading if not dead wrong.

Wrong? Bc it says the celtics have the best defense in basketball? Historians say the same.



As I already proved in the famous Russel=GOAT thread, 9 times the Celts led the league in FGA and were 1st or 2nd in FGM. The fact that they shot above average on FT during the first 2/3 of those seasons lifted them even higher in productivity.

FT% Matters, Volume shooting doesn't.

You chastise guys like iverson for volume shooting but you credit a team that is built upon volume shooting? Doesn't seem right.




Last I heard at the end of the game it's Points For and Against that decides matters, not percentages.

Yes, but points for/points against doesn't tell the person how much value the offense/defense had, it just tells the reader OVERALL value.
.



In what way? FG%, what about assists, offensive rebounds? FGM, FTM, PPG. Your game of isolating on one stat is old, is unreasonable, and tiring. As was your denigration of Celtic greats in a failed effort to raise Russell.

PPG is an even older stat im sure..

FG% isn't as useful as TS% however without the 3 point line FG% becomes atleast a decent meaure of overall efficiency.

Denigration of celtic greats? When did I EVER say Havlicek, Sam Jones and Cousy were NOT hof'ers?

I have said guys like KC do not belong in the nba hof however..







Many x more players world wide, with better coaching, training and diet. Please. The average NBA pro in 1965 couldn't make a team now or 1985. Heck even a HOF like Jerry Lucas couldn't even make a D1 team today.

Means nothing imo, It's what the player did relative to his peers.



Hakeem and Russell are 29 years apart, Tebow and Baugh probably about 75.


Games evolve at diff rates..




I was a kid heavily influenced by relatives and a coach that were Russell fanatics, what do you think?



[QUOTE]Awards at the end of the career for a guy with two fist fulls of titles come pretty easily, they don't mean what they say. It's like Jeter winning a Gold Glove (and yes, that's an overly tainted comparison, but you get the idea I hope). Led the league in D - fine. Too bad that's only half the game. His offensive game that year was awful. 6th on the team in eFG%. Howell had a better year overall.

He didn't get that award based on rings, Russell actually EARNED the dpoy..Stats/Historians/Voters at the time ect ALL agree Russ earned that award. Jeters gold gloves? Stats don't agree and a lot of people have come out saying that was a joke.



In the playoffs Havlicek, Howell, and Nelson all were more valuable then Russell.

In '69 Russell played 829 Minutes, Howell played 551 and Nelson played 348.

To Say Nelson who was a 19 min a game reserve had more value than the best defensive presense in the NBA who ALSO averaged 20 boards a game? Thats insane.

Not to mention he was the coach, Leader, and the backbone.




So like I said, Russell wasn't the key piece like earlier mid career Russell had been.




This thread is about who the best Center is and Russell is buried deep in 4th place. I believe that says it all.

:laugh:

So when lists agree with your point of view it "says it all" but when they don't agree with your point of view, it doesn't say anything? Makes sense..

bagwell368
10-19-2012, 03:55 PM
Who judges a team based on rebounding by using the raw number? Rebound % is by far the better #..

That is 100% true. However during Bill Russell's career that stat is not available. You really should fact check before you post, lest you lose credibility.


Just like AST%..

Only possible to generate this number as of 1964-1965 - or well after Bill Russell's career mid point.


As far as volume, You must LOVE antoine Walker! He scored points..

No, I don't like volume players in general. For one thing it usually curtails the offensive output of the team, and leaves other players as spectators. Those things were not true for the Celts of this era. They ran a relentless fast break in a time when FG%'s were low and passed and rebounded a ton to fill in the blanks. And yes depended on defense to generate more possessions. There is no stat for the amount of mistakes and fatigue the opponents suffered due to the high pace of play, but it clearly existed in spades for those pre 1965-66 Celtic teams. Any serious historian of those teams knows these things for a fact.

amos1er
10-19-2012, 04:04 PM
Any of Wilt/Shaq/Hakeem/Kareem/Russell. Every single of them has a case. My personal favorites are Wilt/Shaq. If I wanted to build a team around someone I would probably take Shaq over anyone in the history of the game not named Jordan. So I guess it's Shaq for me personally but I can't argue with any who picks any of the other 4.







Hmm...Let's see...






Oh and your top three were Lakers at some point in their careers...Irony at its finest :laugh2:


I at least gave a break down based on career accomplishments. I also factored in the era's they played in and their overall statistical impacts in order to get my top five. I don't see any of these "johny come lately" Hakeem boys doing even close to that. Are you now saying that you are volunteering to explain to me logically why anyone in their right mind would put Hakeem above Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, or Russell even? I have left my explanation, where is yours? Lets see if you can even justify why the top three shouldn't be Kareem, Shaq, and Wilt before you go accusing me of being a homer. I honestly am baffled as to why anyone in their right mind could justify voting Hakeem the best center of all time when you take all this into account:

1. Kareem - 6 rings, 2 finals MVP's, 6 MVP's, 19 All-Star games, 10 All NBA First Teams, 5 All NBA Defensive first teams, 2 scoring titles, 5 times lead the league in blocks, 1 time rebounding champion, and the NBA All Time Leading Scorer, not to mention he had the unguardable skyhook.

2. Shaq - 4 rings, 3 finals MVP's, 1 MVP, 15 All-Star games, 8 All NBA First Teams, 3 All NBA defensive Second Teams, 2 scoring titles, number 6 on the All-Time Scoring list.

3. Wilt - 2 rings, 1 finals MVP, 4 MVP's, 13 All-Star Games, 7 All NBA First Teams, 11 times Rebounding champion, 2 All NBA Defensive First teams, 7 scoring titles, and 5 on the All-Time Scoring List.

4. Russell - 11 rings, 5 MVP's, 12 All-Star games, 3 All-NBA First Teams, 1 All- NBA Defensive First Team, and 5 times Rebounding Champion.

5. Hakeem - 2 rings, 2 Finals MVP's, 1 MVP, 12 All-Star Games, 2 DYOP's, 6 All-NBA First Teams, 5 All-NBA Defensive First Teams, 3 Times led the League in Blocks, and number 9 on the All-Time Scoring List.

Bos_Sports4Life
10-19-2012, 04:08 PM
No, I don't like volume players in general. For one thing it usually curtails the offensive output of the team, and leaves other players as spectators. Those things were not true for the Celts of this era. They ran a relentless fast break in a time when FG%'s were low and passed and rebounded a ton to fill in the blanks. And yes depended on defense to generate more possessions. There is no stat for the amount of mistakes and fatigue the opponents suffered due to the high pace of play, but it clearly existed in spades for those pre 1965-66 Celtic teams. Any serious historian of those teams knows these things for a fact.

Yes, the offense relied on the defense to generate the extra opportunities bc the offense clearly wasn't efficient enough for serveral of those years.

Also, There's no stat that shows the impact Russell had on leadership/willing others around him...But Historians know that had a pretty sizeable impact..

BIG worm
10-19-2012, 04:11 PM
i voted hakeem the dream....but i never had the pleasure of watching wilt, russel....and i only caught the tail end of kareems career. so im basing it on the players ive watched in my time as an nba fan.

bagwell368
10-19-2012, 04:13 PM
Wrong? Bc it says the celtics have the best defense in basketball? Historians say the same.

So do I. But the breakout of each players contribution isn't clear. Many times the Celts on D outside of Russell would head down court after the shot for a fast break. His domination in rebounds because of that fact has a huge effect on the DWS numbers if you bothered to study them. But the contribution of the 4 other players during the first ~20 seconds of the possession gets swept up into Bill's column. Therefore DWS in his era is not accurate for players.


FT% Matters, Volume shooting doesn't.

Show me a team that has the worst FTM% and is in the lowest 3rd of the league in scoring, and I'll show you a mess. But a team that leads in FTA and FTM isn't a poor offense, and no amount of your leaning on but one stat will change that unfortunate (for you) truth.


You chastise guys like iverson for volume shooting but you credit a team that is built upon volume shooting? Doesn't seem right.

I answered that in a prior post. A player that does it to the detriment of his team should be castigated. A team that generates top notch SRS's because of both defense and total scoring is a totally different animal. How you can't make out the difference between the two I can't explain.


Yes, but points for/points against doesn't tell the person how much value the offense/defense had, it just tells the reader OVERALL value.

Right which is reliance on just one stat is misleading. Obviously the Celts would have been better off with higher efficiency. But their solution as for some reason you can't stop pushing was not just defense.


Denigration of celtic greats? When did I EVER say Havlicek, Sam Jones and Cousy were NOT hof'ers?

That wasn't the list, and your insults were stronger than that, and please don't go erasing them before I have a chance to post them here.


He didn't get that award based on rings, Russell actually EARNED the dpoy..Stats/Historians/Voters at the time ect ALL agree Russ earned that award.

Yes he deserved it, but, if you think prior reputation has nothing to do with it, I have bridge to sell you.


In '69 Russell played 829 Minutes, Howell played 551 and Nelson played 348.

Howell played 2527, and outplayed Russell who played 3291. Nelson played 1771.

You must mean playoffs. And BTW Havlicek played more then Russell and outplayed him too.


To Say Nelson who was a 19 min a game reserve had more value than the best defensive presense in the NBA who ALSO averaged 20 boards a game? Thats insane.

You are the big rate guy - with win shares and FG%, and using those, Nelson outplayed him. Can't have it both ways.


Not to mention he was the coach, Leader, and the backbone.

Russell did not coach the offense - Havlicek did. And everyone knows who the true off the court leader was.


So when lists agree with your point of view it "says it all" but when they don't agree with your point of view, it doesn't say anything? Makes sense..

Look at your arguments. Awards, a very dicey advanced stat, and FG% is the sum total of what you have.

:laugh2:

bagwell368
10-19-2012, 04:18 PM
Yes, the offense relied on the defense to generate the extra opportunities bc the offense clearly wasn't efficient enough for serveral of those years.

Also, There's no stat that shows the impact Russell had on leadership/willing others around him...But Historians know that had a pretty sizeable impact..

Of course he had a sizable impact. But in the final analysis against the greatest of all time, his miserable offense outside of his passing (good to very good, in particular after Cousy retired, and offensive glass) has to be held against him vs all the others.

His lead in defense simply doesn't make up for it, since so much of it was based being on the best team, and the weak leagues he played in.

Also the small size of the league has to temper the 11 Championships, as well as the general weakness of the average player in the NBA before 1960 in particular but even to his last day.

bagwell368
10-19-2012, 04:25 PM
I at least gave a break down based on career accomplishments. I also factored in the era's they played in and their overall statistical impacts in order to get my top five. I don't see any of these "johny come lately" Hakeem boys doing even close to that. Are you now saying that you are volunteering to explain to me logically why anyone in their right mind would put Hakeem above Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, or Russell even? I have left my explanation, where is yours? Lets see if you can even justify why the top three shouldn't be Kareem, Shaq, and Wilt before you go accusing me of being a homer. I honestly am baffled as to why anyone in their right mind could justify voting Hakeem the best center of all time when you take all this into account:

1. Kareem - 6 rings, 2 finals MVP's, 6 MVP's, 19 All-Star games, 10 All NBA First Teams, 5 All NBA Defensive first teams, 2 scoring titles, 5 times lead the league in blocks, 1 time rebounding champion, and the NBA All Time Leading Scorer, not to mention he had the unguardable skyhook.

2. Shaq - 4 rings, 3 finals MVP's, 1 MVP, 15 All-Star games, 8 All NBA First Teams, 3 All NBA defensive Second Teams, 2 scoring titles, number 6 on the All-Time Scoring list.

3. Wilt - 2 rings, 1 finals MVP, 4 MVP's, 13 All-Star Games, 7 All NBA First Teams, 11 times Rebounding champion, 2 All NBA Defensive First teams, 7 scoring titles, and 5 on the All-Time Scoring List.

4. Russell - 11 rings, 5 MVP's, 12 All-Star games, 3 All-NBA First Teams, 1 All- NBA Defensive First Team, and 5 times Rebounding Champion.

5. Hakeem - 2 rings, 2 Finals MVP's, 1 MVP, 12 All-Star Games, 2 DYOP's, 6 All-NBA First Teams, 5 All-NBA Defensive First Teams, 3 Times led the League in Blocks, and number 9 on the All-Time Scoring List.

