PDA

View Full Version : PSD NBA All-Time Player Power Rankings: #9



mrblisterdundee
10-17-2017, 11:21 AM
Voting will last two days. I'm adding Dirk Nowitzki, who was ranked 17th by ESPN's all-time rankings (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarank160204/all-nbarank-16-20), to the player pool.

1. Michael Jordan
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Lebron James
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Tim Duncan
6. Shaquille O'Neal
7. Magic Johnson
8. Larry Bird

bloomis1307
10-17-2017, 07:28 PM
whoops i voted west but meant to click hakeem

HandsOnTheWheel
10-17-2017, 07:30 PM
I've got Bean here.

FlashBolt
10-17-2017, 08:53 PM
I'm not sure how Larry gets past Kobe. Kobe has him beat in so many areas.

valade16
10-17-2017, 10:05 PM
I'm not sure how Larry gets past Kobe. Kobe has him beat in so many areas.

Except being better

FlashBolt
10-17-2017, 10:40 PM
Except being better

Just a difference in users. Most users here really don't like Kobe despite him having a clear advantage in accomplishments and awards. Larry is probably the better player but his lack of longevity more than hurts him on that end.

ewing
10-18-2017, 12:16 AM
Just a difference in users. Most users here really don't like Kobe despite him having a clear advantage in accomplishments and awards. Larry is probably the better player but his lack of longevity more than hurts him on that end.

yeah Larry was better, Kobe good for longer.

ewing
10-18-2017, 12:21 AM
guys you got to remember that Bill Russell was a non athletic 7 foot tall guy that was an Olympic level high jumper and runner and strong enough to defend Wilt better then anyone else in the NBA. I mean look at the video its in black and white

Hawkeye15
10-18-2017, 09:06 AM
Except being better

Kobe's longevity factors in here. Kobe was a top 5 player about as many years as Bird played total. While Bird had the better peak, Kobe had the better career to me. I would take Kobe over Bird personally, but I won't kill a person for taking Bird.

Hawkeye15
10-18-2017, 09:07 AM
guys you got to remember that Bill Russell was a non athletic 7 foot tall guy that was an Olympic level high jumper and runner and strong enough to defend Wilt better then anyone else in the NBA. I mean look at the video its in black and white

could Russell even touch the rim if he played today?

ewing
10-18-2017, 10:13 AM
could Russell even touch the rim if he played today?

doubt it

valade16
10-18-2017, 10:31 AM
This is going to be a pretty embarrassing list if Russell falls out of the top 10.

Heediot
10-18-2017, 10:41 AM
hakeem. russell next. it was close between the two. russell leadership/coach on the floor is under-rated.

mightybosstone
10-18-2017, 10:46 AM
I would have taken Hakeem ahead of Magic and Bird because of his superiority on the defensive end. He definitely should go here as he was simply a much, much better player at his peak that Russell. I'm fine with Russell in the top 10, but not ahead of Dream.

KnicksorBust
10-18-2017, 11:36 AM
Russell
11× NBA champion (1957, 1959–1966, 1968, 1969)
5× NBA Most Valuable Player (1958, 1961–1963, 1965)
3× All-NBA First Team (1959, 1963, 1965)
8× All-NBA Second Team (1958, 1960–1962, 1964, 1966–1968)

Hakeem
2× NBA champion (1994, 1995)
1x NBA Most Valuable Player (1994)
6× All-NBA First Team (1987–1989, 1993, 1994, 1997)
3× All-NBA Second Team (1986, 1990, 1996)

We are really going to vote a 1x MVP and 2x NBA Champ before a 5x MVP and 11x NBA Champ? We are voting based off who had the better career. If you had the choice who would pick a career with significantly less MVPs including NINE less championships? A great test would be if we slide Russell up into the top 5 no one would be shocked at the list but if we did the same with Hakeem it would look ridiculous.

FlashBolt
10-18-2017, 01:06 PM
Why do people ignore that Russell played in the easiest era of basketball with a stacked squad and continuously ignore that Hakeem played in an era of the greatest centers in an era of MJ? Rusell would probably be the fifth best center of the 90's.. winning is great and all but take a look at how many teams/games that were required to win a championship. Seven games was all it took.

mngopher35
10-18-2017, 01:55 PM
On my phone but even outside of just the era talk where is the next person on an all time list that was as poor on the offensive end? Seriously tell me the next players and where they rank who averaged like 18pts and 5 assists on that end?

To me it's his lack of offensive game that just holds me back.

FlashBolt
10-18-2017, 02:10 PM
On my phone but even outside of just the era talk where is the next person on an all time list that was as poor on the offensive end? Seriously tell me the next players and where they rank who averaged like 18pts and 5 assists on that end?

To me it's his lack of offensive game that just holds me back.

Don't forget, those are numbers he put up on an inflated fast-paced NBA run-and-gun game. He didn't get as many possessions but that was also because he wasn't their best offensive weapon. I just don't see how someone who played against a league with only eight teams primarily while only needing 8 wins for a championship can be ranked so highly.

KnicksorBust
10-18-2017, 02:31 PM
#1.) If there are less teams each team is STACKED. Can you imagine what would happen if the NBA cut the league in half and all those all-stars filled in to other teams? You still had to win. If 11 championships isn't enough to overcome "the league had 8 teams" argument then you are just being irrational.

#2.) How does less teams impact MVPs? He still won far more MVPs than Hakeem. That's probably the most important legacy builder. That's why Kareem and MJ are typically seen as #1 and #2. Having a smaller league doesn't make it any easier to win MVPs. All the best players are still in the league even with less players.

#3.) The real shame is we don't have accurate assist/block numbers for Russell to pad his stats. Even without them the MVPs/Titles tell the story. Hakeem isn't even CLOSE in either category. And those define legacies.

AntiG
10-18-2017, 02:41 PM
yeah Larry was better, Kobe good for longer.

pretty much this. Larry was flat out a better player. The only things Kobe has on him was longevity and athleticism.

Hawkeye15
10-18-2017, 02:56 PM
This is going to be a pretty embarrassing list if Russell falls out of the top 10.

let's ditch team success for a minute.

Is Russell a top 5 center, individually, to play the game?

basch152
10-18-2017, 03:14 PM
let's ditch team success for a minute.

Is Russell a top 5 center, individually, to play the game?

nope

ewing
10-18-2017, 03:21 PM
let's ditch team success for a minute.

Is Russell a top 5 center, individually, to play the game?

of course

KnicksorBust
10-18-2017, 03:25 PM
This is going to be a pretty embarrassing list if Russell falls out of the top 10.

let's ditch team success for a minute.

Is Russell a top 5 center, individually, to play the game?

As a defensive player? Yes.
As a rebounder? Yes.
As a passer? Yes.
As an athlete? Yes.
As a player whose career had longevity? Yes.
As a teammate? Yes.
As a leader? Yes.

Hawkeye15
10-18-2017, 03:38 PM
As a defensive player? Yes.
As a rebounder? Yes.
As a passer? Yes.
As an athlete? Yes.
As a player whose career had longevity? Yes.
As a teammate? Yes.
As a leader? Yes.

who cares about those. Seriously. They can't be measured, therefore can't be debated.

Rebounder- yes, but we really don't know how good. rebound rates weren't kept.
Passer- meh, pretty arbitrary. Walton, Sabonis, Noah, Gasol, B Miller, etc. There were a lot of guys racking up way more assists than Russell.
Athlete- maybe so
Longevity- his 13 healthy years is nothing special to use longevity in an argument

Great defender, excellent rebounder. Not a liability offensively, but nothing to write home about.

Seriously, his team success just drives so much of the opinion on him. In a vacuum, he isn't a top 5 center imo.

ewing
10-18-2017, 03:42 PM
who cares about those. Seriously. They can't be measured, therefore can't be debated.

Rebounder- yes, but we really don't know how good. rebound rates weren't kept.
Passer- meh, pretty arbitrary. Walton, Sabonis, Noah, Gasol, B Miller, etc. There were a lot of guys racking up way more assists than Russell.


Athlete- maybe so
Longevity- his 13 healthy years is nothing special to use longevity in an argument

Great defender, excellent rebounder. Not a liability offensively, but nothing to write home about.

Seriously, his team success just drives so much of the opinion on him. In a vacuum, he isn't a top 5 center imo.


he won 5 MVPs and was first or second team 11 times probably would have been first if wasn't for the guy we listed at 4. those aren't team accomplishments.

KnicksorBust
10-18-2017, 03:53 PM
As a defensive player? Yes.
As a rebounder? Yes.
As a passer? Yes.
As an athlete? Yes.
As a player whose career had longevity? Yes.
As a teammate? Yes.
As a leader? Yes.

who cares about those. Seriously. They can't be measured, therefore can't be debated.

Rebounder- yes, but we really don't know how good. rebound rates weren't kept.
Passer- meh, pretty arbitrary. Walton, Sabonis, Noah, Gasol, B Miller, etc. There were a lot of guys racking up way more assists than Russell.
Athlete- maybe so
Longevity- his 13 healthy years is nothing special to use longevity in an argument

Great defender, excellent rebounder. Not a liability offensively, but nothing to write home about.

Seriously, his team success just drives so much of the opinion on him. In a vacuum, he isn't a top 5 center imo.

They can't be measured therefore they cannot be debated? I have so many issues with that claim. First of all as a coach there's so much more to basketball then just stats. The idea that we could simplify such a complicated game I just check in a box score is ludicrous. Then you would have Zach Randolph All Star teams that never won a damn thing but sure look good on a stat sheet. Hell my Knicks trotted out Marbury Francis Rose Randolph and Curry. Stats for days. But basketball doesn't work like that. You need leaders. You need team players. You need guys that get the most out of their teammates and that you can build around. Bill Russell was that. Hakeem did it twice. Russell did it for a decade. And you can throw out 18 points per game as a negative but it was enough points for him to win all those MVP awards hakeem's points only got him one.

Hawkeye15
10-18-2017, 03:56 PM
he won 5 MVPs and was first or second team 11 times probably would have been first if wasn't for the guy we listed at 4. those aren't team accomplishments.

they had to pick someone from those teams that led the league in everything.

Russell is a very disputed player when it comes to ranking. He is either overrated, or underrated. I simply don't think the level of competition at the time warrants us respecting his individual awards like someone winning them in a league much larger.

I admit that I struggle to rank him. I have him in my 8-11 tier. I find that fair.

Hawkeye15
10-18-2017, 03:58 PM
They can't be measured therefore they cannot be debated? I have so many issues with that claim. First of all as a coach there's so much more to basketball then just stats. The idea that we could simplify such a complicated game I just check in a box score is ludicrous. Then you would have Zach Randolph All Star teams that never won a damn thing but sure look good on a stat sheet. Hell my Knicks trotted out Marbury Francis Rose Randolph and Curry. Stats for days. But basketball doesn't work like that. You need leaders. You need team players. You need guys that get the most out of their teammates and that you can build around. Bill Russell was that. Hakeem did it twice. Russell did it for a decade. And you can throw out 18 points per game as a negative but it was enough points for him to win all those MVP awards hakeem's points only got him one.

right but did you watch him play? Leader is a term that can't be quantified.

Hakeem also didn't play in a league with only a handful of teams and have HOF'ers left and right with him.

We aren't comparing Marbury with the elite of the elite here. We are comparing Russell with players who flat out dominated the competition where there was just that, a LOT more competition.

Hawkeye15
10-18-2017, 04:08 PM
as far his 18/game, let's put it in perspective.

For fun, let's take 62-63' Russell, against last year Towns.

when we use the multiplier to level out pace, and minutes per game, Towns equates to 40.7 ppg in the year 1962-63'.