Hahhaha. You left out steals which Hakeem owns over all of them - by far. And all time blocks (counted). And overall athletic superiority, and refinement of skills, ability to play different types of games and centers, and his domination of all the centers he played head to head during the time of the best centers in nba history (outside of Shaq when Hakeem was declining).

I've seen them all, and Hakeem is the best overall, if not most dominating.

Kareem was dominated by stronger Centers from Wilt to Moses, and finally Hakeem who got him when Jabbar was old. Wilt played in a weak NBA against few top flight centers in his time.

Shaq is great unless the game is close with 2 minutes left and you can foul him. Or there is fast break game going on.

Wilt is clearly the winner of strongest, best, yada yada, but still came up badly in winning it all, too bad he didn't go after loose balls like he went after loose chicks.

TyrionLannister
10-19-2012, 04:29 PM
Russell. Set the foundation of how the center position is played, won 11 rings, and was arguably the most dominant defender ever (watered-down league sure, but still).

amos1er
10-19-2012, 04:39 PM
amons1er is turning out to be the resident laker homer,i wouldnt take his posts too seriously guys(much like cousinsevansduo,domefavors,ect.).

that said,there are really no wrong answers as the top 5(hell even 6)are so tightly packed that arguments can be made for any of them and still be right

Way to attack my character while conveniently walking the tight rope of the middle ground by offering no opinion one way or another concerning the actual debate we are having. Its called a cheap shot buddy and I see right through it. You think you are cleaver because you are able to take a dig at me while at the same time taking both sides of the argument in a foolish attempt at thinking that I will be unable to hit you back with a rebuttal. A "hit and run" if you will. The true calling card of someone who is too scared to engage someone in a fair debate. It is commonly referred to as a "Balance Fallacy". Only in this case, you hit me with an ad hominem remark while at the same time taking both sides of the argument. If you truly have no opinion on way or another, than why attack me and not anyone else? Next time you feel the need to step in to a debate, at least have the decency to pick a side before you through out a childish insult. At least that way you won't appear to be as foolish.

Oh and something I don't really take seriously is when a Laker hater calls someone a laker homer. The phrase "pot calling the kettle black" seems to come to mind. :rolleyes:

Bos_Sports4Life
10-19-2012, 04:48 PM
Of course he had a sizable impact. But in the final analysis against the greatest of all time, his miserable offense outside of his passing (good to very good, in particular after Cousy retired, and offensive glass) has to be held against him vs all the others.

But IMO his defense out weighs anyones offense as far as impact goes.


His lead in defense simply doesn't make up for it, since so much of it was based being on the best team, and the weak leagues he played in.

Than why does Babe Ruth get credit? People consider him the greatest ever.

What about Otto/Baugh, Both top 10 QB's yet i doubt they played in strong leagues...

What about Vince Lombardi/Halas ect ect, Do they not deserve much credit in winning since they played in smaller leagues?

IMO its hard to punnish a player too much when he had 0 control on who he played, All he could do was play what was infront of him and he won a championship every single yr besides 1 (including the final 2 yrs of college)

IMO an extra round of the playoffs wouldn't have been a huge deal, He NEVER was upset once, What makes me thing an extra round would have done much?



Also the small size of the league has to temper the 11 Championships, as well as the general weakness of the average player in the NBA before 1960 in particular but even to his last day.

He won a title in '69 while an old man...What makes me think he wouldn't have won in the 70's if he was in his prime?


Also, I have heard you say Red auerbach was the best GM in the NBA and the Celtics would have won titles on a consistant basis with a few diff centers of that era..

Why did Red auerbach NOT trade him for one of those said centers and a bit more? Why did Red sign Russell as the highest paid player in the NBA? Obviously you and Red don't agree...

omdigga
10-19-2012, 04:51 PM
You guys think if Arvydas Sabonis played here in his prime he would be on the list?? definately the best passing big man.. wish we could have seen him go up against the best in his prime..

amos1er
10-19-2012, 04:53 PM
Hahhaha. You left out steals which Hakeem owns over all of them - by far. And all time blocks (counted). And overall athletic superiority, and refinement of skills, ability to play different types of games and centers, and his domination of all the centers he played head to head during the time of the best centers in nba history (outside of Shaq when Hakeem was declining).

I've seen them all, and Hakeem is the best overall, if not most dominating.

Kareem was dominated by stronger Centers from Wilt to Moses, and finally Hakeem who got him when Jabbar was old. Wilt played in a weak NBA against few top flight centers in his time.

Shaq is great unless the game is close with 2 minutes left and you can foul him. Or there is fast break game going on.

Wilt is clearly the winner of strongest, best, yada yada, but still came up badly in winning it all, too bad he didn't go after loose balls like he went after loose chicks.

I already gave the criteria I was going by. When you say the "best center of all time", you have to define the criteria you are using. I already said that I was going by career accomplishments mostly, while factoring in the era's they played in and their overall statistical dominance. Apparently, you are using a different set of criteria than I was using.

Though I will say that I feel the criteria I was using was more objective than anything you stated. You are mostly going off of how they matched up against other great centers of their era. This is all fine and dandy, but you really offer no proof to back up your claims. You say this and that about how Kareem was dominated, but you never give one example. You also allude to how Hakeem dominated against the other great centers he played against through his "refinement of skills", yet you offer no examples in this scenario either. The argument you are making is a very difficult one to prove, thats why I went mostly based off of career accomplishments, which are much easier to prove as they are set in stone.

Bos_Sports4Life
10-19-2012, 04:57 PM
I already gave the criteria I was going by. When you say the "best center of all time", you have to define the criteria you are using. I already said that I was going by career accomplishments mostly, while factoring in the era's they played in and their overall statistical dominance. Apparently, you are using a different set of criteria than I was using.

Though I will say that I feel the criteria I was using was more objective than anything you stated. You are mostly going off of how they matched up against other great centers of their era. This is all fine and dandy, but you really offer no proof to back up your claims. You say this and that about how Kareem was dominated, but you never give one example. You also allude to how Hakeem dominated against the other great centers he played against through his "refinement of skills", yet you offer no examples in this scenario either. The argument you are making is a very difficult one to prove, thats why I went mostly based off of career accomplishments, which are much easier to prove as they are set in stone.

You are basing off of career accomplishments yet you don't have Russell in your top 3?

11x NBA Champ, 5x League mvp yet schaq tops that? Huh?

Vampirate
10-19-2012, 04:58 PM
Hahhaha. You left out steals which Hakeem owns over all of them - by far. And all time blocks (counted). And overall athletic superiority, and refinement of skills, ability to play different types of games and centers, and his domination of all the centers he played head to head during the time of the best centers in nba history (outside of Shaq when Hakeem was declining).

I've seen them all, and Hakeem is the best overall, if not most dominating.

Kareem was dominated by stronger Centers from Wilt to Moses, and finally Hakeem who got him when Jabbar was old. Wilt played in a weak NBA against few top flight centers in his time.

Shaq is great unless the game is close with 2 minutes left and you can foul him. Or there is fast break game going on.
Wilt is clearly the winner of strongest, best, yada yada, but still came up badly in winning it all, too bad he didn't go after loose balls like he went after loose chicks.

It depends on what the criteria is.

If I had to start a team team and didn't know how their careers would progress I would take Shaq. (Sorry I never saw Wilt play, though there are stories).

If I knew how things would progress I wouldn't take Shaq as he's likely to jump ship eventually.

I would take Shaq's prime over just about anyone, that while yes his free throw shooting was horrid (so was Wilt's I believe), the game would be over before it got to that point.

Kareem had the best longevity and and was the best scoring Center.

Wilt had the best stats but not the most championships.

Russel didn't have the greatest stats, but is reported to be one of the best defenders of all time, and has easily won the most.

Hakeem, while not as great a scorer as Wilt, Shaq, and Kareem has some of the best defensive stats in the game with the amount of steals and block, plus his great defence.

If blocks and steals were counted back then though Wilt would probably be the stat king there too seing as how he basically was on the entire court the entire game, every game, plus his already ridiculous stats and the fact he's considered a stat whore.

Jroz
10-19-2012, 04:59 PM
Ugh after the Hakeem/Shaq discussion I was hoping no one would make this thread.

I don't know I have to really adjust my concept of best.

Most dominant = Wilt
Most physical = Shaq
Most polished = Hakeem
Most accomplished = Russell
Kareem is in this argument to obviously.

Eh honestly I don't know without spending a ton of time.

Wilt
Shaq
Hakeem
Kareem
Russell
:hide:


maybe you can put down Kareem as most unstoppable (as far as getting a shot off that always went in) haha

Bravo95
10-19-2012, 05:31 PM
Cap

amos1er
10-19-2012, 05:32 PM
You are basing off of career accomplishments yet you don't have Russell in your top 3?

11x NBA Champ, 5x League mvp yet schaq tops that? Huh?

I also measured in the era's they played in and their overall statistical dominance. I also listed all career achievements in addition to rings and MVP's. Longevity also plays into it too.

If it's all about rings, then why isn't Sam Jones, and John Havlicek mentioned in the discussion for top ten greatest of all time? They were both great for their respective positions too. Jones has 10 rings and Havlicek has 8.

Bos_Sports4Life
10-19-2012, 05:36 PM
I also measured in the era's they played in and their overall statistical dominance. I also listed all career achievements in addition to rings and MVP's. Longevity also plays into it too.

If it's all about rings, then why isn't Sam Jones, and John Havlicek mentioned in the discussion for top ten greatest of all time? They were both great for their respective positions too. Jones has 10 rings and Havlicek has 8.

You are overrating how many awards a player could win in the 50's/60's...most awards didn't exist..

I also didn't say it was all about rings...However, Russell has as many MVP's as MJ (More if you include college)

Andrew32
10-19-2012, 05:54 PM
Hakeem dominated all the centers he played head to head during the time of the best centers in nba history (outside of Shaq when Hakeem was declining).

Shaq is great unless the game is close with 2 minutes left and you can foul him. Or there is fast break game going on.


#1. - That really isn't accurate bagwell.

Shaq outplayed Hakeem overall in their regular season h2h matchups from 93-95 and absolutely dominated a Prime Hakeem in the majority of their matchups in 96 and 97.
Yes Hakeem "slightly outplayed" 3rd year Shaq in the 95 Finals but if you examine all of their matchups throughout the early - mid 90's Shaq has a clear edge over Hakeem.

Also I seem to remember Grandpa Kareem being pretty dominant against a Young Hakeem.

#2. - Another false assessment.

Shaq's FT shooting did not prevent him from scoring down the stretch of games.
Repeatably sending him to the line was not a successful strategy and 99% of the time it led the team that tried it to a loss.
The fact is outside of a last second shot situation Shaq's FT shooting did not hamper him as a scorer.
If you rewatch playoff games from the 00's you'll see that O'neal was repeatably gone to in the last 2 minutes of games and scored/came through for his teams.

Also why would Shaq not do well in a fast break type game?
We are talking about arguably the most athletic C in the history of the game.
Even in 03 when he was well past his athletic Prime and overweight he still was out-running guards on the break.
I can't think of many C's that would be better in a fast break game then LAL and especially ORL Shaq.

amos1er
10-19-2012, 06:16 PM
You are overrating how many awards a player could win in the 50's/60's...most awards didn't exist..

I also didn't say it was all about rings...However, Russell has as many MVP's as MJ (More if you include college)

He also had more talent around him than MJ.

BTW, the only awards that didn't exist were Finals MVP, All Defensive team, and DPOY. We are not talking about college.

Alayla
10-19-2012, 06:26 PM
Wilt

Alayla
10-19-2012, 06:26 PM
but where is Mikan on the poll hes a solid choice as well

Chronz
10-19-2012, 07:07 PM
I already gave the criteria I was going by. When you say the "best center of all time", you have to define the criteria you are using. I already said that I was going by career accomplishments mostly, while factoring in the era's they played in and their overall statistical dominance. Apparently, you are using a different set of criteria than I was using.

Though I will say that I feel the criteria I was using was more objective than anything you stated. You are mostly going off of how they matched up against other great centers of their era. This is all fine and dandy, but you really offer no proof to back up your claims. You say this and that about how Kareem was dominated, but you never give one example. You also allude to how Hakeem dominated against the other great centers he played against through his "refinement of skills", yet you offer no examples in this scenario either. The argument you are making is a very difficult one to prove, thats why I went mostly based off of career accomplishments, which are much easier to prove as they are set in stone.

No offense but Ill take any sort of actual reasoning above your copying and pasting accolades. And he did give you examples, you just choose not to believe what hes saying and/or refuse to attack his points. Everything he said was true, Kareem was dominated individually more than any other center. That means something to some of us, certainly more than a blind glance at accolades and amateur statistical insight.

Remember, I said no offense

Chronz
10-19-2012, 07:11 PM
Many of the claims about Wilt have been challenged successfully over the years. There is no way in hell he ever benched 500 lbs. He almost for sure could have dead lifted that much, and more. The simple physics of such long arms and bench presses puts that way out of reach. 350 I can believe. Heck even he admitted his 20k women thing was a big fake from the real number.
Wilt was benching more than that at age 60

mrblisterdundee
10-19-2012, 07:45 PM
It's not an easy comparison. I still firmly believe today's NBA is significantly more competitive than the NBA Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar played in. The earth's population grows; more people play basketball; the international players come in; and the NBA's talent pool significantly increases, even compared to the expanded team selection.

bagwell368
10-19-2012, 08:55 PM
But IMO his defense out weighs anyones offense as far as impact goes.

But look at both ways at once. Russell is a 10/10 on D and a 3.5/10 on offense.

Jabbar is a 9/10 on offense and a 6.5/10 on D - who is worth more? Then throw in longevity - Russell doesn't rate.


Than why does Babe Ruth get credit? People consider him the greatest ever.

I don't. He was a pioneer in a weak league, and he was nearly matched by the mid/late 1920's. He rose up against pitchers that didn't throw 90, in a league with no players of Color.



What about Vince Lombardi/Halas ect ect, Do they not deserve much credit in winning since they played in smaller leagues?

Correct. Smaller leagues and no FA to deal with and no cap outside of what the owner wanted to spend. Three titles in the last 10 years are worth about 10 from the 1950's.


IMO its hard to punnish a player too much when he had 0 control on who he played, All he could do was play what was infront of him and he won a championship every single yr besides 1 (including the final 2 yrs of college)

It's tough. Russell embodies so much that is right with basketball. Led my team. He's a HOF. But I believe what I saw and have seen. He's not the GOAT, and he's not the best center.


He won a title in '69 while an old man...What makes me think he wouldn't have won in the 70's if he was in his prime?

Possibly. The 70's was a weak era. However by 1984 and beyond, he's not a great center, he's a part.


Also, I have heard you say Red auerbach was the best GM in the NBA and the Celtics would have won titles on a consistant basis with a few diff centers of that era..

Why did Red auerbach NOT trade him for one of those said centers and a bit more? Why did Red sign Russell as the highest paid player in the NBA? Obviously you and Red don't agree...

Red loved Chinese food and he liked to win. He had been hoping to get a great defensive center to go with his elite offensive players and got him.

Salaries were low back then, I'd link to see your evidence.

And yes, a number of pre 1970 centers could have done great with the Celts.

Vidball
10-19-2012, 09:11 PM
Between UCLA and his pro career Kareem is the greatest center that the game of basketball has ever seen.

bagwell368
10-19-2012, 09:37 PM
How does Ewing get more votes then Moses or Robinson, he's not in the class of either.

Oh yeah.... Knicks fans. Go figure.

jbelmar4
10-19-2012, 09:52 PM
Kareem all the way

Bos_Sports4Life
10-19-2012, 10:41 PM
But look at both ways at once. Russell is a 10/10 on D and a 3.5/10 on offense.

Jabbar is a 9/10 on offense and a 6.5/10 on D - who is worth more? Then throw in longevity - Russell doesn't rate.

Who was worth more relative to the players time? I'd still go with Russell.

How many titles does Kareem have as the main guy? Compare that to Russell..






I don't. He was a pioneer in a weak league, and he was nearly matched by the mid/late 1920's. He rose up against pitchers that didn't throw 90, in a league with no players of Color.

So we should disscount Wagner, Cobb, Walter Johnson, Cy young becaus they all played in a weaker era?

Like I said, I wouldn't feel right making a list of all time great players and not including guys like that..They dominated there time and deserve to be in the conversation for greatest ever.




Correct. Smaller leagues and no FA to deal with and no cap outside of what the owner wanted to spend. Three titles in the last 10 years are worth about 10 from the 1950's.

So 3 titles is the same as 10? I don't go with that logic..

It's like saying if the Redsox win 1 more title they will have matched the 50's-60's C's as far as greatness goes, I think thats foolish.

The logic is flawed, its using the size of the league (8-12 teams) and assuming those c's teams couldn't have won in bigger leagues. When in fact the league did grow in Russells time and they still won titles as he was geting older.



It's tough. Russell embodies so much that is right with basketball. Led my team. He's a HOF. But I believe what I saw and have seen. He's not the GOAT, and he's not the best center.

I can live with people saying he's not goat (Even though if im building a team he'd be my first pick), I can live with people saying Havlicek was more key in the late 60's ect...

But when people start saying Don Nelson>Russell despite playing less than HALF of the minues as Russell? Thats something I believe is absurd.




Possibly. The 70's was a weak era. However by 1984 and beyond, he's not a great center, he's a part.

Which means nothing imo. I'm not arguing who the best center would be of todays era, I simply go by who did the best against his own time.

It's why Oscar, West, Russ ect are all mentioned when people talk top 10-15 players of all time..




Red loved Chinese food and he liked to win. He had been hoping to get a great defensive center to go with his elite offensive players and got him.

Salaries were low back then, I'd link to see your evidence.


But if he liked winning so much, Why not trade him for another center that was just as good and gain even more assets?

Heck, Wilt chamberlain was traded multiple times for less value than Russell..Why not get him? He put up better #'s...

Imo a few things made him better than what #'s suggest

* Not caring at all about stats. Lets face it, Even guys that care about winning care about #'s. Kobe? He wants to win but he cared about being "the man"..Russell? He simply did not care at all about #'s...

Now, thats not quantifiable but does mean a bit more than one would think. When the best player of the team has that quality it will trickle on down. It gets the whole team playing for 1 common goal..

Personally speaking, If the leader of my team was Wilt..I wouldn't want to play as hard as if i was playing with a guy like Russell. Russell would make me want to scratch/claw for every basket..Does that quality show up in a box score? Nope. But it sure as hell matters.

He mastered the physiology part of basketball, Again..Some over look it, I don't.


And yes, a number of pre 1970 centers could have done great with the Celts.

Than why didn't Red trade Russell? He could have easily landed anyone from that era and pay that said player 75 cents to the dollar.

During Russells 13 yr career they lost only ONE Time when he was on the court...1 time.

Also, You seem to disscredit that dynasty like 11/13 in that era isn't very impressive. When in fact, It wasn't ever done in ANY of the 4 major sports at the pro level. Canadians/Nyy ect..you name it and they couldn't muster up that sort of greatness in such a span.

LA_Raiders
10-19-2012, 11:58 PM
Between UCLA and his pro career Kareem is the greatest center that the game of basketball has ever seen.

Agree

amos1er
10-20-2012, 01:18 AM
No offense but Ill take any sort of actual reasoning above your copying and pasting accolades. And he did give you examples, you just choose not to believe what hes saying and/or refuse to attack his points. Everything he said was true, Kareem was dominated individually more than any other center. That means something to some of us, certainly more than a blind glance at accolades and amateur statistical insight.

Remember, I said no offense

None taken. The OP did not list any criteria for us to go off of, so we are all just going off what we all think "the best" should actually mean. Myself included. Surprisingly enough, we all have differing opinions. I just gave the simplest answer I could based on my own opinion which BTW is more than most have done. I could easily give a more in-depth analysis to validate my opinion, but no one really made a good enough of an argument to motivate me to do so.

He was the one who was contesting my opinion even after I explained what my criteria was, therefore the burden of proof should be on him. He seemed to acknowledge this by saying that he felt that kareem was dominated individually more than any other center. I then asked him to elaborate further, and even asked some specific questions to back up his specific claims. Once he answers them, I will then retort. Not sure why you felt the need to answer for him on that specific point especially without giving the specific example I asked for originally. I would think that he is more than capable of answering such a simple question with out your assistance.

IMO it would be best for everyone to first specify what the criteria for "best Center of all time" should be before we all get into a giant debate arguing points that are based on differing criteria's. I said earlier, my criteria was mostly based on accolades. I also took overall statistical dominance and the era's played into account.

Chronz
10-20-2012, 03:14 AM
None taken. The OP did not list any criteria for us to go off of, so we are all just going off what we all think "the best" should actually mean. Myself included. Surprisingly enough, we all have differing opinions. I just gave the simplest answer I could based on my own opinion which BTW is more than most have done. I could easily give a more in-depth analysis to validate my opinion, but no one really made a good enough of an argument to motivate me to do so.
Everything you said was true


He was the one who was contesting my opinion even after I explained what my criteria was, therefore the burden of proof should be on him.
I honestly dont know what your criteria was, he contests your rankings and offered why. You made it clear you want him to provide proof, no harm in that I suppose. Im just saying, to me, the fact that you dont know about Kareems vasts struggles (and they are plentiful) against the brutes of the league is pretty sad, you being a Lakers (Kobe?) fan and all. The least you could do is look into his playoff history and deduce what hes talking about. Part of me thinks your playing coy and prolonging the debate, but the rational side tells me you just dont know your history.




He seemed to acknowledge this by saying that he felt that kareem was dominated individually more than any other center. I then asked him to elaborate further, and even asked some specific questions to back up his specific claims. Once he answers them, I will then retort. Not sure why you felt the need to answer for him on that specific point especially without giving the specific example I asked for originally. I would think that he is more than capable of answering such a simple question with out your assistance.
Thats what I find appalling, your either purposely prolonging the debate or you really cant decipher what hes saying, which as I explained above, I found curious enough to post on.



IMO it would be best for everyone to first specify what the criteria for "best Center of all time" should be before we all get into a giant debate arguing points that are based on differing criteria's. I said earlier, my criteria was mostly based on accolades. I also took overall statistical dominance and the era's played into account.
The problem is you could use your exact same criteria and come up with an entirely different outcome, thats why you had to defend your stance against the Russel homer. Thats why I would rather just argue history, how they held up in different environments.

bagwell368
10-20-2012, 10:31 AM
Who was worth more relative to the players time? I'd still go with Russell.

Code for weak league with few standouts.


How many titles does Kareem have as the main guy? Compare that to Russell..

Q. How many teams were competing? A: Many Q. How much more balanced was the league? A. Much more so.


So we should disscount Wagner, Cobb, Walter Johnson, Cy young becaus they all played in a weaker era?

What's your goal? Compare players to their era? Compare players to each other across eras?

BTW, why do you only push things Russell could do and ignore or soft pedal the rest.

The answer to your question is: do not ignore, but by all means discount players from an obviously inferior era.



So 3 titles is the same as 10? I don't go with that logic..

Obviously. It weakens Russell's case a great deal if you give an inch on that topic, so your response is obvious isn't it?


It's like saying if the Redsox win 1 more title they will have matched the 50's-60's C's as far as greatness goes, I think thats foolish.

I'm saying Bird's 3 in a very tough league, with more than double the opponents were worth about the same as Russell's first 7-8. The first 5 Laker titles are likewise not worth a lot IMO.


The logic is flawed, its using the size of the league (8-12 teams) and assuming those c's teams couldn't have won in bigger leagues. When in fact the league did grow in Russells time and they still won titles as he was geting older.

Why is it black or white? With 24 teams the Celts would be a different team. The almost for sure wouldn't have landed Nelson or drafted Havlicek, and quite a few other personal changes. Instead of 11 titles, the might have won 1-4. If Russell was on the Hawks that whole time (same league size), he's got 1.

BTW your trying to slide by the facts without talking details does you no credit. Most of the titles were in a league with 7 or 8 other teams. Only at the end did it grow to 9 and then 11. That's one reason in my posting I addressed the first 8 titles vs Hakeem's leagues.



I can live with people saying he's not goat (Even though if im building a team he'd be my first pick), I can live with people saying Havlicek was more key in the late 60's ect...

A major change from your GOAT thread days.