So no, his 18 a game was very unimpressive. It's equivalent to scoring 11 a game today.

KnicksorBust
10-18-2017, 04:10 PM
They can't be measured therefore they cannot be debated? I have so many issues with that claim. First of all as a coach there's so much more to basketball then just stats. The idea that we could simplify such a complicated game I just check in a box score is ludicrous. Then you would have Zach Randolph All Star teams that never won a damn thing but sure look good on a stat sheet. Hell my Knicks trotted out Marbury Francis Rose Randolph and Curry. Stats for days. But basketball doesn't work like that. You need leaders. You need team players. You need guys that get the most out of their teammates and that you can build around. Bill Russell was that. Hakeem did it twice. Russell did it for a decade. And you can throw out 18 points per game as a negative but it was enough points for him to win all those MVP awards hakeem's points only got him one.

right but did you watch him play? Leader is a term that can't be quantified.

Hakeem also didn't play in a league with only a handful of teams and have HOF'ers left and right with him.

We aren't comparing Marbury with the elite of the elite here. We are comparing Russell with players who flat out dominated the competition where there was just that, a LOT more competition.

The other players in the league repeatedly voted him MVP his teammates and Coach rave about how he was the leader. It's not a guessing game at that point. He's the best leader in NBA history. He's the ultimate winner in NBA history. And because you think Hakeem and his won League MVP dominated the competition you choose to ignore all that. Winning is what sports is about and nobody did it better than him. There is a point where someone is so successful that all of the other arguments become moot and you have to give credit where credit is due.

KnicksorBust
10-18-2017, 04:11 PM
he won 5 MVPs and was first or second team 11 times probably would have been first if wasn't for the guy we listed at 4. those aren't team accomplishments.

they had to pick someone from those teams that led the league in everything.

Russell is a very disputed player when it comes to ranking. He is either overrated, or underrated. I simply don't think the level of competition at the time warrants us respecting his individual awards like someone winning them in a league much larger.

I admit that I struggle to rank him. I have him in my 8-11 tier. I find that fair.

Why is an MVP in a smaller League less impressive? All of the best players are still in the league it's not less competition for elite status it's less role players.

tredigs
10-18-2017, 04:17 PM
Why is an MVP in a smaller League less impressive? All of the best players are still in the league it's not less competition for elite status it's less role players.

You're forgetting that he only played against 6'5" white guys with 2 left feet.

mngopher35
10-18-2017, 04:26 PM
Why is an MVP in a smaller League less impressive? All of the best players are still in the league it's not less competition for elite status it's less role players.

I mean where do you rank Cousy with his titles and MVP from that era? Can someone please answer me who else is in the top range with his offensive ability/output?

It's less impressive because the league wasn't nearly as talented as we have seen it become attracting players from across the world with major paydays etc. An award in and of itself doesn't mean a ton without that kind of context being factored in, sometimes awards just go to guy on top team or storylines for example...

I would just like to see an argument outside of accolades for Russell from someone that covers his offensive ability and can relate that to other players (I just don't think it matches up with the rest of the top 10 or even probably 20+). I see some solid posters arguing it's his time to go here but tell us why outside of the accolades/awards on an insanely stacked team in a lesser era. Not saying they don't matter but I want to hear why as an individual player he has the same sort of impact as these guys given his offense etc. which is almost always ignored imo. Others have pointed out what happens to the numbers I mentioned when we adjust for pace etc too so I just can't ignore his lack of impact on the most important end for an individual.

Hakeem was easily the superior offensive player and was at least a great defender for his time if not as good as Russell. His # of accolades in a much different league without nearly the same stacked talent on his team (and tbh his titles have some of least help comparatively to many greats let alone someone like Russell) is less important to me than him being the clear superior player on the most important end while somewhat close on the other.

Hawkeye15
10-18-2017, 04:29 PM
The other players in the league repeatedly voted him MVP his teammates and Coach rave about how he was the leader. It's not a guessing game at that point. He's the best leader in NBA history. He's the ultimate winner in NBA history. And because you think Hakeem and his won League MVP dominated the competition you choose to ignore all that. Winning is what sports is about and nobody did it better than him. There is a point where someone is so successful that all of the other arguments become moot and you have to give credit where credit is due.

yeah but he played in a league with 9 teams. That matters to a lot of people, including me.

tredigs
10-18-2017, 04:31 PM
if we want to talk about leadership, and other non-quantifiable measures, here is one:

Russell isn't winning MVP's in a league of 400+ players that contain MJ, Shaq, Jabbar, LeBron, etc. He sure as hell isn't winning multiple.

I just don't put a ton into a guy who won in such a small league with a team so loaded. Sorry. I never will.
Those guys did not all play in the same league...? Interesting to omit Wilt there btw.

Hawkeye15
10-18-2017, 04:33 PM
Why is an MVP in a smaller League less impressive? All of the best players are still in the league it's not less competition for elite status it's less role players.

if we want to talk about leadership, and other non-quantifiable measures, here is one:

Russell isn't winning MVP's in a league of 400+ players that contain MJ, Shaq, Jabbar, LeBron, etc. He sure as hell isn't winning multiple.

I just don't put a ton into a guy who won in such a small league with a team so loaded. Sorry. I never will.

Hawkeye15
10-18-2017, 04:37 PM
I mean where do you rank Cousy with his titles and MVP from that era? Can someone please answer me who else is in the top range with his offensive ability/output?

It's less impressive because the league wasn't nearly as talented as we have seen it become attracting players from across the world with major paydays etc. An award in and of itself doesn't mean a ton without that kind of context being factored in, sometimes awards just go to guy on top team or storylines for example...

I would just like to see an argument outside of accolades for Russell from someone that covers his offensive ability and can relate that to other players (I just don't think it matches up with the rest of the top 10 or even probably 20+). I see some solid posters arguing it's his time to go here but tell us why outside of the accolades/awards on an insanely stacked team in a lesser era. Not saying they don't matter but I want to hear why as an individual player he has the same sort of impact as these guys given his offense etc. which is almost always ignored imo. Others have pointed out what happens to the numbers I mentioned when we adjust for pace etc too so I just can't ignore his lack of impact on the most important end for an individual.

Hakeem was easily the superior offensive player and was at least a great defender for his time if not as good as Russell. His # of accolades in a much different league without nearly the same stacked talent on his team (and tbh his titles have some of least help comparatively to many greats let alone someone like Russell) is less important to me than him being the clear superior player on the most important end while somewhat close on the other.

yep

Hawkeye15
10-18-2017, 04:38 PM
Those guys did not all play in the same league...? Interesting to omit Wilt there btw.

Wilt's numbers speak for themselves. As does watching his film. He dominates anytime, anywhere. Russell is still a fantastic player, but nothing about him scream generational talent to me.

Though the way you argue for Green, I can understand your affinity for Russell here. I don't mean that as negative or positive btw.

"those guys" played in a league post merger will 400+ players to compete against, as well as foreigners infused into the game. The league is, and has been since the early 80's, much different, and frankly, much better, than the league Russell played in.

FlashBolt
10-18-2017, 04:39 PM
#1.) If there are less teams each team is STACKED. Can you imagine what would happen if the NBA cut the league in half and all those all-stars filled in to other teams? You still had to win. If 11 championships isn't enough to overcome "the league had 8 teams" argument then you are just being irrational.

#2.) How does less teams impact MVPs? He still won far more MVPs than Hakeem. That's probably the most important legacy builder. That's why Kareem and MJ are typically seen as #1 and #2. Having a smaller league doesn't make it any easier to win MVPs. All the best players are still in the league even with less players.

#3.) The real shame is we don't have accurate assist/block numbers for Russell to pad his stats. Even without them the MVPs/Titles tell the story. Hakeem isn't even CLOSE in either category. And those define legacies.

1) It's like if the Warriors were one team and there were seven mediocre teams? Why pretend that the Celtics didn't have a stacked squad? How many rings do you think Bill has if we switched Wilt into the Celtics? Then what would the narrative be?

2) I'm not sure where you're going with this but I can bet you that Russell doesn't win more MVP's in the 90's going up against those players..

3) No, the real shame is people still think those stats are representative of actual basketball ability in the most competitive form.

You can't seriously equate Bill's success playing in what most agree is a watered-down version of the competetive basketball we see today. If you say he's top ten based off rings, go for it because then the GOAT's list would involve a wikipedia list of "Who has the most NBA rings" and we can just forget about a basketball discussion. But if you're talking about legitimate basketball ability and consider the external factors involved such as amount of teams, amount of quality players, change of pace, etc., then it's not even a debate; Bill is not a top ten player. For Christ's sake, they adjusted Russell Westbrook's numbers to the pace they had during Bill's era and I believe RWB was even better than Wilt's. They did the same for Big O's triple double year.. RWB smashed it. Hakeem was a better basketball player than Bill. No question about it. Bill wouldn't sniff two rings leading that same Houston Rockets team..

Hawkeye15
10-18-2017, 04:41 PM
the average pace in Russell's era for his Celtics was roughly 124 possessions a game. He played 43 mpg.

It's simple math. His per game numbers would look beyond pedestrian today.

FlashBolt
10-18-2017, 04:47 PM
the average pace in Russell's era for his Celtics was roughly 124 possessions a game. He played 43 mpg.

It's simple math. His per game numbers would look beyond pedestrian today.

Would it surprise you if I told you DeAndre Jordan would average better numbers than Bill during that time? And DeAndre is an athletic monster. Does anyone here really think DJ's numbers wouldn't look monstrous if he had played during Bill's time? I mean, I don't think 25/25 would be out of reach for DJ. He's already averaging 14/15 on PER36 and that's not even including the change in pace.

FlashBolt
10-18-2017, 04:51 PM
http://www.basketballinsiders.com/russell-westbrooks-remarkable-adjusted-statistics/

RWB 2016-2017 NBA season adjusted for pace/minutes played of Big O:

Short answer: 49.1 points, 16.9 rebounds and 16.6 assists per game.

That's RWB's statline if we even out the variables. Obviously, this is just an estimation and a different basketball game could impact it but who stops RWB in that era? None. Not even close. These are RWB numbers going up AGAINST the greatest generation of basketball players. It's a bit on the conservative side if you ask me.

More-Than-Most
10-18-2017, 04:52 PM
keem would be higher on my list so of course id go with him here... in fact keem would have gone before bird... Kobe/Russ/Bird would go from 9-11 for me... id have kobe over bird.

tredigs
10-18-2017, 05:01 PM
Wilt's numbers speak for themselves. As does watching his film. He dominates anytime, anywhere. Russell is still a fantastic player, but nothing about him scream generational talent to me.

Though the way you argue for Green, I can understand your affinity for Russell here. I don't mean that as negative or positive btw.

"those guys" played in a league post merger will 400+ players to compete against, as well as foreigners infused into the game. The league is, and has been since the early 80's, much different, and frankly, much better, than the league Russell played in.
It's obviously a different time, but we're not here to project how players would adapt or pretend to know so. What we know is how they fared against their own elite players (and let's not pretend this was the early 50's, he was still the MVP and would be Finals MVP + DPOY of a league with Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Willis Reed, Wilt Chamberlain, etc... and all the other 1st place votes combined did not equal his total), and although you're rightfully over the moon about Wilt's numbers and video and don't question his dominance in the least, he was seen as the lesser of the two by many if not most onlookers at the time. That should matter to someone looking to make objective rankings, and significantly so imo. An extremely fast, agile, strong 6'10" defensive JUGGERNAUT who invented new ways to dominate due to his superior BBIQ and competitiveness (the tip block to begin the break as an example... something that the dunces of this league have still not figured out other than Tim Duncan on occasion) would absolutely crush in every era.

Also, completely throwing out the teammate/leadership factor as it is not quantifiable down to a round number seems a bit odd to me. At a certain point you just have to take what film we have and what everyone's opinion who had a say on it was. You can tell the difference in leadership capacity between a Kevin Garnett and James Harden or Dwight Howard, yes? You can tell that Steve Nash offers more positive intangibles as a teammate than Kyrie Irving, yes? They could do the same with player/coach Bill Russell. And by all accounts he was THE teammate and leader that all others were measured against. Forget the 10 Finals MVP's he would have had. Let's give him the 10 DPOY awards he would have had and shut this case for good. Russell should have gone above Wilt at 4, and no lower than 5.

Personally I won't be voting for him this low as I think it's already completely off base.

Hawkeye15
10-18-2017, 05:07 PM
http://www.basketballinsiders.com/russell-westbrooks-remarkable-adjusted-statistics/

RWB 2016-2017 NBA season adjusted for pace/minutes played of Big O:

Short answer: 49.1 points, 16.9 rebounds and 16.6 assists per game.

That's RWB's statline if we even out the variables. Obviously, this is just an estimation and a different basketball game could impact it but who stops RWB in that era? None. Not even close. These are RWB numbers going up AGAINST the greatest generation of basketball players. It's a bit on the conservative side if you ask me.

while numbers don't translate exactly, yes, it's crazy to think anyone doesn't realize how inflated per game numbers are from the 50-60's. But for fun, Towns line from last year translated reads:

40.7 ppg
19.9 rpg
4.4 apg


or LeBron:

42.8 ppg
13.94 rpg
14.15 apg

all it means is be careful. Wilt's numbers equate to staggering even today, he is kind of an outlier when chucking around per game numbers from then.

When I read the "Russell would have a ton of blocks" argument, I don't necessarily disagree, but they let guys goaltend the **** out of the ball back then.

tredigs
10-18-2017, 05:07 PM
while numbers don't translate exactly, yes, it's crazy to think anyone doesn't realize how inflated per game numbers are from the 50-60's. But for fun, Towns line from last year translated reads:

40.7 ppg
19.9 rpg
4.4 apg


or LeBron:

42.8 ppg
13.94 rpg
14.15 apg

all it means is be careful. Wilt's numbers equate to staggering even today, he is kind of an outlier when chucking around per game numbers from then.

When I read the "Russell would have a ton of blocks" argument, I don't necessarily disagree, but they let guys goaltend the **** out of the ball back then.

Right, but we don't do the same math when it comes to FG% or account for the fact they did, you know, play all those minutes. The modern players are not keeping up the same averages if they're asked to play 44 minutes a game and can't DNP/rest when they get a sore ankle.

As for rules, I'd say there's a hell of a lot more leniency now than then. Perimeter handles for one would not be allowed in the slightest similarity today as they were then (they're travels on the old rules obviously), cutting down the ability to drive and create lanes significantly. And even then we just let players travel under modern rules half the time as is. The LBJ travels at this point (including last night multiple times) have sort of become a parody of themselves at this point.

Hawkeye15
10-18-2017, 05:15 PM
It's obviously a different time, but we're not here to project how players would adapt or pretend to know so. What we know is how they fared against their own elite players (and let's not pretend this was the early 50's, he was still the MVP and would be Finals MVP + DPOY of a league with Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Willis Reed, Wilt Chamberlain, etc... and all the other 1st place votes combined did not equal his total), and although you're rightfully over the moon about Wilt's numbers and video and don't question his dominance in the least, he was seen as the lesser of the two by many if not most onlookers at the time. That should matter to someone looking to making objective rankings, and significantly so. An extremely fast, agile, strong 6'10" defensive JUGGERNAUT who invented new ways to dominate due to his superior BBIQ and competitiveness (the tip block to begin the break as an example... something that the dunces of this league have still not figured out other than Tim Duncan on occasion).

Also, completely throwing out the teammate/leadership factor as it is not quantifiable down to a round number seems a bit odd to me. At a certain point you just have to take what film we have and what everyone's opinion who had a say on it was. You can tell the difference in leadership capacity between a Kevin Garnett and James Harden or Dwight Howard, yes? You can tell that Steve Nash offers more positive intangibles as a teammate than Kyrie Irving, yes? They could do the same with player/coach Bill Russell. And by all accounts he was THE teammate and leader that all others were measured against. Forget the 10 Finals MVP's he would have had. Let's give him the 10 DPOY awards he would have had and shut this case for good. Russell should have gone above Wilt at 4, and no lower than 5.

Personally I won't be voting for him this low as I think it's already completely off base.

I have honestly gone over Russell forever. I rank him top 11, and if someone thinks that is too low, I don't care honestly. Top 11 is pretty damn amazing. And Russell being in a much less talented league, hurts him. It just does for me. I get you play what is in front of you, but his team accomplishments and individual accoomplishments just aren't that impressive to me when factoring in level of competition, and how much of a competitive advantage his roster had.

I do recognize his "leadership". It's why he is 11th on my list, and not 15-20th, where his stats would suggest he belongs when using those chips and awards.

Since Bill retired from the league, the amount of athletes playing basketball has grown, and far more elite athletes play basketball today. I think he would still be a great player, I just have to knock him down for what he played against, or lack there of actually. That and his numbers just weren't that impressive to me.

Hawkeye15
10-18-2017, 05:17 PM
Right, but we don't do the same math when it comes to FG% or account for the fact they did, you know, play all those minutes. The modern players are not keeping up the same averages if they're asked to play 44 minutes a game and can't DNP/rest when they get a sore ankle.

As for reals, I'd say there's a hell of a lot more leniency now than then. Perimeter handles for one would not be allowed in the slightest similarity today as they were then (they're travels on the old rules obviously), cutting down the ability to drive and create lanes significantly. And even then we just let players travel under modern rules half the time as is. The LBJ travels at this point (including last night multiple times) have sort of become a parody of themselves at this point.

oh I even pointed that out dude. It's not a math equation really, there are way too many factors.

The game in the 50-60's is archaic compared to today. I can't hold that against Russell all that much. He would adjust, but if you pulled him from 1963 in a time machine, and put him in a game in 2015, he would not be a dominant player. Growing up in today, with his athletic prowess, he would have become a dominant player I think.

tredigs
10-18-2017, 05:25 PM
oh I even pointed that out dude. It's not a math equation really, there are way too many factors.

The game in the 50-60's is archaic compared to today. I can't hold that against Russell all that much. He would adjust, but if you pulled him from 1963 in a time machine, and put him in a game in 2015, he would not be a dominant player. Growing up in today, with his athletic prowess, he would have become a dominant player I think.

Right, of course he would have man. He was a huge human with insane track and field prowess who is regarded as the preeminent figure (maybe in all of team sports history) for brains + competitiveness on the court. You can't play the time machine game for two versions of the sport that bear very little connection to each other at this point. You can only see how a man led his teams (Russell won literally everything at every level of basketball) and how he fared against the best of the best at the time. No, it was not a global game yet, but that did not really happen until very recently (even Jordan faced very few oversees players relative to today), and it WAS very much culturally integrated. Here's a random photo from the 64 Finals (Russell's C's won their last Finals over the '69 Lakers who had Wilt/Jerry West/Elgin Baylor).

http://www.realclearsports.com/images/wysiwyg_images/runnersup/billsrussell.jpg

#44 being Jerry West.

On a side note, I want to see an NBA exhibition with everyone wearing Chucks.

ewing
10-18-2017, 05:50 PM
the average pace in Russell's era for his Celtics was roughly 124 possessions a game. He played 43 mpg.

It's simple math. His per game numbers would look beyond pedestrian today.

that such BS. It was a different game. I think his scoring that you guys keep harping on would totally go up today. He was a 7 footer that flew. Length, insane speed and high jumping- dude would be getting mad dunks. you keep trying to put our guys in there day and there guys in our day and you can't. He won the hardware, everyone who played and covered the times agree he was dominate. That's it. if you going to rate guys that played in a era we never saw you have to go by their resume. Bill has a top 5 resume.

valade16
10-18-2017, 06:31 PM
"Bill Russell can't be this high because he dominated a weak era" says the guys who voted Wilt 3rd.

FlashBolt
10-18-2017, 07:03 PM
"Bill Russell can't be this high because he dominated a weak era" says the guys who voted Wilt 3rd.

He already went over how Wilt was an outlier because his statistical domination along with his insane physique just can't be ignored. Bill wasn't a transcendent player who could dominate in any era equally. Wilt would have been capable. I'm not sure why this keeps getting brought up. Does anyone deny that it was the weakest era of basketball? 11 rings in 1950's or 11 rings today. Which is more impressive?

tredigs
10-18-2017, 07:21 PM
He already went over how Wilt was an outlier because his statistical domination along with his insane physique just can't be ignored. Bill wasn't a transcendent player who could dominate in any era equally. Wilt would have been capable. I'm not sure why this keeps getting brought up. Does anyone deny that it was the weakest era of basketball? 11 rings in 1950's or 11 rings today. Which is more impressive?
It's a little troubling that you keep entering this discussion and don't even seem to know what era it was. 4 of his 5 MVP's and 9 of his 11 titles were in the 60's. The NBA started in '49. There was no shortage of elite talent in the 60's. And it stands to reason that if one player is considered to be able to transcend generations, and another player went against him h2h and was at the VERY least considered his equal, he would have no trouble as well.

valade16
10-18-2017, 07:42 PM
He already went over how Wilt was an outlier because his statistical domination along with his insane physique just can't be ignored. Bill wasn't a transcendent player who could dominate in any era equally. Wilt would have been capable. I'm not sure why this keeps getting brought up. Does anyone deny that it was the weakest era of basketball? 11 rings in 1950's or 11 rings today. Which is more impressive?

First, neither Russell nor Wilt played primarily in the 50's. Also, your comparison is moot because no one has won 11 rings today. Since Hakeem just went a more apt comparison would be "what's more impressive, 11 rings in the 60's or 2 in the 90's. Hakeem couldn't even get out of the 1st round 8 straight times so I think Russell's was more impressive.

If Wilt could dominate any era equally how come he couldn't dominate the 60's? If he could dominate any era, surely the player who held Wilt far below his seasonal averages (while increasing his) in the playoffs during his peak could dominate in any era.

Wilt averaged 50 PPG in the regular season and Russell held him to 33 in the playoffs. That would be the equivalent of someone holding peak Shaq to 19 PPG in a series. Hakeem let Shaq average 29 PPG. Fact: Peak Russell did better against Wilt than peak Hakeem did against Shaq.

mrblisterdundee
10-18-2017, 08:32 PM
Russell
11× NBA champion (1957, 1959–1966, 1968, 1969)
5× NBA Most Valuable Player (1958, 1961–1963, 1965)
3× All-NBA First Team (1959, 1963, 1965)
8× All-NBA Second Team (1958, 1960–1962, 1964, 1966–1968)

Hakeem
2× NBA champion (1994, 1995)
1x NBA Most Valuable Player (1994)
6× All-NBA First Team (1987–1989, 1993, 1994, 1997)
3× All-NBA Second Team (1986, 1990, 1996)

We are really going to vote a 1x MVP and 2x NBA Champ before a 5x MVP and 11x NBA Champ? We are voting based off who had the better career. If you had the choice who would pick a career with significantly less MVPs including NINE less championships? A great test would be if we slide Russell up into the top 5 no one would be shocked at the list but if we did the same with Hakeem it would look ridiculous.