But when people start saying Don Nelson>Russell despite playing less than HALF of the minues as Russell? Thats something I believe is absurd.


In terms of some rate stats and advanced stats he does - stats which you use to your own advantage at other times. Overall in 1969 he was not based on performance the #1 player on the Celts. He was 2nd best in the regular season, and arguably worse in the playoffs. In some other earlier years arguments could be made he wasn't the #1 player either.

In 1969, Russell was one member of the leading group of four players. On many offensive trips that year he never came up. Based on what I had seen briefly in '65 and a lot more in 1966, he was gassed in 1969 as I have written before. But with one final heroic push they won that title. The team. Not just Bill Russell.


Which means nothing imo. I'm not arguing who the best center would be of todays era, I simply go by who did the best against his own time.

Where are those head to head stats v Wilt? Best separate the players from the teams while you are at it.


But if he liked winning so much, Why not trade him for another center that was just as good and gain even more assets?

I'm appalled at this question. How many other teams had enough offensive fire power to make up for bill? He wasn't a two way player. What were they going to give up? And who wanted to pay a one way Center that much money? Besides Red was always loyal, far beyond anything today.

The rest of this posting deals with the Boston mystique around Russell which I grew up with first hand, and it's just that. Some core facts which a huge amount of pablum and baloney has been smeared over it and puffed up to an absurd degree over the years.

Russell isn't a deity. He fit a role made for him by his Coach and played it well and with heart. Russell would never accept all the credit you give him, and he would be shocked at what you said about his teammates earlier on in PSD in order to puff him up to deity size.


Also, You seem to disscredit that dynasty like 11/13 in that era isn't very impressive. When in fact, It wasn't ever done in ANY of the 4 major sports at the pro level. Canadians/Nyy ect..you name it and they couldn't muster up that sort of greatness in such a span.

Basketball before 1965 was quite a minor league affair. Look up the crowd sizes. Wilt played for the HGT because it paid better than the pros.

The Championships that the Berra era Yankees collected was easily a more difficult feat then the Celts pulled off.

Look at the voting:

Hakeem 36
Wilt 32
Jabbar 32
Shaq 29
Russell 11

Depending on the team you can argue different guys - although Russell would get elected the least. But for a plug and play Center in most possible envs, Hakeem is better then all of them, and much much better than Russell. It's axiomatic.

el hidalgo
10-20-2012, 01:21 PM
amos1er has to have a laker as his #1 center, but he can't make it shaq because that would discredit kobe

Bos_Sports4Life
10-20-2012, 06:24 PM
BTW, why do you only push things Russell could do and ignore or soft pedal the rest.

I don't only push Russell. But fact remains..

* Before Russell no titles, With Russell came 11 titles in 13 yrs and post Russell they missed the playoffs and only got good again when they drafted cowens.

* HOF'ers retired on a consistant basis. Cousy, Tommy, Sharman, Ramsey ect ect...They kept winning.

* Russell was the ONLY constant during that 13 yr span

* In '69 When Russell went down for 5 straight games, The celtics lost every single game. When MJ retired the Bulls played a full season and never once lost 5 in a row.





The answer to your question is: do not ignore, but by all means discount players from an obviously inferior era.

You are in the minority on this. Most people when talking about the greatest people mention Russell, Wilt, West, Oscar ect...



Obviously. It weakens Russell's case a great deal if you give an inch on that topic, so your response is obvious isn't it?

Actually, im pretty consistant with past players. I have no qualms if someone thinks Otto is the greatest QB of all time or Lists Ruth #1 as far as hitters go. Heck, I think Ruth & Williams are the 2 greatest hitters of all time yet both have been long gone.




I'm saying Bird's 3 in a very tough league, with more than double the opponents were worth about the same as Russell's first 7-8. The first 5 Laker titles are likewise not worth a lot IMO.

Bird unlike Russell lost with HCA how many times?

Russell NEVER lost when he was favored, So it's hard for me to assume he would have been upset in a bigger leagues..




Instead of 11 titles, the might have won 1-4. If Russell was on the Hawks that whole time (same league size), he's got 1.

Thats a lot of assuming/guessing. We don't know if they would have won 1 or 8..Its a **** ton of guessing.

[QUOTE]BTW your trying to slide by the facts without talking details does you no credit. Most of the titles were in a league with 7 or 8 other teams. Only at the end did it grow to 9 and then 11. That's one reason in my posting I addressed the first 8 titles vs Hakeem's leagues.

Sure, but if an older Bill Russell could win with 11 teams, Why do you assume a prime Bill Russell couldn't win with 11+ teams?





In terms of some rate stats and advanced stats he does - stats which you use to your own advantage at other times. Overall in 1969 he was not based on performance the #1 player on the Celts. He was 2nd best in the regular season, and arguably worse in the playoffs. In some other earlier years arguments could be made he wasn't the #1 player either.


So you are using rate stats when 1 player is playing about 2.5 times more than the other player? Realllly?




In 1969, Russell was one member of the leading group of four players. On many offensive trips that year he never came up. Based on what I had seen briefly in '65 and a lot more in 1966, he was gassed in 1969 as I have written before. But with one final heroic push they won that title. The team. Not just Bill Russell.

Gassed? I guess relative to his greatness. Still the DPOY (Eyes/advanced stats both back that up). Still played 40+ Minutes, was still the leader ect. Heck, If he was "gassed", Why couldn't the celtics win when he was hurt for 5games?




I'm appalled at this question. How many other teams had enough offensive fire power to make up for bill?

O give me a freaking break, The Pistons won it all with Ben wallace at C and he was less of an offensive player than Russell.

He makes average defenses into great defense by just adding himself. KG even in his prime couldn't make that type of defensive impact.



He wasn't a two way player. What were they going to give up? And who wanted to pay a one way Center that much money?

Are you calling Red Auerbach an idiot? Bc he gave up quite a bit.

Red was willing to give up Macauley AND Cliff Hagen for a rookie..

AND than was willing to pay Russell the most out of anyone in the NBA (Including Wilt)..

So my best guesa is, A lot of teams would have came up with a pretty good package for a Center that was leaps and bounds the best defensive force in the NBA.





The rest of this posting deals with the Boston mystique around Russell which I grew up with first hand, and it's just that. Some core facts which a huge amount of pablum and baloney has been smeared over it and puffed up to an absurd degree over the years.

Mystique Well earned. 11 titles in 13 seasons (8 in a row), Winning several games 7's in the process...Including a huge upset against a rival on the road to finnish it of.

KB-Pau-DH2012
10-20-2012, 06:26 PM
Kareem has the best resume and body of work of all the centers in NBA history.

But if you asked me to pick 1 center for 1 game for all the marbles, I easily choose 2000-2002 Shaq over everybody. Hell, I'd probably pick 2000 Shaq over anyone at any position, including Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan.

b-ballistic
10-20-2012, 06:53 PM
Jim Otto

Bos_Sports4Life
10-20-2012, 06:54 PM
Kareem has the best resume and body of work of all the centers in NBA history.

But if you asked me to pick 1 center for 1 game for all the marbles, I easily choose 2000-2002 Shaq over everybody. Hell, I'd probably pick 2000 Shaq over anyone at any position, including Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan.

Best resume? I'd rather have the resume of 5x league mvp, 11x champ.

As for 1 game for all the marbles? How can you pick against the man that NEVER lost in a game 7? Russell is a perfect 10-0 record in winner take all.

KB-Pau-DH2012
10-20-2012, 07:01 PM
Best resume? I'd rather have the resume of 5x league mvp, 11x champ.

As for 1 game for all the marbles? How can you pick against the man that NEVER lost in a game 7? Russell is a perfect 10-0 record in winner take all.


I have nothing bad to say about the legendary Bill Russell. :worthy:

Shlumpledink
10-20-2012, 07:01 PM
I voted Hakeem. He's the best mix of offense and defense. I think of Kareem as being greater in terms of impact and he actually was very good defensively as well, and a better scorer. So it is a tossup for me.

Lake_Show2416
10-20-2012, 07:35 PM
Kareem

bagwell368
10-20-2012, 09:15 PM
Best resume? I'd rather have the resume of 5x league mvp

38 teams battling the Celts during the 5 years Russell won the MVP - or 7.6 teams on average. Think about one MVP candidate on each team.

107 teams battled Jabbar's teams while he won his 6 MVP's - or an average of 17.8 teams on average per year.

Without any shadow of a doubt, Jabbar's 6 MVP's are worth more then Russell's 5, and no not by 1, by more than double due to the amount of players/teams fighting for it.

Bos_Sports4Life
10-20-2012, 09:36 PM
38 teams battling the Celts during the 5 years Russell won the MVP - or 7.6 teams on average. Think about one MVP candidate on each team.

107 teams battled Jabbar's teams while he won his 6 MVP's - or an average of 17.8 teams on average per year.

Without any shadow of a doubt, Jabbar's 6 MVP's are worth more then Russell's 5, and no not by 1, by more than double due to the amount of players/teams fighting for it.

I dissagree..top players make it anyways, the only players who have a chance.

todu82
10-20-2012, 09:37 PM
Kareem Abdul Jabbar

Chronz
10-20-2012, 10:11 PM
I dissagree..top players make it anyways, the only players who have a chance.

Its alot easier to be a top player on a top team when your in a small league that has monopolized the talent and plays in an era that hinders player movement. Yea not convinced by your argument

rocketfuel
10-20-2012, 11:25 PM
Would Wilt be as dominant if he were in the last two decades? The guys were smaller and less athletic when he played...not like today.

rocketfuel
10-20-2012, 11:26 PM
If we're looking just on the defensive side of the ball, how would the ranking go? Where would Mutombo rank if we're just looking at greatest center on the defensive side of the ball?

Chronz
10-21-2012, 12:13 AM
Would Wilt be as dominant if he were in the last two decades? The guys were smaller and less athletic when he played...not like today.

Wilt held his own vs Kareem and Nate Thurmond/Bill Russell. I think he would do just fine against Chuck Hayes and Tyson Chandler. What do you mean smaller? If you mean height then its a negligible difference, if you mean weight then yea but thats because the game isnt as up and down as it used to be, less possessions dont imply less dominance.

Bos_Sports4Life
10-21-2012, 12:20 AM
Its alot easier to be a top player on a top team when your in a small league that has monopolized the talent and plays in an era that hinders player movement. Yea not convinced by your argument

I love when people try and say Bill Russell was only great due to the talent surrounding him, what a joke.

How come he won back to back in college (50+ win streak) as the main guy? what about dominating the olympics as team captain? What about when he won 11 titles in 12 yrs on the court in the nba?

Bill Russell was a great player before the celtics (There's a reason Red shipped off 2 hof'ers for him). He just continued his great play in the NBA.

rocketfuel
10-21-2012, 12:25 AM
Wilt would have been great no doubt. But, I do wonder about the size and athleticism of the guys today. Of course Hayes is short, but he's on the way short side. The guys seem to be getting bigger and faster the last few decades.

Chronz
10-21-2012, 12:26 AM
I love when people try and say Bill Russell was only great due to the talent surrounding him, what a joke.
Who said that? The topic is on MVP's and amassing accolades. You said only the top guys win it, which is true but the truth is that its alot easier to be at the top when there are only 2 fistful of teams in the league.


How come he won back to back in college (50+ win streak) as the main guy? what about dominating the olympics as team captain? What about when he won 11 titles in 12 yrs on the court in the nba? Bill Russell was a great player before the celtics (There's a reason Red shipped off 2 hof'ers for him). He just continued his great play in the NBA
Off topic, but Ill bite. Why stop there? Why not mention his HS career while your at it? Really now, college? How many HOF did he play with in College? Just 1 and a few NBA reserves, yea what a bum cast to lead, especially in the Olympics, man that Russell guy carried Team USA. Remember, theres also a reason Red referred to Russells offense as *******.

Chronz
10-21-2012, 12:33 AM
Wilt would have been great no doubt. But, I do wonder about the size and athleticism of the guys today. Of course Hayes is short, but he's on the way short side. The guys seem to be getting bigger and faster the last few decades.
I think you exaggerate the difference, I would agree its more of a factor in the early 60's. But like you said, Wilt would still have been great, still the best athlete we've ever seen. Hayes being short didn't prevent him from being one of the games better defenders. I get where your coming from but its a non-issue for Wilt, hes proven himself against some of the games best and its not like he played against 5"10 whities. Does the guy in my sig look like he needs help athletically??