We're voting on who we think was a better player. Russell was a great defender and rebounder, but he played in an era with fewer teams, fewer regular season and playoff games, a shorter, shallower talent pool and on perpetually stacked teams with multiple hall-of-famers that created a talent disparity not seen until today's Warriors. His usage rate started at less than 20 percent and shrunk to 11 by the time he retired.
Who's to say Hakeem couldn't recreate Russell's defense, while also being better offensively? Who's to say even Rodman couldn't replace Russell's role?

tredigs
10-18-2017, 08:49 PM
We're voting on who we think was a better player. Russell was a great defender and rebounder, but he played in an era with fewer teams, fewer regular season and playoff games, a shorter, shallower talent pool and on perpetually stacked teams with multiple hall-of-famers that created a talent disparity not seen until today's Warriors. His usage rate started at less than 20 percent and shrunk to 11 by the time he retired.
Who's to say Hakeem couldn't recreate Russell's defense, while also being better offensively? Who's to say even Rodman couldn't replace Russell's role?

Lmao - Totally. And as I found out in this debate last season, who's to say Hassan Whiteside would not be the best player in the NBA in 1965?


Gotta love it.

valade16
10-18-2017, 10:17 PM
We're voting on who we think was a better player. Russell was a great defender and rebounder, but he played in an era with fewer teams, fewer regular season and playoff games, a shorter, shallower talent pool and on perpetually stacked teams with multiple hall-of-famers that created a talent disparity not seen until today's Warriors. His usage rate started at less than 20 percent and shrunk to 11 by the time he retired.
Who's to say Hakeem couldn't recreate Russell's defense, while also being better offensively? Who's to say even Rodman couldn't replace Russell's role?

Shaq scored 29.3 PPG in the 95 regular season and peak Hakeem held him to 29 PPG in the Finals.
Wilt scored 50 PPG in the 62 regular season and peak Russell held him to 33 PPG in the Finals.

If Hakeem can provide the same defensive impact how come Russell could limit Wilt far better than Hakeem could limit Shaq?

As for the Rodman comment, wanna guess how well Rodman would do against Wilt lol?

basch152
10-18-2017, 11:18 PM
Shaq scored 29.3 PPG in the 95 regular season and peak Hakeem held him to 29 PPG in the Finals.
Wilt scored 50 PPG in the 62 regular season and peak Russell held him to 33 PPG in the Finals.

If Hakeem can provide the same defensive impact how come Russell could limit Wilt far better than Hakeem could limit Shaq?

As for the Rodman comment, wanna guess how well Rodman would do against Wilt lol?

The rest of the competition was awful. wilt dominated severely inferior players and athletes. if he had to play against other high end centers every night his average would have been probably less than 30 ppg.

this is you not using your brain.

unless you're idiotic enough to think wilt would be able to come even remotely close to 50 ppg in today's nba.

also, shaq played about 8 more goddamn minutes a game in the finals, AND he averaged 28 in the finals as opposed to 29.3.

so he played 8 extra minutes to average 1.3 less ppg.

tredigs
10-18-2017, 11:35 PM
Another guy arguing against Russell who has absolutely no idea what he's even arguing. It's awesome.

valade16
10-19-2017, 12:21 AM
The rest of the competition was awful. wilt dominated severely inferior players and athletes. if he had to play against other high end centers every night his average would have been probably less than 30 ppg.

this is you not using your brain.

unless you're idiotic enough to think wilt would be able to come even remotely close to 50 ppg in today's nba.

also, shaq played about 8 more goddamn minutes a game in the finals, AND he averaged 28 in the finals as opposed to 29.3.

so he played 8 extra minutes to average 1.3 less ppg.

Nowhere did I say Wilt would average 50 today. Your insults are as empty as your reading comprehension.

Even using the points scored per minute, Shaq went from .79 pts per minute to Hakeem holding him to .62 pts per minute. Wilt scored 1.02 pts per minute and Russell held him to .7 points per minute.

So Hakeem held Shaq to -.15 pts per minute and Russell held Wilt to -.3. There is no statistical way to compare and conclude Hakeem did as good a job vs Shaq in the 95 Finals as Russell did vs Wilt in the 62 Finals.

Hawkeye15
10-19-2017, 09:53 AM
"Bill Russell can't be this high because he dominated a weak era" says the guys who voted Wilt 3rd.

he didn't dominate it individually anywhere near Wilt. Furthermore, Wilt did play later, and dominated even his his later years. The greatest individual athlete in sports history maybe. So yes, Wilt gets an absolute pass for playing some in that era against weaker competition. His stats were ridiculous, even for the inflated era.

I already said I have him 11th. That is plenty high enough for me, for a guy who was a complete lack offensively compared to the players we are comparing him too.

Hawkeye15
10-19-2017, 09:54 AM
We're voting on who we think was a better player. Russell was a great defender and rebounder, but he played in an era with fewer teams, fewer regular season and playoff games, a shorter, shallower talent pool and on perpetually stacked teams with multiple hall-of-famers that created a talent disparity not seen until today's Warriors. His usage rate started at less than 20 percent and shrunk to 11 by the time he retired.
Who's to say Hakeem couldn't recreate Russell's defense, while also being better offensively? Who's to say even Rodman couldn't replace Russell's role?

bingo. I am sorry, I like my top 10 all timers to put teams on their back on both sides when necessary, and do it against more competition. Wilt is the outlier, with those numbers, and pure and utter domination, he obviously dominates any era, anytime.

FlashBolt
10-19-2017, 10:54 AM
First, neither Russell nor Wilt played primarily in the 50's. Also, your comparison is moot because no one has won 11 rings today. Since Hakeem just went a more apt comparison would be "what's more impressive, 11 rings in the 60's or 2 in the 90's. Hakeem couldn't even get out of the 1st round 8 straight times so I think Russell's was more impressive.

If Wilt could dominate any era equally how come he couldn't dominate the 60's? If he could dominate any era, surely the player who held Wilt far below his seasonal averages (while increasing his) in the playoffs during his peak could dominate in any era.

Wilt averaged 50 PPG in the regular season and Russell held him to 33 in the playoffs. That would be the equivalent of someone holding peak Shaq to 19 PPG in a series. Hakeem let Shaq average 29 PPG. Fact: Peak Russell did better against Wilt than peak Hakeem did against Shaq.

Does anyone really care about 50's or 60's? Big whoopty doo, I didn't say the 60's.. I don't care to stats and basketball reference what is obvious to everyone.

1) Wilt did dominate the 60's. If Wilt didn't, Bill certainly never dominated anything, by your logic. No one takes Bill over Wilt if they are drafting a team today unless they probably thought Anthony Bennett is a historical talent.

2) We already went over this. It doesn't take a genius to realize that Wilt was lacking a team and was forced to do much of the output while Bill's role had always been designated to defense. Why do you pretend that if Bill was forced to be a scorer and play defense at the same time, there wouldn't be a noticeable decline in one particular area? Wilt was the go-to guy for every play. Bill wasn't. That's like telling Kawhi Leonard to play defense and forgot about offense. Do you realize how much better he would be?

3) All signs point to the fact that Bill played in a significant weaker league with inferior talent and limited elite players. All signs point to the most inflated era of statistical feats in basketball history. All signs point to an easier road to an NBA championship (if you have a stacked team). Bill Russell does not win 11 rings in any era outside of his own. I value Jordan's six rings 1000000x over Bill's any day. Wilt, as everyone knows, dominated his era of basketball. His physical feats OUTSIDE of basketball is enough evidence that he had that same ability in any era. Bill wasn't some special gifted athlete we haven't seen before. Wilt was. Wilt played against Kareem and held his own. Kareem played against modern NBA legends. Why is it disrespect Bill isn't in the top 10. Realistically, was Bill any better than KG overall as a player?


And Tredigs, stop quoting me. I'm tired of your quote notifications. You've been unbearable for far too long for anyone to take you serious anymore.

valade16
10-19-2017, 10:58 AM
he didn't dominate it individually anywhere near Wilt. Furthermore, Wilt did play later, and dominated even his his later years. The greatest individual athlete in sports history maybe. So yes, Wilt gets an absolute pass for playing some in that era against weaker competition. His stats were ridiculous, even for the inflated era.

I already said I have him 11th. That is plenty high enough for me, for a guy who was a complete lack offensively compared to the players we are comparing him too.

Played later? Russell retired in 69 and Wilt in 73, that's a 4 year difference.

FlashBolt
10-19-2017, 11:03 AM
Played later? Russell retired in 69 and Wilt in 73, that's a 4 year difference.

He's referring to KAJ entering the league going vs Wilt.

FlashBolt
10-19-2017, 11:26 AM
Valade, Wilt averaged 50 PPG in 61-62. Russell "held" him to 33 PPG in the playoffs. Can you tell me what Wilt's playoffs averages were against the other playoff team?

KnicksorBust
10-19-2017, 11:34 AM
1) It's like if the Warriors were one team and there were seven mediocre teams? Why pretend that the Celtics didn't have a stacked squad?

But that's my point. If we cut the current NBA down to 8 teams then almost all the teams would look like super teams and that would only make it harder once you get to the final 4 teams. The better argument imo is the shorter playoffs. It is easier to win a tournament with less games and less opponents. That's a fair argument that I can't counter as effectively.


How many rings do you think Bill has if we switched Wilt into the Celtics? Then what would the narrative be?

I'm guilty of trying to use these hypothetical situations from time to time but I find them fundamentally flawed. Teams are built specifically around their best player. Especially in an ERA without the 3pt ball with loaded teams it was easy to build around Bill. The consummate teammate who was the best defensive player of all-time and a great & willing passer compared to a dominant stat obsessed center who clashed with teammates and coaches. I agree Wilt was the better player if that makes you feel any better. :)



2) I'm not sure where you're going with this but I can bet you that Russell doesn't win more MVP's in the 90's going up against those players..

I agree but that doesn't mean you can just magically take away his accomplishments.


3) No, the real shame is people still think those stats are representative of actual basketball ability in the most competitive form.

If Bill Russell's assists were tracked the same way today and his stat line looked like:

16ppg / 20 rpg / 8apg / 7bpg + 10 DPOY awards

then more people would rank him higher. But because of the flaws of stat tracking from that era he doesn't have the flashy stats appeal.


You can't seriously equate Bill's success playing in what most agree is a watered-down version of the competetive basketball we see today. If you say he's top ten based off rings, go for it because then the GOAT's list would involve a wikipedia list of "Who has the most NBA rings" and we can just forget about a basketball discussion. But if you're talking about legitimate basketball ability and consider the external factors involved such as amount of teams, amount of quality players, change of pace, etc., then it's not even a debate; Bill is not a top ten player. For Christ's sake, they adjusted Russell Westbrook's numbers to the pace they had during Bill's era and I believe RWB was even better than Wilt's. They did the same for Big O's triple double year.. RWB smashed it. Hakeem was a better basketball player than Bill. No question about it. Bill wouldn't sniff two rings leading that same Houston Rockets team..


So this is where your post took a left turn for me. It made me think of this reply to me which I will respond to below:


We're voting on who we think was a better player. Russell was a great defender and rebounder, but he played in an era with fewer teams, fewer regular season and playoff games, a shorter, shallower talent pool and on perpetually stacked teams with multiple hall-of-famers that created a talent disparity not seen until today's Warriors. His usage rate started at less than 20 percent and shrunk to 11 by the time he retired.
Who's to say Hakeem couldn't recreate Russell's defense, while also being better offensively? Who's to say even Rodman couldn't replace Russell's role?

In these debates I don't look at it as "who was the better player?" I look at it as "who had the better career?" If it's who is the better player and all of you Hakeem supporters really want to be consistent I am looking forward to see how far you are willing to drop him. He was a low FG% mid teens scorer. How can he even sniff top 20?

If it's better player, sure I'll take Hakeem.
If it's better career, it's Russell in a landslide.

FlashBolt
10-19-2017, 11:46 AM
But that's my point. If we cut the current NBA down to 8 teams then almost all the teams would look like super teams and that would only make it harder once you get to the final 4 teams. The better argument imo is the shorter playoffs. It is easier to win a tournament with less games and less opponents. That's a fair argument that I can't counter as effectively.



I'm guilty of trying to use these hypothetical situations from time to time but I find them fundamentally flawed. Teams are built specifically around their best player. Especially in an ERA without the 3pt ball with loaded teams it was easy to build around Bill. The consummate teammate who was the best defensive player of all-time and a great & willing passer compared to a dominant stat obsessed center who clashed with teammates and coaches. I agree Wilt was the better player if that makes you feel any better. :)




I agree but that doesn't mean you can just magically take away his accomplishments.



If Bill Russell's assists were tracked the same way today and his stat line looked like:

16ppg / 20 rpg / 8apg / 7bpg + 10 DPOY awards

then more people would rank him higher. But because of the flaws of stat tracking from that era he doesn't have the flashy stats appeal.



So this is where your post took a left turn for me. It made me think of this reply to me which I will respond to below:



In these debates I don't look at it as "who was the better player?" I look at it as "who had the better career?" If it's who is the better player and all of you Hakeem supporters really want to be consistent I am looking forward to see how far you are willing to drop him. He was a low FG% mid teens scorer. How can he even sniff top 20?

If it's better player, sure I'll take Hakeem.
If it's better career, it's Russell in a landslide.

1) No, because the rest of the teams were mediocre so there wouldn't be more superteams. Celtics were a superteam. Who else was a superteam back then? You make it seem as if it would be the Warriors vs a team of Russ+LeBron+Kawhi vs PG+AD+Harden vs Cousins+CP3+Giannis. No, there wasn't that much talent overall in the league to begin with and there certainly weren't many superteams outside of the Celtics. It was the Celtics and everyone else.

2) He was a giant compared to the players who actually were somewhat decent back then. I think at one point, him, Wilt, Bellamy, and another guy were the only players above 6'8. In a league with fewer three point shots, almost all the attempts were close to the rim - therefore his blocks are often overstated. There's a reason blocks have gone down significantly since the input of the 3P line. Did players all of a sudden stop becoming terrible shot blockers? Nope. What makes you think Bill was a better shot blocker than a guy like Hakeem or Duncan? Because 99% of shots went towards the rim and Bill had a significant height advantage? Or because the narrative was Bill would average 5000000 bajillion blocks?

3) 10 DPOY awards? Lmao - he is not winning 10 DPOY awards today and certainly not during the 90's. That's incredibly irrelevant. Are we handing out awards to Bill out of the consensus that he would be the best defender today? Again, based off what? You're going 50 years ahead of his era... Do you know basketball has advanced to where most would consider basketball athletes as the best overall athletes?

4) Again, you're judging career but not considering factors. Yes, Bill has had the best NBA career. He destroys MJ for that matter, no? But the difference is, most of us are capable enough of understanding that context matters. Shaq would look like Godzilla back then and his career would have exploded far beyond what he looked like during the 90's and early 2000's.

KnicksorBust
10-19-2017, 11:57 AM
1) No, because the rest of the teams were mediocre so there wouldn't be more superteams. Celtics were a superteam. Who else was a superteam back then? You make it seem as if it would be the Warriors vs a team of Russ+LeBron+Kawhi vs PG+AD+Harden vs Cousins+CP3+Giannis. No, there wasn't that much talent overall in the league to begin with and there certainly weren't many superteams outside of the Celtics. It was the Celtics and everyone else.

What made the Celtics in the 60s a superteam?


2) He was a giant compared to the players who actually were somewhat decent back then. I think at one point, him, Wilt, Bellamy, and another guy were the only players above 6'8. In a league with fewer three point shots, almost all the attempts were close to the rim - therefore his blocks are often overstated. There's a reason blocks have gone down significantly since the input of the 3P line. Did players all of a sudden stop becoming terrible shot blockers? Nope. What makes you think Bill was a better shot blocker than a guy like Hakeem or Duncan? Because 99% of shots went towards the rim and Bill had a significant height advantage? Or because the narrative was Bill would average 5000000 bajillion blocks?

That height rumor has been debunked before. If you need proof let me know but it's on PSD and the internet. And yes I do think Bill was the best shot blocker in NBA History. Do you honestly think Hakeem and Duncan were as fast as Russell? Or had the same vertical?


3) 10 DPOY awards? Lmao - he is not winning 10 DPOY awards today and certainly not during the 90's. That's incredibly irrelevant. Are we handing out awards to Bill out of the consensus that he would be the best defender today? Again, based off what? You're going 50 years ahead of his era... Do you know basketball has advanced to where most would consider basketball athletes as the best overall athletes?

4) Again, you're judging career but not considering factors. Yes, Bill has had the best NBA career.

Okay so this is where it gets tricky for me because now we are arguing different things. If you agree that Russell had a better career than Hakeem than we just disagree on the debate. I'm not arguing best player, I'm arguing better career.

FlashBolt
10-19-2017, 12:14 PM
What made the Celtics in the 60s a superteam?



That height rumor has been debunked before. If you need proof let me know but it's on PSD and the internet. And yes I do think Bill was the best shot blocker in NBA History. Do you honestly think Hakeem and Duncan were as fast as Russell? Or had the same vertical?



Okay so this is where it gets tricky for me because now we are arguing different things. If you agree that Russell had a better career than Hakeem than we just disagree on the debate. I'm not arguing best player, I'm arguing better career.

1) By the fact that Bill's teammates were vastly superior to those of Wilt and the next best team?

2) It hasn't been debunked. And the overall atmosphere of athletes were far from historically great. All it took was for one to be significantly better than the other physically to dominate.

Swede Halbrook 7-3 - 235
Walter Dukes 7-0 - 220
Chuck Share 6-11 - 235
Walt Bellamy 6-11 - 225
Ray Felix 6-11 - 220
Bevo Nordmann 6-10 - 225
Darrall Imhoff 6-10 - 220
Phil Jordan 6-10 - 205
Clyde Lovellette 6-9 - 234
Red Kerr 6-9 - 230
Gary Alcorn 6-9 - 225
Bill Russell 6-9 215

Player's above 6'8 in 1960-1962 outside of Wilt. How many of those were actually decent players who played big minutes?

3) Fast+Vertical = Wilt is the greatest shot-blocker, not Bill. So your criteria is a bit lacking. Also, you don't even take into account that the amount of attempts to block a shot was exponentially much higher back then - which gives into the notion that Bill was just blocking everything.

4) Do you still not understand that Bill's career has to be viewed with more question marks than just about any other superstar because of the vast difference in variables associated with his career? I already told you, if we're going by his career of 11 rings and a combination of his defense+points+rebounds+blocks without taking into account other variables, yes, he is the GOAT of ALL careers. If we take into context into how those came to be, then no, he is not a top ten in my list. He has a case for top 15, though.

tredigs
10-19-2017, 01:20 PM
Does anyone really care about 50's or 60's? Big whoopty doo, I didn't say the 60's.. I don't care to stats and basketball reference what is obvious to everyone.

1) Wilt did dominate the 60's. If Wilt didn't, Bill certainly never dominated anything, by your logic. No one takes Bill over Wilt if they are drafting a team today unless they probably thought Anthony Bennett is a historical talent.

2) We already went over this. It doesn't take a genius to realize that Wilt was lacking a team and was forced to do much of the output while Bill's role had always been designated to defense. Why do you pretend that if Bill was forced to be a scorer and play defense at the same time, there wouldn't be a noticeable decline in one particular area? Wilt was the go-to guy for every play. Bill wasn't. That's like telling Kawhi Leonard to play defense and forgot about offense. Do you realize how much better he would be?

3) All signs point to the fact that Bill played in a significant weaker league with inferior talent and limited elite players. All signs point to the most inflated era of statistical feats in basketball history. All signs point to an easier road to an NBA championship (if you have a stacked team). Bill Russell does not win 11 rings in any era outside of his own. I value Jordan's six rings 1000000x over Bill's any day. Wilt, as everyone knows, dominated his era of basketball. His physical feats OUTSIDE of basketball is enough evidence that he had that same ability in any era. Bill wasn't some special gifted athlete we haven't seen before. Wilt was. Wilt played against Kareem and held his own. Kareem played against modern NBA legends. Why is it disrespect Bill isn't in the top 10. Realistically, was Bill any better than KG overall as a player?


And Tredigs, stop quoting me. I'm tired of your quote notifications. You've been unbearable for far too long for anyone to take you serious anymore.

Stop entering the threads where the grownups are talking of you don't want to be put in your place. I'll leave these comments to sit here though. Your clear lack of knowledge on the subject speaks for itself.

valade16
10-19-2017, 01:22 PM
Does anyone really care about 50's or 60's? Big whoopty doo, I didn't say the 60's.. I don't care to stats and basketball reference what is obvious to everyone.

1) Wilt did dominate the 60's. If Wilt didn't, Bill certainly never dominated anything, by your logic. No one takes Bill over Wilt if they are drafting a team today unless they probably thought Anthony Bennett is a historical talent.

2) We already went over this. It doesn't take a genius to realize that Wilt was lacking a team and was forced to do much of the output while Bill's role had always been designated to defense. Why do you pretend that if Bill was forced to be a scorer and play defense at the same time, there wouldn't be a noticeable decline in one particular area? Wilt was the go-to guy for every play. Bill wasn't. That's like telling Kawhi Leonard to play defense and forgot about offense. Do you realize how much better he would be?

3) All signs point to the fact that Bill played in a significant weaker league with inferior talent and limited elite players. All signs point to the most inflated era of statistical feats in basketball history. All signs point to an easier road to an NBA championship (if you have a stacked team). Bill Russell does not win 11 rings in any era outside of his own. I value Jordan's six rings 1000000x over Bill's any day. Wilt, as everyone knows, dominated his era of basketball. His physical feats OUTSIDE of basketball is enough evidence that he had that same ability in any era. Bill wasn't some special gifted athlete we haven't seen before. Wilt was. Wilt played against Kareem and held his own. Kareem played against modern NBA legends. Why is it disrespect Bill isn't in the top 10. Realistically, was Bill any better than KG overall as a player?


And Tredigs, stop quoting me. I'm tired of your quote notifications. You've been unbearable for far too long for anyone to take you serious anymore.

First Bolded: And no one in their right mind would compare Bill Russell Anthony Bennett. Russell was able to effectively limit Wilt, think Bennett could do that?

Second Bolded: This is a common narrative to explain why he lost so much to the Celtics. The truth is he had several teams every bit as talented and still couldn't beat them as often.

Third Bolded: Russell was indeed a special athlete, he was an Olympian level track star (indeed had he not been on the Olympic basketball team he would have been on the track team).

valade16
10-19-2017, 01:27 PM
1) By the fact that Bill's teammates were vastly superior to those of Wilt and the next best team?

2) It hasn't been debunked. And the overall atmosphere of athletes were far from historically great. All it took was for one to be significantly better than the other physically to dominate.

Swede Halbrook 7-3 - 235
Walter Dukes 7-0 - 220
Chuck Share 6-11 - 235
Walt Bellamy 6-11 - 225
Ray Felix 6-11 - 220
Bevo Nordmann 6-10 - 225
Darrall Imhoff 6-10 - 220
Phil Jordan 6-10 - 205
Clyde Lovellette 6-9 - 234
Red Kerr 6-9 - 230
Gary Alcorn 6-9 - 225
Bill Russell 6-9 215

Player's above 6'8 in 1960-1962 outside of Wilt. How many of those were actually decent players who played big minutes?