Not to mention if Wilt grows up in this era hes provided the same nutritional/medical advances of today, and to be honest I think Wilt would have thrived socially in today's world. He wouldnt have had to deal with all the off court BS of his time.

JNA17
10-21-2012, 12:36 AM
I think you exaggerate the difference, I would agree its more of a factor in the early 60's. But like you said, Wilt would still have been great, still the best athlete we've ever seen. Hayes being short didn't prevent him from being one of the games better defenders. I get where your coming from but its a non-issue for Wilt, hes proven himself against some of the games best and its not like he played against 5"10 whities. Does the guy in my sig look like he needs help athletically??

Not to mention if Wilt grows up in this era hes provided the same nutritional/medical advances of today, and to be honest I think Wilt would have thrived socially in today's world. He wouldnt have had to deal with all the off court BS of his time.

His "off court" status in today's world would instead make him the most legendary man in NBA history. Seriously all the guys here and posters all over sports forums would turn him into Chuck Norris.

Bos_Sports4Life
10-21-2012, 12:41 AM
Who said that? The topic is on MVP's and amassing accolades. You said only the top guys win it, which is true but the truth is that its alot easier to be at the top when there are only 2 fistful of teams in the league.

its not any easier winning an mvp. MVP's only go to great players..in a 10 team league all of the great players who would be in contention in winning the mvp are already in..


Off topic, but Ill bite. Why stop there? Why not mention his HS career while your at it? Really now, college? How many HOF did he play with in College? Just 1 and a few NBA reserves, yea what a bum cast to lead, especially in the Olympics, man that Russell guy carried Team USA. Remember, theres also a reason Red referred to Russells offense as *******.

The Basketball HOF takes college into consideration when juding players..its nothing new..

Also, the last time they USF won it all? It was with Bill Russell. He averaged 20/20 while being the best defensive player in college bball history.

He competed in the 440 yards (400 m) race, which he could complete in 49.6 seconds. Also the 7th best long jumper in the world..Shot blocking abilities of a center with the foot speed of a guard? Thats crazy.

rocketfuel
10-21-2012, 01:07 AM
Wilt would be great no doubt. But, would he be having 100 point games against some of these freakish athletes these days. I doubt it.

bagwell368
10-21-2012, 07:20 AM
I love when people try and say Bill Russell was only great due to the talent surrounding him, what a joke.

He didn't say that. What he is saying is that because the Celtics had very deep and potent cast around Russell, Russell could focus on defense, and well disguise his offense which wasn't great by percentage (after 1959 when he started to face actual competition - or scoring).


How come he won back to back in college (50+ win streak) as the main guy? what about dominating the olympics as team captain? What about when he won 11 titles in 12 yrs on the court in the nba?

From 1936 - 1968 the US Mens team won 7 consecutive gold medals with a record of 63-0, please stop trying to act as if Russell or his team in 1956 did anything unique.

As has been gone over the Celts were the best team in a small league, those 11 titles are nowhere near as difficult to win as they would be now.


Bill Russell was a great player before the celtics (There's a reason Red shipped off 2 hof'ers for him). He just continued his great play in the NBA.

And if Russell ended up on the Hawks, he'd have one ring.

meadowlarklemon
10-21-2012, 07:32 AM
Kareem

FarOutIos
10-21-2012, 07:57 AM
25 rebounds out of context is a useless stat. The pace of the game and the amount of missed FGA and FTA was much higher before 1980 - even more so before 1970 than since.

His offensive game by the standards of the 7 best Centers that played between 1980-1995 could charitably be called limited. In that era his PPG would have cut by about 2/3 if not more and rebounds by about 1/2.

Again, your attitude of "better than everyone" is amazing... So, you are the expert on how Wilt would compare to players of another era?

That's pretty funny... especially since Wilt dominated the categories every year in a fashion that can only be compared to the dominance of michael jordan.

It doesn't matter how you downgrade the numbers... You cannot downgrade the level of superiority...

waveycrockett
10-21-2012, 09:12 AM
Prime Shaq was an immovable object I gotta go with him

Bos_Sports4Life
10-21-2012, 11:00 AM
He didn't say that. What he is saying is that because the Celtics had very deep and potent cast around Russell, Russell could focus on defense, and well disguise his offense which wasn't great by percentage (after 1959 when he started to face actual competition - or scoring).

You are making it sound like a below average offensive center is the hardest thing in sports to cover up. The celtics in '08 won a title with Perk at freaking C.

Russell was a great passer for a C, The celtics transition game relied on Russell's rebounds & Blocks.

Running a fast break is great and all, But without a defensive stop it can't be used, now can it?




From 1936 - 1968 the US Mens team won 7 consecutive gold medals with a record of 63-0, please stop trying to act as if Russell or his team in 1956 did anything unique.

What about his USF teams? Them winning NCAA titles were pretty unique as the last time they won happened to be when Russell was playing..


As has been gone over the Celts were the best team in a small league, those 11 titles are nowhere near as difficult to win as they would be now.

Sure, But it's also success never seen before.

* NHL had 6 teams
* 1940's NFL only had 10 teams
* MLB right around 1900 didn't have very many teams

Fact is, Sports in general ALL had moments of a lack of teams when starting out, Why didn't any of them have such a dynasty?







And if Russell ended up on the Hawks, he'd have one ring.

* If Brady eneded up with the Browns he would have never ended up having a HOF career (Deff no rings).

* If Bill.B never drafted Brady he would have never won a SB as HC.

* If Young/Montana never had walsh and that great 49'er team they wouldn't have won ect.

* IF Phil Jackson Never landed MJ he may have 0 Rings (LA probably would have never hired him)

* IF Red auerbach Never LUCKILY landed Cousy maybe the Celtics go bankrupt, In which Red never wins a thing.

* IF Marino and Montana switched places Marino would be the Winner and Montana would have been looked at as the loser...

Point is, People don't make crap up and use what If's to downgrade a career, Yet you are doing that with Russell.



Also Another Question, You say Russ wouldn't dominate in todays game..In which I'd agree (I still think he'd be KG like without the offense). However, What makes you assume a black athlete in todays game could handle playing in the nba in the 50's/60's? Esp in a racist city like Boston was?

Bos_Sports4Life
10-21-2012, 11:06 AM
.

b@llhog24
10-21-2012, 11:08 AM
Wilt would be great no doubt. But, would he be having 100 point games against some of these freakish athletes these days. I doubt it.

Well obviously, pace wouldn't allow it.

KnicksorBust
10-21-2012, 11:14 AM
I have the same issue that "best" means different things to different people.

To me, Kareem's mixture of skills/accolades/stats/rings makes him the best.

ztilzer31
10-21-2012, 11:31 AM
I think it has to be Hakeem. He was not only a great big man, but he dominated other big men. The Spurs series where he took Rodman, and Robinson to town was the most impressive big man performance I've ever seen.

ztilzer31
10-21-2012, 11:31 AM
I don't understand why rings matter when comparing the best. Take Kareem and put him in the Jordan era, and I doubt he has them.

Bos_Sports4Life
10-21-2012, 11:53 AM
I don't understand why rings matter when comparing the best. Take Kareem and put him in the Jordan era, and I doubt he has them.

and put the jordan teams into the 80's and how many rings does he have? 0-2is my best guess.

bagwell368
10-21-2012, 11:54 AM
Again, your attitude of "better than everyone" is amazing... So, you are the expert on how Wilt would compare to players of another era?

That's pretty funny... especially since Wilt dominated the categories every year in a fashion that can only be compared to the dominance of michael jordan.

It doesn't matter how you downgrade the numbers... You cannot downgrade the level of superiority...

What attitude? I saw the man play over 150 times probably - 5 times live. I was a D1 player just a few years after he retired. That puts me right there.

He most certainly would not have had the rebound numbers from '85-'95 if his prime years were then and not earlier.

His offensive moves were not great by later standards.

To give him his due, he would be a starting Center today, probably one of the best, if not the best - but that has more to do with the absolute thinness of Centers now. Shaq and Hakeem would have been better - but he would not dominate games or stats like earlier. If you can't agree, fine with me, but my right to an opinion, and my underpinnings for having it are as good as it gets here - weather you like it or not.

Nick O
10-21-2012, 11:58 AM
all around - Hakeem , Offensively - Wilt, defensively - Mutumbo

bagwell368
10-21-2012, 12:02 PM
You are making it sound like a below average offensive center is the hardest thing in sports to cover up. The celtics in '08 won a title with Perk at freaking C.

Thanks for making my points. The team was excellent around him. Also Perk did not play that many minutes which cuts down him impact on the game.


Russell was a great passer for a C

A point I made before you in your coming out thread - Russell=GOAT, glad to see you have adapted it for your own use.


Running a fast break is great and all, But without a defensive stop it can't be used, now can it?

As if Russell was the only one that got any for the C's.... :facepalm:


What about his USF teams? Them winning NCAA titles were pretty unique as the last time they won happened to be when Russell was playing..

Are you slow? I don't talk about college exploits because they don't matter to me and prove little.

Any response on my 63-0 Olympic comeback to your bleating about how great Russell was in the Olympics (in a style of game dominated by Centers unheard of since about 1980)


* MLB right around 1900 didn't have very many teams

Couldn't bother looking it up? 16 teams from the time of the creation of the AL until 1960, more than Russell ever faced.


Also Another Question, You say Russ wouldn't dominate in todays game..In which I'd agree (I still think he'd be KG like without the offense). However, What makes you assume a black athlete in todays game could handle playing in the nba in the 50's/60's? Esp in a racist city like Boston was?

You are joking right? They would do what they have to do. Boston is no picnic for anybody BTW.

waveycrockett
10-21-2012, 12:12 PM
Kareem and Hakeem were almost identical but Hakeem was a superior defender.

PatsSoxKnicks
10-21-2012, 12:15 PM
I have the same issue that "best" means different things to different people.

To me, Kareem's mixture of skills/accolades/stats/rings makes him the best.

Yup, agreed. And to be honest, I think you only hear celts fans (not all obviously) make the case for Russell as the GOAT Center. I don't think he's got much of a case because he's too much of a 1 way player. Give me Hakeem, Kareem, Shaq, etc. over him. Honestly, if it weren't for Russell's rings, D-Rob would be the better player. Think about it, if Russell ends up on a different team, he's a ******** player who no one remembers. Red was perfect for him in that he utilized his unique skill set. You can't say that about any of the other all-time greats. A lot of them actually dominated on 2 different teams. Obviously MJ didn't but we saw him dominate with 2 different head coaches and is anyone really going to tell me that if he ends up on a different team, he isn't still MJ? Hakeem was also mostly on the Rockets but again, like MJ had multiple coaches and dominated in multiple coaching systems. Russell was with 1 coach his entire career and in a league with 11 teams. And when you use his college career, thats when you are really grasping at straws. I mean in that case, Matt Leinart is an amazing NFL player because he was excellent in college.

Someone said Russell could be like KG in today's game but minus the offense. That may be right but if you take the offense out of KG's game, what is he exactly? I just don't see how anyone can overlook the fact that Russell is below average on offense. Basically unless he's passing out of the fastbreak, he's useless on offense. He had league average TS%s for the most part. And can anyone else name a top 10 all-time great who is completely one dimensional? And if you can, I guarantee no one makes the case for them as the GOAT of their position.

Bos_Sports4Life
10-21-2012, 12:18 PM
Thanks for making my points. The team was excellent around him. Also Perk did not play that many minutes which cuts down him impact on the game.

Either way, the c's didn't have a good offensive C. Same with Det just a few yrs back.




Are you slow? I don't talk about college exploits because they don't matter to me and prove little.

They don't matter to YOU, But Red gave up 2 HOF'ers for Russell (even though one had some age). So his college ment something to him now didn't it?


Any response on my 63-0 Olympic comeback to your bleating about how great Russell was in the Olympics (in a style of game dominated by Centers unheard of since about 1980)


So college doesn't count but the olympics does? Hmmm

Anyways..

Preliminary rounds

3-0 (Outscored teams 320-122

Q-Finals- 3-0 (Outscored teams 283-150)

Semi Finals- Won 101-38

Gold- Won 89-55

OVERALL- 793-365

AVG- 99-46

Now, The years I looked at didn't have that type of dominance..



You are joking right? They would do what they have to do. Boston is no picnic for anybody BTW.

So you are assuming a black athlete in the 50's/60's could handle boston? Players these days arn't mentally tough enough to deal with 1/5 of the crap those athletes dealt with.

Chronz
10-21-2012, 12:47 PM
Kareem and Hakeem were almost identical but Hakeem was a superior defender.

Wasn't the cap a superior offender? lol offensive player

Bos_Sports4Life
10-21-2012, 12:51 PM
Yup, agreed. And to be honest, I think you only hear celts fans (not all obviously) make the case for Russell as the GOAT Center. I don't think he's got much of a case because he's too much of a 1 way player. Give me Hakeem, Kareem, Shaq, etc. over him. Honestly, if it weren't for Russell's rings, D-Rob would be the better player. Think about it, if Russell ends up on a different team, he's a ******** player who no one remembers.

:laugh2:

He was a shot blocking machine during his college career. After batting away 13 shots against the NCAA basketball powerhouse UCLA, legendary coach John Wooden said of Russell, “He is the greatest defensive man I've ever seen.”


“If we played Boston four on four, without Russell, we probably would have won every series. The guy killed us. He's the one who prevented us from achieving true greatness.”
-- L.A. Lakers forward "Hot Rod" Hundley


“Russell single-handedly revolutionized this game”
--Red Auerbach, 1964

“How much does that guy make a year?” inquired Dolph Schayes, the great Syracuse forward. “It would be to our advantage if we paid him off for five years to get away from us in the rest of this series.”

“If I had a choice of any basketball player in the league,” Lakers guard Jerry West would say after losing a fifth Finals series to Boston in 1968, “my No.1 choice has to be Bill Russell. Bill Russell never ceases to amaze me.”


“That’s quite a twist, isn’t it, having a defensive player mean the difference?” said Kundla. “We don’t fear the Celtics without Bill Russell. Take him out and we can beat them … He’s the guy who whipped us psychologically. Russell has our club worrying every second. Every one of the five men is thinking Russell is covering him on every play. He blocks a shot, and before you know it, Boston is getting a basket, and a play by Russell has done it.”



Said Schayes, who had become the Philadelphia 76ers coach: “The Celtics can thank the Good Lord for Bill Russell.”


Yes, Russell was a nobody on some other team..



Red was perfect for him in that he utilized his unique skill set. You can't say that about any of the other all-time greats.

Defense & Rebounding are unique now?



lot of them actually dominated on 2 different teams. Obviously MJ didn't but we saw him dominate with 2 different head coaches and is anyone really going to tell me that if he ends up on a different team, he isn't still MJ? Hakeem was also mostly on the Rockets but again, like MJ had multiple coaches and dominated in multiple coaching systems. Russell was with 1 coach his entire career and in a league with 11 teams. And when you use his college career, thats when you are really grasping at straws. I mean in that case, Matt Leinart is an amazing NFL player because he was excellent in college.

Bill Russell WAS the coach his final few yrs and they STILL won.

Also, Russell did win with 2 seperate teams..He was the ONLY constant in that 13 yr run.

Also, When MJ retired The Bulls still managed to win 55 games and nearly made the ECF.


Someone said Russell could be like KG in today's game but minus the offense. That may be right but if you take the offense out of KG's game, what is he exactly? I just don't see how anyone can overlook the fact that Russell is below average on offense. Basically unless he's passing out of the fastbreak, he's useless on offense. He had league average TS%s for the most part. And can anyone else name a top 10 all-time great who is completely one dimensional? And if you can, I guarantee no one makes the case for them as the GOAT of their position.


Those Celtic teams didn't NEED a great offense..

Unless you think High volume=Great offense...

What I find funny is this, Bagwell gives an exception to the 1960 c's for there high volume/low efficiency offense...But than blames russell for not being efficient enough?

waveycrockett
10-21-2012, 01:00 PM
Wasn't the cap a superior offender? lol offensive player

I dont think so. Maybe strictly by the numbers sure but Kareems best years were between 70-76. Hakeem played in the golden age of Centers against terrific defenders. I think on the offensive end they were both similar.

bagwell368
10-21-2012, 02:40 PM
So college doesn't count but the olympics does? Hmmm

You brought it up. Then disappeared like a fart in the wind when I tore it to the ground. That counts.


Now, The years I looked at didn't have that type of dominance..

Another meh team made superior by the presence of Russell. Look at all the teams, then get back.


So you are assuming a black athlete in the 50's/60's could handle boston? Players these days arn't mentally tough enough to deal with 1/5 of the crap those athletes dealt with.

It takes a lot to make it as a pro athlete. Blacks of today still have issues to deal with than whites don't. As bad as Boston was then, there were no lynchings. I assume nothing, but you seem to assume nobody from later could deal with it - what a ****ing joke.

bagwell368
10-21-2012, 03:00 PM
He was a shot blocking machine during his college career. After batting away 13 shots against the NCAA basketball powerhouse UCLA, legendary coach John Wooden said of Russell, “He is the greatest defensive man I've ever seen.”

Wooden changed his mind when he had Alcindor and Walton. He said so. Oh well, players do get better over time - more proof.


“Russell single-handedly revolutionized this game”
--Red Auerbach, 1964

Yet after Bird's career was over he was not longer able to say that Russell was the greatest player he had. He refused to answer. A mere forward the equal of the GOAT Center. hahahahahahha.


Yes, Russell was a nobody on some other team..

He doesn't have the titles on almost all other NBA teams in his time. No Red, lesser players. Or if you like let's expand the league to 24 teams. The Celts are different, and his limited offense must then be employed, taking away energy from his defense.


Defense & Rebounding are unique now?

I don't know where this is from, please learn how to quote.


Bill Russell WAS the coach his final few yrs and they STILL won.

He was not, everybody that knows the Celts knows Havlicek was the Coach of the offense and that Red had his hand inside the team every day of the season. Russell talked of retirement, so Red talked to him about the impact of being named Head Coach. Please do some research on your hero.


Also, Russell did win with 2 seperate teams..He was the ONLY constant in that 13 yr run.

KC Jones and Sam Jones were there for almost all of them as was Red. Nice try.


Also, When MJ retired The Bulls still managed to win 55 games and nearly made the ECF.

Several key Celts retired with Russell. The core of the next team was part time players, cast offs, and aging part time players. The best players in order of WS:

Havlicek
Nelson
Finkel
Howell
Sanders
Siegfried

Russell wasn't going to save that bunch.

BTW, you messed up, the year after Jordan retired the Bulls played at a .260 clip, after the winning the title FAR worse then the these Celts at .415


Those Celtic teams didn't NEED a great offense..

But before the 1966 season, they had one of the best offenses year in and year out.


Unless you think High volume=Great offense...

Again you totally butcher your points. A team with poor efficiency and low scoring has a bad offense. A team that is routinely #1 in FGA and either #1 or #2 in FGM - that usually has an above average FTM% is a very fine offense.


What I find funny is this, Bagwell gives an exception to the 1960 c's for there high volume/low efficiency offense...But than blames russell for not being efficient enough?

What's funny is that I take your stock argument - turn it on you - and you don't even realize it. :facepalm:

What's even worse is almost nobody in this thread cares. In addition Russell is getting axed in the voting. i am going to research that famous Russell=GOAT thread for the "best" of your claims vs the best of how your arguments were dashed, and leave it be. Russell isn't the GOAT and isn't the best Center all time.

bagwell368
10-21-2012, 03:05 PM
Yup, agreed. And to be honest, I think you only hear celts fans (not all obviously) make the case for Russell as the GOAT Center. I don't think he's got much of a case because he's too much of a 1 way player. Give me Hakeem, Kareem, Shaq, etc. over him. Honestly, if it weren't for Russell's rings, D-Rob would be the better player. Think about it, if Russell ends up on a different team, he's a ******** player who no one remembers. Red was perfect for him in that he utilized his unique skill set. You can't say that about any of the other all-time greats. A lot of them actually dominated on 2 different teams. Obviously MJ didn't but we saw him dominate with 2 different head coaches and is anyone really going to tell me that if he ends up on a different team, he isn't still MJ? Hakeem was also mostly on the Rockets but again, like MJ had multiple coaches and dominated in multiple coaching systems. Russell was with 1 coach his entire career and in a league with 11 teams. And when you use his college career, thats when you are really grasping at straws. I mean in that case, Matt Leinart is an amazing NFL player because he was excellent in college.

Someone said Russell could be like KG in today's game but minus the offense. That may be right but if you take the offense out of KG's game, what is he exactly? I just don't see how anyone can overlook the fact that Russell is below average on offense. Basically unless he's passing out of the fastbreak, he's useless on offense. He had league average TS%s for the most part. And can anyone else name a top 10 all-time great who is completely one dimensional? And if you can, I guarantee no one makes the case for them as the GOAT of their position.

Cross Rodman rebounding and shooting touch and KG's defensive intensity. A very fine player at #4 or against the smaller #5's. Something like 7.5/13/3.5. Camby is another guy to consider. Might get a DPOY once or twice, but that's it.

Bos_Sports4Life
10-21-2012, 04:02 PM
Wooden changed his mind when he had Alcindor and Walton. He said so. Oh well, players do get better over time - more proof.

Find when I said they didn't..

I simply compare players to what they did against his own time. Now, You don't like comparing players but it's a pretty common way to compare players..




Yet after Bird's career was over he was not longer able to say that Russell was the greatest player he had. He refused to answer. A mere forward the equal of the GOAT Center. hahahahahahha.

Thats not saying much...Thats basically saying best SF of all time=Best Center of all time..




He doesn't have the titles on almost all other NBA teams in his time. No Red, lesser players. Or if you like let's expand the league to 24 teams. The Celts are different, and his limited offense must then be employed, taking away energy from his defense.

You have YET to answer this..

When comparing all time great QB's why don't YOU say that SAME thing about Brady? Never once did i hear you say We should disscount Brady's titles even though hes had the best coach/Best talent around him...

Same with Montana/Young/Starr ect ect




He was not, everybody that knows the Celts knows Havlicek was the Coach of the offense and that Red had his hand inside the team every day of the season. Russell talked of retirement, so Red talked to him about the impact of being named Head Coach. Please do some research on your hero.

I doubt Russell played an additional 3 seasons just so he could be coach, Why not 1 more season?

Also, Why did Red want Russell around..Heck, He was gassed and was lesser than Don Nelson the last couple of seasons, right?





KC Jones and Sam Jones were there for almost all of them as was Red. Nice try.

I said he won with diff sets of teammates, What I said was True. I didn't say he won multiple titles with diff sets...I said he won with diff sets.

MJ NEVER won without Pippen, Should we disscount MJ now?



Several key Celts retired with Russell. The core of the next team was part time players, cast offs, and aging part time players. The best players in order of WS:

Havlicek
Nelson
Finkel
Howell
Sanders
Siegfried

Russell wasn't going to save that bunch.

I agree, A past his prime Russell wouldn't have. However

1969 total win share leaders (ages)

Howell (32) , Russell, Nelson (28), Havlicek(28) Siegfred (29)

That team won a title

1970 win share leaders (ages)

Havlicek (29), Nelson (29), Finkel (27), Howell (33), Sanders (31), Siegfried (30)

That team missed the playoffs.


The team other than Jones was relatively the same. Going by your own measure, Sam jones shouldn't have made too big of an impact since he was 7th on the team in winshares/5th for ws48..

Im flat out doubting losing a guy thats 5th in ws48 and 7th in win shares and Howell ageing 1 more yr made the diff between winning a title and than going 34-48.







BTW, you messed up, the year after Jordan retired the Bulls played at a .260 clip, after the winning the title FAR worse then the these Celts at .415


What about the first time MJ retired?





Again you totally butcher your points. A team with poor efficiency and low scoring has a bad offense. A team that is routinely #1 in FGA and either #1 or #2 in FGM - that usually has an above average FTM% is a very fine offense.

Sounds like an offense that..

Relies HEAVILY on turnovers and offensive rebounding along with being high paced. Basically it's an offense that relies upon its defense.

Basically the ONLY way this type of offense is successful is with a top notch defense. A defense that relies on its defense imo isn't a top notch offense..