3) Fast+Vertical = Wilt is the greatest shot-blocker, not Bill. So your criteria is a bit lacking. Also, you don't even take into account that the amount of attempts to block a shot was exponentially much higher back then - which gives into the notion that Bill was just blocking everything.

4) Do you still not understand that Bill's career has to be viewed with more question marks than just about any other superstar because of the vast difference in variables associated with his career? I already told you, if we're going by his career of 11 rings and a combination of his defense+points+rebounds+blocks without taking into account other variables, yes, he is the GOAT of ALL careers. If we take into context into how those came to be, then no, he is not a top ten in my list. He has a case for top 15, though.

There were 8 teams remember, so yeah each team had a competent big man Russell had to face.

FlashBolt
10-19-2017, 01:41 PM
Stop entering the threads where the grownups are talking of you don't want to be put in your place. I'll leave these comments to sit here though. Your clear lack of knowledge on the subject speaks for itself.

More of your inferiority complex showing. Sit down, grandpa. We've already gone through why no one wants to discuss with you. You're just effective at being a nuisance.

FlashBolt
10-19-2017, 01:43 PM
There were 8 teams remember, so yeah each team had a competent big man Russell had to face.

None of which were realistically competent. Just being big doesn't change the fact a bunch of them were unathletic and unskilled. You used that 50 PPG mark and said Bill limited Wilt to 33. In another playoff series, Wilt was limited to 37. The difference was apparently in less free throw attempts from Wilt. So did Bill defend Wilt better than any player? Sure did. But it's not as wide as the 50 PPG to 33 PPG mark you seem to be making.

valade16
10-19-2017, 01:53 PM
None of which were realistically competent. Just being big doesn't change the fact a bunch of them were unathletic and unskilled. You used that 50 PPG mark and said Bill limited Wilt to 33. In another playoff series, Wilt was limited to 37. The difference was apparently in less free throw attempts from Wilt. So did Bill defend Wilt better than any player? Sure did. But it's not as wide as the 50 PPG to 33 PPG mark you seem to be making.

But if you want to go down that road then it crushes your double standard you apply to Wilt. Wilt isn't subject to the same criticisms as Russell because he put up video game numbers... and now you're saying he couldn't put up those numbers in the playoffs when it mattered against "unathletic and unskilled" big men.

So why is Wilt so good again?

FlashBolt
10-19-2017, 02:04 PM
But if you want to go down that road then it crushes your double standard you apply to Wilt. Wilt isn't subject to the same criticisms as Russell because he put up video game numbers... and now you're saying he couldn't put up those numbers in the playoffs when it mattered against "unathletic and unskilled" big men.

So why is Wilt so good again?

No it doesn't. Wilt was good enough to average 50 PPG on a terrible enough of a league. But there's clear evidence on a physical standpoint alone and also in his latter years that he would hold up against the best players ever. Same as Bill.. who I already said I would put on my top 15 - which puts him already at another level. Unless there's a massive separation in rankings from 10 to 15, I'm not sure what the big deal here is. Wilt IS subject to the same criticism. It's just Wilt put up absurd numbers - something Bill couldn't do offensively.

http://i.imgur.com/gTz8s4T.png

http://i.imgur.com/UwO5i2p.png

So while there is a difference in PPG against Bill, Wilt also averaged more rebounds vs Bill than he did when not against Bill. And I said the league in general was terrible. That doesn't mean the league was void of great players. Wilt changed his game and became more selective of his shots during the latter years of 60's but he still outperformed Bill in their matchups.

mngopher35
10-19-2017, 02:06 PM
But if you want to go down that road then it crushes your double standard you apply to Wilt. Wilt isn't subject to the same criticisms as Russell because he put up video game numbers... and now you're saying he couldn't put up those numbers in the playoffs when it mattered against "unathletic and unskilled" big men.

So why is Wilt so good again?

Could it be he crushed some lesser competition much of the season due to the era then had some tougher matchups like Bill come playoffs so he couldn't just breeze through?

Out of curiosity can you post both sides of the stats in their matchups because just because Wilt was held to 33 doesn't mean Bill outplayed him or anything (going back to Hakeem V Shaq I bet Hakeem was much better off with the entire context compared). He just doesn't match up on the other end as far as I can tell off their career head to head it just isn't even close either (double the points in RS and close to it in playoffs at 26 to 15 ppg, with better % in playoffs with RS not shown). Looks to me like in the entire comparison only one guy isn't keeping up with their counterpart and it is Russell.

Seems no one can answer my question about his offense earlier but we can start with these comparisons and finally looking at his offense instead of keeping it on one half of the court (less important half individually imo).

FlashBolt
10-19-2017, 02:13 PM
Could it be he crushed some lesser competition much of the season due to the era then had some tougher matchups like Bill come playoffs?

Out of curiosity can you post both sides of the stats in their matchups because just because Wilt was held to 33 doesn't mean Bill outplayed him or anything (going back to Hakeem V Shaq I bet Hakeem was much better off with the entire context compared). He just doesn't match up on the other end as far as I can tell off their career head to head it just isn't even close either (double the points in RS and close to it in playoffs at 26 to 15 ppg, both with better % in playoffs with RS not shown).

Seems no one can answer my question about his offense earlier but we can start with these comparisons and finally looking at his offense instead of keeping it on one half of the court (less important half individually imo).

i just posted a link above. It seems accurate as the guy is known in that particular community as a basketball junkie. Anyways, summary of it is Bill defended Wilt better than anyone - which is given. Wilt scored less vs Bill but grabbed more rebounds. Seems like the disparity in points was due to Wilt taking fewer shots and less FT attempts because of inherently, less shot attempts. There is no case where Bill was the superior player to that of Wilt - which is actually irrelevant. It all comes down to: Is Bill's 11 rings and defensive presence greater than the top ten so far? My answer, no. It seems to be the majority is no. But if you value a guy who scored less than Jerry Lucas as a top ten player of all-time, then that's your own view.

valade16
10-19-2017, 02:52 PM
Could it be he crushed some lesser competition much of the season due to the era then had some tougher matchups like Bill come playoffs so he couldn't just breeze through?

Out of curiosity can you post both sides of the stats in their matchups because just because Wilt was held to 33 doesn't mean Bill outplayed him or anything (going back to Hakeem V Shaq I bet Hakeem was much better off with the entire context compared). He just doesn't match up on the other end as far as I can tell off their career head to head it just isn't even close either (double the points in RS and close to it in playoffs at 26 to 15 ppg, with better % in playoffs with RS not shown). Looks to me like in the entire comparison only one guy isn't keeping up with their counterpart and it is Russell.

Seems no one can answer my question about his offense earlier but we can start with these comparisons and finally looking at his offense instead of keeping it on one half of the court (less important half individually imo).

The 62 Finals Wilt averaged 50 PPG in the regular season and 33 vs Russell in the series. Russell averaged 19 PPG regular season and 22 PPG in the series. During Russell's peak he averaged more points than normal vs Wilt whereas Wilt averaged less than normal vs Russell.

The career head to head are skewed because it has a lot of matchups where Russell was no longer in his prime.

KnicksorBust
10-19-2017, 02:53 PM
1) By the fact that Bill's teammates were vastly superior to those of Wilt and the next best team?

How do you know that? I'm asking because I don't think you have any idea who Wilt played with during his career.


2) It hasn't been debunked. And the overall atmosphere of athletes were far from historically great. All it took was for one to be significantly better than the other physically to dominate.

Swede Halbrook 7-3 - 235
Walter Dukes 7-0 - 220
Chuck Share 6-11 - 235
Walt Bellamy 6-11 - 225
Ray Felix 6-11 - 220
Bevo Nordmann 6-10 - 225
Darrall Imhoff 6-10 - 220
Phil Jordan 6-10 - 205
Clyde Lovellette 6-9 - 234
Red Kerr 6-9 - 230
Gary Alcorn 6-9 - 225
Bill Russell 6-9 215

Player's above 6'8 in 1960-1962 outside of Wilt. How many of those were actually decent players who played big minutes?

Why limit it to 3 years? Aren't we looking at how many good big men he played against during his career?


3) Fast+Vertical = Wilt is the greatest shot-blocker, not Bill.

Do you think Dwight Howard is as good a shot-blocker as Tim Duncan? If so, why? If not, why not?

basch152
10-19-2017, 02:55 PM
Nowhere did I say Wilt would average 50 today. Your insults are as empty as your reading comprehension.

Even using the points scored per minute, Shaq went from .79 pts per minute to Hakeem holding him to .62 pts per minute. Wilt scored 1.02 pts per minute and Russell held him to .7 points per minute.

So Hakeem held Shaq to -.15 pts per minute and Russell held Wilt to -.3. There is no statistical way to compare and conclude Hakeem did as good a job vs Shaq in the 95 Finals as Russell did vs Wilt in the 62 Finals.


Again, most of we wilts competition other than Russell were SIGNIFICANTLY inferior athletes.

whereas when shaq was going up against players other than hakeem, they were at least players worth being on an NBA court.

your comparison would expect hakeem to damn near be able to cut shaq down to about 17-18 ppg to compare to russell which is an absolute joke.

it just shows how weak the era of the 50s and 60s and the fact that wilts and russells dominance doesn't mean ****.

a better comparison would be putting shaq up against a fringe top 25 college team, and then comparing what numbers he puts up against them vs what he put up against hakeem.

valade16
10-19-2017, 02:56 PM
I just want to be clear, people seem to be saying this list isn't who is best and not whose career is best. Do we plan to be consistent with that determination?

tredigs
10-19-2017, 03:04 PM
How do you know that? I'm asking because I don't think you have any idea who Wilt played with during his career.





Lol indeed. He has no idea what era these guys played in. Suffice to say he has no idea who their teammates were. It's plainly obvious when someone has a narrative in place and just runs with it. There is zero substance behind him and Bach's rhetoric.

valade16
10-19-2017, 03:08 PM
Lol indeed. He has no idea what era these guys played in. Suffice to say he has no idea who their teammates were. It's plainly obvious when someone has a narrative in place and just runs with it. There is zero substance behind him and Bach's rhetoric.

From 66 to 68 Russell and Wilt each had 3 other HOFers on their teams, Russell's Celtics still won 2/3 matchups. Even when Wilt's teams were as stacked as Russell's Russell still won more.

mngopher35
10-19-2017, 03:11 PM
The 62 Finals Wilt averaged 50 PPG in the regular season and 33 vs Russell in the series. Russell averaged 19 PPG regular season and 22 PPG in the series. During Russell's peak he averaged more points than normal vs Wilt whereas Wilt averaged less than normal vs Russell.

The career head to head are skewed because it has a lot of matchups where Russell was no longer in his prime.

So for the series it was still Wilt at 33 and Russell at 22 ppg (Wilt better efficiency overall?). Where Hakeem and Shaq were both right next to each other in their series both putting up those big numbers. It would seem despite Bill having the best defense in that sense it still makes him the clear outlier production wise between Wilt/himself and Hakeem/Shaq, he was the only one to clearly be outproduced at that level.