That just makes me want to give more credit to Bill, The whole team was dictated on its defensive ability.





What's funny is that I take your stock argument - turn it on you - and you don't even realize it. :facepalm:

You have contradicted yourself many times

1. You say Nelson had more vlaue than Russell late. But THAN say Perk's impact didn't mean much due to Minutes played. Even though Russell played more than double what nelson played.

2. You disscredit Russell impact due to win shares yet in '70 you say Sam Jones was a pretty big loss. Sam Jones had LESS than HALF of Russells win shares.

3. You credit Brady for winning in a great situation, Yet..You disscredit Russell for winning in a great situation?






What's even worse is almost nobody in this thread cares.

Obviously some do..



In addition Russell is getting axed in the voting.

I remember SEVERAL time when you werein the minority with a diff opinion you claimed was right, I don't see the diff.




i am going to research that famous Russell=GOAT thread for the "best" of your claims vs the best of how your arguments were dashed, and leave it be. Russell isn't the GOAT and isn't the best Center all time.

Your opinion now means more than everyone? Interesting..

Chronz
10-21-2012, 04:10 PM
its not any easier winning an mvp. MVP's only go to great players..in a 10 team league all of the great players who would be in contention in winning the mvp are already in..
Nah, in todays league you can be a guy like Kobe/KG and miss the playoffs because there are so many more teams, thus removing them from the MVP race.



The Basketball HOF takes college into consideration when juding players..its nothing new..
Whos talking about the HOF? Thats definitely new.

beliges
10-21-2012, 04:12 PM
Very clearly the answer to this question is Kareem. The longevity, success and accolades make this an easy answer.

Chronz
10-21-2012, 04:34 PM
I dont think so. Maybe strictly by the numbers sure but Kareems best years were between 70-76. Hakeem played in the golden age of Centers against terrific defenders. I think on the offensive end they were both similar.
I think you overrate young Hakeems offense. At his peak I would say they were somewhat similar but throughout their careers, its not close. I mean an old Kareem was able to put up 30+ on Hakeem+Sampson, thats a pretty good defensive duo isnt it? That was an old Kareem. A young Kareem was defended by the likes of Thurmond and Wilt Chamberlain, the only man who could consistently block his shots, he had mixed success against them.

Hakeem didn't master the art of passing until he was 30 and nearly traded if teams had been willing to take him on.

Chronz
10-21-2012, 04:39 PM
Very clearly the answer to this question is Kareem. The longevity, success and accolades make this an easy answer.

Yea strictly by looking at their resume it would easily be KAJ. When it becomes a debate is when you look at how they performed in different situations and how they matched up vs different players. KAJ was dominated individually more than Im comfortable with but no one will go against a KAJ pick considering everything you described.

FarOutIos
10-21-2012, 06:22 PM
What attitude? I saw the man play over 150 times probably - 5 times live. I was a D1 player just a few years after he retired. That puts me right there.

He most certainly would not have had the rebound numbers from '85-'95 if his prime years were then and not earlier.

His offensive moves were not great by later standards.

To give him his due, he would be a starting Center today, probably one of the best, if not the best - but that has more to do with the absolute thinness of Centers now. Shaq and Hakeem would have been better - but he would not dominate games or stats like earlier. If you can't agree, fine with me, but my right to an opinion, and my underpinnings for having it are as good as it gets here - weather you like it or not.

Lol. I respect any man or his opinion, but... My short fuse with your comments are based on prior topics as well. Again, I find you condescending to others as well as myself in past comments.

As future reference, I would appreciate if you would just avoid replying to any of my comments... I don't mind discussion. Even if it leads o proof that I am wrong, as I will have learned from the experience... But I am also not on a sports forum to interact with people I have realized I don't like much.

rocketfuel
10-21-2012, 07:16 PM
Strip whatever team they are on....and just one on one, how they would go against one another.

Shaq v. Wilt
Kareem v. Hakeem.
etc.

Chronz
10-21-2012, 07:25 PM
Kareem would lose 1 on 1 to all of them. Shaq would be my choice.

Sly Guy
10-21-2012, 07:33 PM
hakeem....by virtue of the fact I watched the tnt analysis video on psd last week

Ill21
10-21-2012, 07:36 PM
Shaq
Kareem
Wilt
Hakeem
Russell

bagwell368
10-21-2012, 09:30 PM
Lol. I respect any man or his opinion, but... My short fuse with your comments are based on prior topics as well. Again, I find you condescending to others as well as myself in past comments.

As future reference, I would appreciate if you would just avoid replying to any of my comments... I don't mind discussion. Even if it leads o proof that I am wrong, as I will have learned from the experience... But I am also not on a sports forum to interact with people I have realized I don't like much.

How nice. I don't really pay much attention to whom I am responding to so I can't be sure to keep your request straight. Go to "User CP" and add me to ignore. I certainly don't want to deny myself the pleasure of responding as seems fit.

Have a nice life.

bagwell368
10-21-2012, 10:07 PM
I simply compare players to what they did against his own time. Now, You don't like comparing players but it's a pretty common way to compare players..

I do both. I think it's important to view players from as many angles as possible.


Thats not saying much...Thats basically saying best SF of all time=Best Center of all time..

Not so. Red used to say Russell was the greatest Celtic and NBA player. After Bird he couldn't and didn't call Russell the greatest Celtic or player anymore.


When comparing all time great QB's why don't YOU say that SAME thing about Brady? Never once did i hear you say We should disscount Brady's titles even though hes had the best coach/Best talent around him...

Same with Montana/Young/Starr ect ect

Why would I say the same thing. The conditions are totally different. When I look at Russell objectively, these are the issues:


One way player
Weak and small league
Best team, coach, and GM
Few standout players, making it much easier for standouts to look like huge stand alone mountains in their game - like Ruth. Later you've got a range of mountains almost the same size, and the foothills are also much higher then Ruth's - or Russell's time
Also the salary cap.

Now to look at Brady. His team was never as great year to year as the Russell era Celtics (because of league size and inferior competition and because of the cap)

His Coach made his bones on defense, and the Pats were a defensive first team until 2007 - or about 1/2 of Brady's career. In the second half of his career his weapons and performance have increased, but, the D has faltered (pesky cap and short careers suck, no?)

So the only strong similarity is a genius GM, but Brady's GM has a much larger, and stronger set of teams to deal with, and has severe financial issues also imposed on him. All Red had was Walter Browns shaky finances that got better when Red won more games.

Oh yeah one way player. But Russell plays a sport that requires both ways.

So sorry, but I'm quite sure that's not what you expected. But it's true, and your question has been answered, and booted over the crossbars.


I doubt Russell played an additional 3 seasons just so he could be coach, Why not 1 more season?

It was very important to Russell and to Red, both of them had interest in social reform/progress. Both have said so.


Also, Why did Red want Russell around..Heck, He was gassed and was lesser than Don Nelson the last couple of seasons, right?

I've been carefully reading your arguments on Russell in the GOAT thread. You argued a great deal using win shares. Just serving it right back at you.


I said he won with diff sets of teammates, What I said was True. I didn't say he won multiple titles with diff sets...I said he won with diff sets.

You also said:

"So...When people say, Russell had a load of talent when he played, are WRONG, and the people that say this don't bother looking up data. All they do is say "Russell played with 7 hof'ers" ect, when really, Most of these guys weren't good. There in becaus they won rings, not becaus they were actual hof players..

I'm sorry, but, I don't take your word on his teammates and his team. I'll be posting counters shortly.


You have contradicted yourself many times

1. You say Nelson had more vlaue than Russell late. But THAN say Perk's impact didn't mean much due to Minutes played. Even though Russell played more than double what nelson played.

Nelson had more Win Shares/48 at the end. Win shares are your favorite - so I didn't think it was any big secret for you. Nelson had a great playoff run that year WS/48 .250 (!!!!!). Maybe if you saw it, you'd know it.

You misunderstood me. Perk's impact is less simply because he played less minutes. He averaged about 28 minutes a game. One reason Russell's wins shares numbers are so high is because he played 45+ minutes. Check WS/48 to see how much closer it is than you think.

'07-08 Perkins WS/48 playoffs .145 > '68-'69 Russell playoffs .082

ugh.


2. You disscredit Russell impact due to win shares yet in '70 you say Sam Jones was a pretty big loss. Sam Jones had LESS than HALF of Russells win shares.

Again out of context. The team was getting older, other key people besides Russell retired. I went over it at length in the GOAT thread. Go check it out.


3. You credit Brady for winning in a great situation, Yet..You disscredit Russell for winning in a great situation?

Brady's 3 titles were tougher to earn than at LEAST 8 of Russell's if not all 11 IMO. That's credit.


I remember SEVERAL time when you werein the minority with a diff opinion you claimed was right, I don't see the diff.

I was being polite. Most people have a problem with being in the minority. But I forgot about zealotry.


Your opinion now means more than everyone? Interesting..

I have yet to run across anyone on PSD that knows more about Russell than I do (several have a better grasp of his advanced stats perhaps) - but on the floor, in the culture of Boston and the team? No, I think not. He's a second hand legend to everyone else here but me. I have come across you who worship him more than any other poster, but that's not the same thing.

Get ready. The avalanche begins shortly.

bagwell368
10-21-2012, 10:33 PM
BS4L said:

"-C's offense 6 times was the WORST or 2nd too WORST in the nba, won a title EVERY TIME"

"The offensive output? It was anywhere from average to bottom feeders, Heck, SIX TIMES THEY WERE LAST OR 2ND TOO LAST, those 6 yrs? They won it all. What other team could Win titles, WHILE HAVING THE WORST OFFENSE?"

I also Proved that the celtics Offense was BELOW AVERAGE and sometimes STUNK, this isn't opinion, thats FACT. The fg% Proves it, you can't be a good offensive team finnishing last in FG%.

"But Yes, keep telling me about those GREAT TEAMMATES"

"Keep thinking A team that finnishes DEAD LAST or 2ND TOO LAST in FG % in 54.54% of there Title runs (6 out of 11), as having good offenses.

I'll CONTINUTE to debunk the myth Russell had a huge supply of offensive talent around him too offset his 1 weakness, scoring. In reality, not only did he NOT have a great offense around him, more times than not, his offense was in the bottom of the league, or 2nd too the bottom...."

"I Never realized the celtics were such a bad shooting team in the 60's, They finnished bottom 2 in 6-11 of his titles, I would of NEVER of guessed this

I always Knew when people said "Russell had up too 7 hof'ers on his team" was an EXTREMLY FLAWED fact, while that is true, The VAST MAJORITY don't even belong in the Hall of Good nevermind Hall of Fame. "

Now, here is the truth - Russell era offensive numbers for the Celts:

1956

#1 in FGA (by 5%)
#1 in FGM (by 8%)

Also led in assists, TRB, and PPG;

Grade: A+

1957

#1 in FGA
#1 in FGM

2nd in assists, TRB, PPG; meh in FT

Grade: A

1958

#1 in FGA
#1 in FGM

#1 in assists, RPG (by a ton), PPG, average in FT

Grade: A+

1959

#1 in FGA
#1 in FGM

#1 in RPG (by a to), assists, PPG by 5.6 over #2, meh FT

Grade: A+


1960

#1 in FGA
#2 in FGM (poor FG%)

#1 in RPG, 4th in assists, 3rd in scoring (1.6 behind leader), ave FT

Grade: B+

1961

#1 in FGA
#2 in FGM

#1 in RPG, 3rd in assists, 3rd in scoring, poor at FT

Grade: B

1962

#1 in FGA
#1 in FGM

#1 RPG, #1 APG, medium FT, 3rd in scoring

Grade: A-/B+

1963

#1 FGA
#1 FGM

#1 PRG, #4 APG, meh FT, 2nd in scoring (1.7 behind #1)

Grade: A-/B+

1964

#1 FGA (by a lot)
#1 FGM (by a good amount)

#1 RPG, #2 APG, meh FT, 3rd scoring, but only 1.7 PPG back of #1

Grade: A-/B+

1965

#3 FGA
#7 FGM

#3 RPG, #7 APG, meh FT, #7 PPG

Grade: C-

1966

6/10 FGA
4/10 FGM

#2 RPG, #2 APG, #3 FTM, 3/10 PPG

Grade: B-

1967

#7/12 FGA
#6/12 FGM

#3 RPG, #9 APG, #9 FTM, 8/12 PPG (near lg ave)

Grade: C/C-

1968

3/14 FGA
#7 FGM
#4 RPG, #11 FTM, #5 APG, PPG 10/14 (1.0 under lg ave)

Grade: C/C-

I have no idea why BS4L keeps talking 6 teams with bad offense. Of the 13 years Bill played on the Celtics there are 3 (THREE) years where they were below average on offense (and only twice in title years).