Thats the issue for me, Bill is arguably the best defender ever I won't even get into arguing those specifics and just give it to him. It still doesn't make up for the lack of production on the other end, at least in comparison to top guys like Hakeem who killed it there along with his defensive abilities (2x DPOY etc). Bill is a great defender with a great resume given era/teammates etc. but when it comes to individual ability/impact he just can't match up with guys at all on the offensive end here.

ewing
10-19-2017, 03:11 PM
Have you seen how short bill’s shorts were? He sucked


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

valade16
10-19-2017, 03:16 PM
So for the series it was still Wilt at 33 and Russell at 22 ppg (Wilt better efficiency overall?). Where Hakeem and Shaq were both right next to each other in their series both putting up those big numbers. It would seem despite Bill having the best defense in that sense it still makes him the clear outlier production wise between Wilt/himself and Hakeem/Shaq, he was the only one to clearly be outproduced at that level.

Thats the issue for me, Bill is arguably the best defender ever I won't even get into arguing those specifics and just give it to him. It still doesn't make up for the lack of production on the other end, at least in comparison to top guys like Hakeem who killed it there along with his defensive abilities (2x DPOY etc). Bill is a great defender with a great resume given era/teammates etc. but when it comes to individual ability/impact he just can't match up with guys at all on the offensive end here.

Yeah but this goes back to my point about PSD, we over inflate a guy because he produces positive impact both offensively and defensively over a guy who is a more impactful player simply because they can do both.

I don't care about where the impact comes from, when a guy is more impactful he's more impactful.

mngopher35
10-19-2017, 03:31 PM
Yeah but this goes back to my point about PSD, we over inflate a guy because he produces positive impact both offensively and defensively over a guy who is a more impactful player simply because they can do both.

I don't care about where the impact comes from, when a guy is more impactful he's more impactful.

Yes and it would look like Russell's impact overall was clearly less than Wilt given Wilt clearly outproduced him in their matchups. Same can't be said in the Hakeem/Shaq scenario you brought up earlier, only one of these guys is clearly behind the others individually.

Just because a good defensive player can slow down an offensive juggernaut does not change that the defensive minded player still can't produce at those same levels. Ben Wallace could slow some great big men but he still doesn't match up because he lacks the offense to be on that elite level. Russell's offense obviously was better but in comparison to these guys he is still clearly lacking even after his defense slows them down.

valade16
10-19-2017, 03:57 PM
Yes and it would look like Russell's impact overall was clearly less than Wilt given Wilt clearly outproduced him in their matchups. Same can't be said in the Hakeem/Shaq scenario you brought up earlier, only one of these guys is clearly behind the others individually.

Just because a good defensive player can slow down an offensive juggernaut does not change that the defensive minded player still can't produce at those same levels. Ben Wallace could slow some great big men but he still doesn't match up because he lacks the offense to be on that elite level. Russell's offense obviously was better but in comparison to these guys he is still clearly lacking even after his defense slows them down.

Production doesn't necessarily measure impact, otherwise Westbrook would have by far the largest impact in the league. Or like how despite Towns' incredible production he's not very impactful on the offensive or defensive flow of the game.

Russell was oftentimes the more impactful than Wilt, who was considered selfish and his stats a byproduct of that selfishness that didn't really help the team.

Head to head with similarly talented teams, Russell was beating Wilt more often. That's a reflection of his impact.

FlashBolt
10-19-2017, 04:02 PM
How do you know that? I'm asking because I don't think you have any idea who Wilt played with during his career.



Why limit it to 3 years? Aren't we looking at how many good big men he played against during his career?



Do you think Dwight Howard is as good a shot-blocker as Tim Duncan? If so, why? If not, why not?

Let's be factual here; the majority haven't watched Wilt play nor Bill. Any objections is based off what's available on the internet. If you think you know a player based off what you can google on BBall reference, go for it. But you won't find the guys you saw on the Celtics roster. I love how some of you make it seem that you lived through that era. No, you guys simply googled it because that's the only plausible answer. And it doesn't take a genius to have to Google it to see that Wilt had inferior players to that of Bill. Bill didn't outplay Wilt nor was he a better player than Wilt so how is it Bill didn't have a better team but seemingly won? None of Wilt's team were superteams but Wilt was outplaying Bill. So either Bill is BETTER than Wilt or you guys just refuse to acknowledge a sheer difference in teammates.

I don't have to limit it to three years. You said you had a list... go find it then. Why is it up to me to find every piece of evidence when you throw out generalities?

No, I don't. Tim Duncan is arguably the best shot blocker in NBA history because he knew the importance of directing a shot. This isn't some 50-60's run and gun style game where everyone - including guards, were all trying to get as close to the rim and that allowed for block attempts.

And tredigs seems to be convinced he's adding so much. Talks about substance when his entire presence here is predicated on trying to convince us Draymond is the second-coming of God.. No wonder he loves Bill. He values a guy who just rebounds and defends.

mngopher35
10-19-2017, 04:02 PM
Just for some reference I looked up the leading mpg guys in 62 at C. Wilt/Russell then Bellamy then...

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/kerrre01.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/e/embrywa01.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lovelcl01.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordoph01.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/sauldwo01.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/krebsji01.html

That's in order of their mpg for guys listed at C, one of them only was half the season though. Phil Jordon is the only guy even at 6'10 and he weighs 205. Everyone else was like 25 mpg or less. I think it is kinda easy to see why Wilt maybe dominated these guys much much more than an actual elite defender like Russell, I would expect a huge drop in comparison honestly.

FlashBolt
10-19-2017, 04:03 PM
Production doesn't necessarily measure impact, otherwise Westbrook would have by far the largest impact in the league. Or like how despite Towns' incredible production he's not very impactful on the offensive or defensive flow of the game.

Russell was oftentimes the more impactful than Wilt, who was considered selfish and his stats a byproduct of that selfishness that didn't really help the team.

Head to head with similarly talented teams, Russell was beating Wilt more often. That's a reflection of his impact.


So Bill wins 11 rings with Wilt's team?

FlashBolt
10-19-2017, 04:07 PM
Just for some reference I looked up the leading mpg guys in 62 at C. Wilt/Russell then Bellamy then...

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/kerrre01.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/e/embrywa01.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lovelcl01.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordoph01.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/sauldwo01.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/krebsji01.html

That's in order of their mpg for guys listed at C, one of them only was half the season though. Phil Jordon is the only guy even at 6'10 and he weighs 205. Everyone else was like 25 mpg or less. I think it is kinda easy to see why Wilt maybe dominated these guys much much more than an actual elite defender like Russell, I would expect a huge drop in comparison honestly.

Exactly.. Those guys weren't very talented. Tall but lacking in overall skill. That drop-off is due to the fact that in the playoffs, they are going up against another who poses more competition than the inflated and subsidized averages in the regular season. It's like if LeBron vs the Suns for 100 games in the regular season and then we compare that production to vs Kawhi in ten postseason games. That speaks more of the lack of competition overall than Russell's actual impact.

mngopher35
10-19-2017, 04:08 PM
Production doesn't necessarily measure impact, otherwise Westbrook would have by far the largest impact in the league. Or like how despite Towns' incredible production he's not very impactful on the offensive or defensive flow of the game.

Russell was oftentimes the more impactful than Wilt, who was considered selfish and his stats a byproduct of that selfishness that didn't really help the team.

Head to head with similarly talented teams, Russell was beating Wilt more often. That's a reflection of his impact.

If you wanna go into depth on this I am all ears, it's much better than that analysis you were trying to do earlier which I just found off base so responded. Wilt crushed Russell to a greater extent than Hakeem/Shaq on each other and BR was the main outlier in that entire comparison (bad way) so I felt like that needed to be addressed.

I think Wilt is clear cut above Russell based on the production but am all for a talk about the context around Russell. No one has really responded to the criticism of his production/offensive game yet and maybe that would help. I am no expert on these guys at all but in the limited tape and analysis I have done I always am left wondering why people have Russell so high and usually it comes down to "his teams won" over anything about him as an individual. As far as I can tell they were always loaded but like I said I am no expert here so am willing to listen/learn.

I have heard Wilt had decent talent and didn't produce enough at time and have thought about moving him down a little bit before tbh. Wouldn't mind someone giving a bit more detail if you know a decent amount of the context/situations.

Edit: Like ya RW had insane RS numbers but come playoffs we see others step up and the gap wasn't nearly this big either. It takes a lot to overcome his lack of production in comparison, especially given the era.

mngopher35
10-19-2017, 04:11 PM
Exactly.. Those guys weren't very talented. Tall but lacking in overall skill. That drop-off is due to the fact that in the playoffs, they are going up against another who poses more competition than the inflated and subsidized averages in the regular season. It's like if LeBron vs the Suns for 100 games in the regular season and then we compare that production to vs Kawhi in ten postseason games. That speaks more of the lack of competition overall than Russell's actual impact.

I mean Wilt had like 3+inches and size on every one of them, they weren't really that big either let alone talented. I don't think it should be overly surprising his numbers would be a bit inflated against some lesser guys like this in comparison to Russell (or just centers of the 90's let's say).

valade16
10-19-2017, 04:23 PM
So Bill wins 11 rings with Wilt's team?

Probably not. But would he win more than 2 rings? Absolutely.

ewing
10-19-2017, 04:31 PM
its amazing how sure you guys know what you are talking about without actually knowing anything.

Hawkeye15
10-19-2017, 04:35 PM
its amazing how sure you guys know what you are talking about without actually knowing anything.

I have over 70,000 posts about nothing. Trust me, I know what I am talking about.

ewing
10-19-2017, 04:36 PM
who was alive to see Russell or Wilt play?

FlashBolt
10-19-2017, 04:38 PM
Probably not. But would he win more than 2 rings? Absolutely.

You said they were similarly talented teams. What changed? Are you advocating that Bill>Wilt in terms of impact? Because if that's what you're saying, then I believe you truly think Bill is a better player than Wilt.

valade16
10-19-2017, 04:44 PM
who was alive to see Russell or Wilt play?

How many of us were alive to see Magic or Bird play (outside of as a young child)?

valade16
10-19-2017, 04:47 PM
You said they were similarly talented teams. What changed? Are you advocating that Bill>Wilt in terms of impact? Because if that's what you're saying, then I believe you truly think Bill is a better player than Wilt.

Many things. Cousy retired and others left the Celtics. For Wilt he was traded from an inferior team to one that was better, then went to LA after that (though LA was primarily after Russell retired).

ewing
10-19-2017, 06:25 PM
How many of us were alive to see Magic or Bird play (outside of as a young child)?

I remember both of them clearly. Particularly the tail end and have watched multiple finals match ups b/t them after the fact plus playoff series of theirs in there entirety after the fact. also many guys that were coming up and played against them in the 2nd half of there careers are right in my wheel house when i was obsessed with basketball. I still don't have as good an understanding of them as players from a slightly late era but it is nothing like acting like I know something about 60's basketball and how it relates to now.

valade16
10-19-2017, 08:16 PM
I remember both of them clearly. Particularly the tail end and have watched multiple finals match ups b/t them after the fact plus playoff series of theirs in there entirety after the fact. also many guys that were coming up and played against them in the 2nd half of there careers are right in my wheel house when i was obsessed with basketball. I still don't have as good an understanding of them as players from a slightly late era but it is nothing like acting like I know something about 60's basketball and how it relates to now.

It sounds like you've watched a lot of their games after the fact. Is it inconceivable that people have watched Russell or Wilt after the fact as well?

ewing
10-19-2017, 08:21 PM
It sounds like you've watched a lot of their games after the fact. Is it inconceivable that people have watched Russell or Wilt after the fact as well?

Pretty much


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

valade16
10-19-2017, 08:25 PM
Pretty much


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol, touché

I do want to point out for those using the argument of "we can't know who was better between Wilt and Russell because we weren't there and didn't see them play" is probably not the best argument when most people who did see them play and was following the NBA at the time consistently ranked Russell over Wilt.

ewing
10-19-2017, 09:22 PM
Lol, touché

I do want to point out for those using the argument of "we can't know who was better between Wilt and Russell because we weren't there and didn't see them play" is probably not the best argument when most people who did see them play and was following the NBA at the time consistently ranked Russell over Wilt.