Bos_Sports4Life
10-21-2012, 11:04 PM
I do both. I think it's important to view players from as many angles as possible.

So you do whatever feels fit at the time without any sort of consistancy?

Ive heard you say SEVERAL time Starr/Otto belong in the top 10 for example yet they would get CRUSHED in todays era, Whats the diff with russell?




Why would I say the same thing. The conditions are totally different. When I look at Russell objectively, these are the issues:

One way player
Weak and small league
Best team, coach, and GM
Few standout players, making it much easier for standouts to look like huge stand alone mountains in their game - like Ruth. Later you've got a range of mountains almost the same size, and the foothills are also much higher then Ruth's - or Russell's time
Also the salary cap.


Meh, The league was so small which ment top tier talent playing eachother more often.





now to look at Brady. His team was never as great year to year as the Russell era Celtics (because of league size and inferior competition and because of the cap)

His Coach made his bones on defense, and the Pats were a defensive first team until 2007 - or about 1/2 of Brady's career. In the second half of his career his weapons and performance have increased, but, the D has faltered (pesky cap and short careers suck, no?)

However, If he was put in a bad place, lets say the browns..I'm willing to bet he wouldn't be on any top 10 list.

Situations can help/hurt a players legacy, It just happens. Yet, You downgrade Russell due to his situation? Yet you don't take that into account for the other great players who were put in a good situation?





I've been carefully reading your arguments on Russell in the GOAT thread. You argued a great deal using win shares. Just serving it right back at you.

So when I use winshares im wrong for using a flawed stat, but you are alloawed to use them as they seem fit? Hmmm






You also said:

"So...When people say, Russell had a load of talent when he played, are WRONG, and the people that say this don't bother looking up data. All they do is say "Russell played with 7 hof'ers" ect, when really, Most of these guys weren't good. There in becaus they won rings, not becaus they were actual hof players..

Yes, I don't believe KC or even Ramsey are deserving of the hof.






Nelson had more Win Shares/48 at the end. Win shares are your favorite - so I didn't think it was any big secret for you. Nelson had a great playoff run that year WS/48 .250 (!!!!!). Maybe if you saw it, you'd know it.

So I agree, lets us win shares..

57-58 * No title
Offensive Win shares outside of Russell-12.9
Russell's Defensive win shares-7.7

58-59
Offensive Win shares outside of Russell-11.8
Russell's Defensive win shares-8.2

59-60
Offensive Win shares outside of Russell-14.2
Russell's Defensive win shares- 8.9

60-61
Offensive Win shares outside of Russell-7.9
Russell's Defensive win shares- 11.3

61-62
Offensive Win shares outside of Russell-12.6
Russell's Defensive win shares-11.6

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

65-66
Offensive Win shares outside of Russell-12
Russell's Defensive win shares-11.4

66-67 * No title
Offensive Win shares outside of Russell-22
Russell's Defensive win shares-9.2

67-68
Offensive Win shares outside of Russell-17.6
Russell's Defensive win shares-7.8

68-69
Offensive win shares outside of Russell- 14.4
Russels Dfensive win shares- 9.9

TOTALS from 1957-58 too 1968-1969

Russell Defensive win shares-129
Offensive win shares, outside of russell- 151.9


During Last 10 title Runs- (excluding russells rookie yr as he played in olympics, total off)

Russell Defensive Win shares- 112.1
Offensive win shares, outside of Russell- 117.0


Now, The whole offense outside of Russell COMBINED for only 5 more winshares than Russell BY HIMSELF had on Defense. Russells offense from 57-58 too 68-89 accomplished a mere 12.65 offensive win shares a yr outside of Bill, and only 11.7 Offensive win shares during the last 10 title runs of that era.

Four of the title teams had LESS than 11 COMBINED offensive win shares outside of Bill.


Wooooow, You SURE you want to use Win shares? :laugh:





Again out of context. The team was getting older, other key people besides Russell retired. I went over it at length in the GOAT thread. Go check it out.

Yes, they lost sam Jones.

Never really lost anyone else..And going by winshares Sam was 5th on the roster (even lower if you use ws48)

Older? Yes by 1 yr, Shouldn't a team go on a a decline by maybe 7-8 wins? Not a championship team to losing record?






I was being polite. Most people have a problem with being in the minority. But I forgot about zealotry.

Ask PSD who had more impact in '69 Russell OR Don nelson, See whos in the minority than :laugh:

But since we are talking don nelson, here is what he said about bill (Seems like a lot of people have said the same thing about Bill)

As Celtics player Don Nelson told the Boston Herald, "There are two types of superstars. One makes himself look good at the expense of the other guys on the floor. But there's another type who makes the players around him look better than they are, and that's the type Russell was."

Bos_Sports4Life
10-21-2012, 11:11 PM
Wooden changed his mind when he had Alcindor and Walton. He said so. Oh well, players do get better over time - more proof.


“I thought the most difficult person to play against was Bill Russell. I think he's the most valuable pro that's ever played. Not the best, but the most valuable. He changed the game. … Well, he got 'em playing defense. He got other players to become better defensive players because they knew if their man got away they've got Bill behind them. He just changed the game. Auerbach -- if you look back on his record -- I don' think Boston won much or came close to winning until they got Bill Russell. You bring in Bill Russell and you win championship after championship."

That was in '03

AIRMAR72
10-21-2012, 11:14 PM
THE DREAM! the man was simply unstopable reason why todays players still go seek advice the quickest feet and the BEST footwork compare to any bigman in any era

Bos_Sports4Life
10-21-2012, 11:16 PM
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 %

Now, If Bill russell REALLY had a great supposrting cast, these numbers would be ALOT BETTER. The ONLY reason the celtics did soo good in ppg earlier on was becaus of shot attempts due too high paced basketball.

Boston was SO BAD in some of these yrs on offense, They finnished DEAD LAST or 2nd too LAST in fg % 6 times. They won the NBA Title EVERY SINGLE ONE of those 6 yrs.


Bagwell thinks high volume/low efficient offenses are good, hmmm

He must have loved those golden state/knick offenses!!!

bagwell368
10-21-2012, 11:30 PM
So you do whatever feels fit at the time without any sort of consistancy?

Consistancy is the bugaboo of small minds it is said. I find value in both views. I find value in a lot of things. I find I get better results in judgement when I open it up wide to start, and sort out what is valuable. Obviously your mileage varies.


Ive heard you say SEVERAL time Starr/Otto belong in the top 10 for example yet they would get CRUSHED in todays era, Whats the diff with russell?

Russell belongs in the top 10, but not the top 5. Results isn't the only guide, how he got there and under what conditions are as if not more important. If the question is # of titles there is not debate. If one asks for the best, than there is, in particular when no instructions came with the request.


Meh, The league was so small which ment top tier talent playing eachother more often.

Jerry Lucas is a HOF F/C from the later years of Russell's career. He'd have a hell of a time making a D1 college team as he was, I'm not impressed.


However, If he was put in a bad place, lets say the browns..I'm willing to bet he wouldn't be on any top 10 list.

Brady? Almost for sure he's not in the TOP 10. Just like if Russell ended up on the Hawks, he'd have ended up in the HOF with 1 or 2 titles, and ended up like the defensive version of Neil Johnston.


Situations can help/hurt a players legacy, It just happens. Yet, You downgrade Russell due to his situation? Yet you don't take that into account for the other great players who were put in a good situation?

Which situation? This thread is about Centers. The fact that he was on Celts in with few opponents and had the best Coach and GM gave him an opportunity he did not squander, but is unique in NBA history.

How do you know what I do with other players? Hakeem had for sure the worst situation and it counts in his favor that he could come up with the two titles in a much tougher league. None of the others had as a good a situation as Russell. I don't see how anyone can disagree.


So when I use winshares im wrong for using a flawed stat, but you are alloawed to use them as they seem fit? Hmmm

Old argument. You brought them up first. They are flawed. I'm going to interject them since your arguments have seemingly no boundaries, why should mine?


You SURE you want to use Win shares?

As long as you address my numbers as they keep coming.


Older? Yes by 1 yr, Shouldn't a team go on a a decline by maybe 7-8 wins? Not a championship team to losing record?

If you studied the NBA of that time you would know careers were well shorter, and most players were in decline around 30-31. One year can make a huge difference at that point and the Celts had a number of such players.


Ask PSD who had more impact in '69 Russell OR Don nelson, See whos in the minority than

Because they are going with reputation, not what happened. And BTW, Nelson axed Russell that year on a per minute basis. Why don't you deal with those WS and WS/48 numbers of 1968-69? Oh yeah, they make Russell look like a feeb.


But since we are talking don nelson, here is what he said about bill (Seems like a lot of people have said the same thing about Bill)

As Celtics player Don Nelson told the Boston Herald, "There are two types of superstars. One makes himself look good at the expense of the other guys on the floor. But there's another type who makes the players around him look better than they are, and that's the type Russell was."

I already wrote in this thread that I greatly admired the way he played, and he was a model for a lot of things. That doesn't make him the best Center of all time I am afraid.

bagwell368
10-21-2012, 11:37 PM
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 %

Now, If Bill russell REALLY had a great supposrting cast, these numbers would be ALOT BETTER. The ONLY reason the celtics did soo good in ppg earlier on was becaus of shot attempts due too high paced basketball.

Boston was SO BAD in some of these yrs on offense, They finnished DEAD LAST or 2nd too LAST in fg % 6 times. They won the NBA Title EVERY SINGLE ONE of those 6 yrs.


Bagwell thinks high volume/low efficient offenses are good, hmmm

He must have loved those golden state/knick offenses!!!

Again you duck the reality. The Celts were almost always #1 or #2 in FGM until the last few years. Maybe if Russell wasn't so poor at putbacks the % would be higher.

A team with the highest %, but the lowest PPG or FGM is clearly worse than a team with varying % and the 1st or 2nd best PPG and/or FGM.

You need to learn that efficiency isn't the only guide for a team, for a player that shoots too much like Iverson and curtails the offense of his team - yes it's a major issue - the major issue.

But for a team that has high assist numbers and wins, lower efficiency with a fast break high turnover creating defense that does well on the boards? It's obviously a high quality team with a very good (if not great) dynamic offense.

bagwell368
10-21-2012, 11:39 PM
THE DREAM! the man was simply unstopable reason why todays players still go seek advice the quickest feet and the BEST footwork compare to any bigman in any era

x2

Bos_Sports4Life
10-22-2012, 12:03 AM
But for a team that has high assist numbers and wins, lower efficiency with a fast break high turnover creating defense that does well on the boards? It's obviously a high quality team with a very good (if not great) dynamic offense.

More possessions a team has, the more total the raw numbers will be.

I'm personally not impressed with a team like the Mike D'Antoni led Knicks team.

'08-'09 NYK

*28TH in FG%


However..

They were 4th in PPG, 8th in Total rebounds, 11th in Assists, 8th in rebounds ect. Why did they have good raw #'s? Pace.


Another example i can think of on the top of my head..The GSW

In '02-03 they were 2nd in PPG, 1st in total rebounds, 3rd in blocks, 18th in assists (still poor), and 16th in fg%..

In 01-02 they were 7th in PPG, 1st in boards, yet 26th in fg%...Safe to say they weren't a great offense (or even average)


These teams both accumulated counting offensive stats due to simply having more possessions.

Personally, I'm not going to reward an offense simply by the style they play. The 60's c's offenses are no diff. They shot poorly (a good deal of the time) and they were bailed out due to great defensive play. '




Now you can keep thinking I'm the worst poster of all time that knows absolutely nothing about professional sports. But im going to continue thinking efficiency>Volume, esp when it comes to Offenses in the NBA.

JordansBulls
10-26-2012, 12:50 AM
Kareem would lose 1 on 1 to all of them. Shaq would be my choice.

Why do you say this?