I saying he is top 5 for that exact reason. I have no idea but they gave him 5 mvps when wilt was playing. Plus he won 11 titles so I guess he was good when it mattered


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

tredigs
10-19-2017, 09:44 PM
I saying he is top 5 for that exact reason. I have no idea but they gave him 5 mvps when wilt was playing. Plus he won 11 titles so I guess he was good when it mattered


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wilt/Pettit/Oscar/West/Reed/Baylor/Hondo, etc etc. Russell was the one considered the GOAT. It's always funny seeing Russell being bashed on this site (certainly not on the far more knowledgeable site) for being the unquestioned best player and leader of his HOF laden squads. And as mentioned earlier, Bill still led the C's to victory when Wilt and co. were more stacked and the series favorites.

Most impactful player of the era by all accounts? Russell. Coolest stats? Wilt.

basch152
10-20-2017, 01:23 AM
Just for some reference I looked up the leading mpg guys in 62 at C. Wilt/Russell then Bellamy then...

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/kerrre01.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/e/embrywa01.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lovelcl01.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordoph01.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/sauldwo01.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/krebsji01.html

That's in order of their mpg for guys listed at C, one of them only was half the season though. Phil Jordon is the only guy even at 6'10 and he weighs 205. Everyone else was like 25 mpg or less. I think it is kinda easy to see why Wilt maybe dominated these guys much much more than an actual elite defender like Russell, I would expect a huge drop in comparison honestly.

thank you. this isn't hard to understand.

some people are just blind.

that comparison was just dumb.

KnicksorBust
10-20-2017, 08:05 AM
Lol indeed. He has no idea what era these guys played in. Suffice to say he has no idea who their teammates were. It's plainly obvious when someone has a narrative in place and just runs with it. There is zero substance behind him and Bach's rhetoric.

I am enjoying the debate anyway but I do think you are right.


Let's be factual here; the majority haven't watched Wilt play nor Bill. Any objections is based off what's available on the internet.

And books. I'll be completely fair and honest. I've only seen a handful of their games. Less than 10 for sure. But I've read a lot of books with first hand accounts and in depth comparisons. There are people that lived through that era and have written about it. Do those hold no weight to you?


If you think you know a player based off what you can google on BBall reference, go for it. But you won't find the guys you saw on the Celtics roster. I love how some of you make it seem that you lived through that era. No, you guys simply googled it because that's the only plausible answer. And it doesn't take a genius to have to Google it to see that Wilt had inferior players to that of Bill. Bill didn't outplay Wilt nor was he a better player than Wilt so how is it Bill didn't have a better team but seemingly won? None of Wilt's team were superteams but Wilt was outplaying Bill. So either Bill is BETTER than Wilt or you guys just refuse to acknowledge a sheer difference in teammates.

DO YOU KNOW WHO WILT PLAYED WITH IN HIS CAREER? That's critical to the whole debate and you dodged it. I know how many hall of famers he played with with Warriors/Sixers/Lakers. I know how good those teams were without googling it. I don't think you do.


I don't have to limit it to three years. You said you had a list... go find it then. Why is it up to me to find every piece of evidence when you throw out generalities?

You made a "generality" that there were only 3 big men in the league. I challenged it. TBH I really don't care about this. Size of players in the league doesn't move the needle for me. Even if I conceded the league was shorter then just because Russell was one of the taller players in the league doesn't make me think we should downgrade his accomplishments anyway. So I'll give you that one if you want so we can move back to Wilt's teammates and shot blocking.


No, I don't. Tim Duncan is arguably the best shot blocker in NBA history because he knew the importance of directing a shot. This isn't some 50-60's run and gun style game where everyone - including guards, were all trying to get as close to the rim and that allowed for block attempts.

This is exactly why you should appreciate Bill Russell compared to Wilt! Wilt was Dwight Howard and Russell was Tim Duncan. Russell's blocks led to fast breaks. Wilt volley balled them into the stands like a goon.


And tredigs seems to be convinced he's adding so much. Talks about substance when his entire presence here is predicated on trying to convince us Draymond is the second-coming of God.. No wonder he loves Bill. He values a guy who just rebounds and defends.

Yeah I'm staying out of this. :)

Chronz
10-20-2017, 10:35 AM
Shaq scored 29.3 PPG in the 95 regular season and peak Hakeem held him to 29 PPG in the Finals.
Wilt scored 50 PPG in the 62 regular season and peak Russell held him to 33 PPG in the Finals.

If Hakeem can provide the same defensive impact how come Russell could limit Wilt far better than Hakeem could limit Shaq?

As for the Rodman comment, wanna guess how well Rodman would do against Wilt lol?

This debate needed me, yes Russ could limit Wilt, sometimes as a help defender when his team had that brick of a man who's name escapes me right now.
But that series you speak of is a testament to why stats need context. I believe it was Hannum iirc but he advised Wilt to change his game going into the playoffs. Similar to how Kobe averaged 35ppg in the regular season only to have one of his least impressive series from an individual perspective against the not at all defensively oriented suns.

Vee-Rex
10-20-2017, 10:39 AM
who was alive to see Russell or Wilt play?

Scientists tell me that consciousness doesn't die so I was alive at the time I just didn't have a physical body yet.

So I know what I'm talking about

Chronz
10-20-2017, 11:02 AM
When you watch as much ball as we have do you guys really retain anything past this decade with complete confidence? Sure we remember a few moments but does anything beyond the rudimentary descriptions survive?

Hawkeye15
10-20-2017, 11:02 AM
When you watch as much ball as we have do you guys really retain anything past this decade. Sure we remember a few moments but does anything beyond the rudimentary descriptions survive?

it all jumbles together at some point.

ewing
10-20-2017, 11:39 AM
When you watch as much ball as we have do you guys really retain anything past this decade with complete confidence? Sure we remember a few moments but does anything beyond the rudimentary descriptions survive?

You certainly lose detail but I think you retain the big picture.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

valade16
10-20-2017, 12:23 PM
Just for some reference I looked up the leading mpg guys in 62 at C. Wilt/Russell then Bellamy then...

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/kerrre01.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/e/embrywa01.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lovelcl01.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jordoph01.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/sauldwo01.html

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/k/krebsji01.html

That's in order of their mpg for guys listed at C, one of them only was half the season though. Phil Jordon is the only guy even at 6'10 and he weighs 205. Everyone else was like 25 mpg or less. I think it is kinda easy to see why Wilt maybe dominated these guys much much more than an actual elite defender like Russell, I would expect a huge drop in comparison honestly.

Well in 66 Wilt still led the league in PPG at 33.5 with a .547 TS% and the league had Russell, Bellamy, Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond and Jerry Lucas and Russell held Wilt to 28 PPG and a .509 TS%. And that was when Wilt had Hal Greer and Chet Walker (and a young Billy Cunningham).

That year Russell averaged 12.9 PPG, 22.8 RPG, 4.8 APG, and .448 TS% in the regular season and vs Wilt in the playoffs he averaged 14 PPG, 26.2 RPG, 5.6 APG (led the team in APG) and had a .470 TS%.

So even in a more competitive league of big men, Russell was outperforming his regular season vs Wilt whereas Wilt was underperforming.

mngopher35
10-20-2017, 01:17 PM
Well in 66 Wilt still led the league in PPG at 33.5 with a .547 TS% and the league had Russell, Bellamy, Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond and Jerry Lucas and Russell held Wilt to 28 PPG and a .509 TS%. And that was when Wilt had Hal Greer and Chet Walker (and a young Billy Cunningham).

That year Russell averaged 12.9 PPG, 22.8 RPG, 4.8 APG, and .448 TS% in the regular season and vs Wilt in the playoffs he averaged 14 PPG, 26.2 RPG, 5.6 APG (led the team in APG) and had a .470 TS%.

So even in a more competitive league of big men, Russell was outperforming his regular season vs Wilt whereas Wilt was underperforming.

I can see that given I was pointing out his numbers were likely inflated a bit then haha. I am not saying they only faced chumps throughout their career but you were using that season specifically to point out the drop and it seems obvious to me Russell held him down in comparison because of the lack of talent/ability to inflate stats on them. I question where to put Wilt more on my lists more than Russell probably. I think there is definitely some validity to his selfishness etc. and I think the MVP's by the players might even be an example of how it rubbed people the wrong way. I get the argument with BR's defense/leadership/accolades but I put a little less emphasis on team accolades and more on individual ability/impact. Russell/Wilt are players I have seen only games here and there of though, just a few series total overall so its much tougher to judge.

While players did love Russell and voted him MVP, how many former players have we heard say thing like 5> whatever when talking Kobe etc.? I think I understand why players wouldn't vote for a stat padding 50 point player and instead give it to best player on best team who they respect type of thing. Wilt generally got the 1st team Center though I think it was like 8 to 3. So I don't think it was just a given Russell was thought of as better, I think the accolades etc. can come partially from respect/top team/top player type stuff throughout the league with him.

I do think Russell was a great defender/leader/able to raise his ability/team when it mattered and him going next is just fine with me. I just think his offense holds him back compared to other guys here in a clear way and balance that with everything he does have including accolades even if I question them a tad.

valade16
10-20-2017, 01:51 PM
I can see that given I was pointing out his numbers were likely inflated a bit then haha. I am not saying they only faced chumps throughout their career but you were using that season specifically to point out the drop and it seems obvious to me Russell held him down in comparison because of the lack of talent/ability to inflate stats on them. I question where to put Wilt more on my lists more than Russell probably. I think there is definitely some validity to his selfishness etc. and I think the MVP's by the players might even be an example of how it rubbed people the wrong way. I get the argument with BR's defense/leadership/accolades but I put a little less emphasis on team accolades and more on individual ability/impact. Russell/Wilt are players I have seen only games here and there of though, just a few series total overall so its much tougher to judge.

While players did love Russell and voted him MVP, how many former players have we heard say thing like 5> whatever when talking Kobe etc.? I think I understand why players wouldn't vote for a stat padding 50 point player and instead give it to best player on best team who they respect type of thing. Wilt generally got the 1st team Center though I think it was like 8 to 3. So I don't think it was just a given Russell was thought of as better, I think the accolades etc. can come partially from respect/top team/top player type stuff throughout the league with him.

I do think Russell was a great defender/leader/able to raise his ability/team when it mattered and him going next is just fine with me. I just think his offense holds him back compared to other guys here in a clear way and balance that with everything he does have including accolades even if I question them a tad.

But why are we assuming the only way to impact offense is via scoring?

in 64, 65, 66, 68 and 69 Russell was 2nd on the team in APG. In 1967 he led the Celtics in APG at 5.8 (next most was 5.0). Clearly the offense ran through him as a passer in later years, and that doesn't even count that he intentionally swatted his blocks to his teammates to spur the fast break.

Not many C's in history have led their team in assists. Certainly nobody would say Jokic for example isn't effecting the offense because he only scored 16.7 PPG last season. His passing was a big reason the Nuggets were 4th in Ortg and his overall impact is reflected by his monster BPM and VORP.

Now imagine if Jokic had Russell's defense and rebounding and you're telling me there's no way he could be the best player in the league because he doesn't score a bunch? I think if Jokic could provide elite level defense and rebounding on top of his passing, he'd be viewed as one of the Top 5 best players in the league easily.

KnicksorBust
10-20-2017, 02:23 PM
But why are we assuming the only way to impact offense is via scoring?

in 64, 65, 66, 68 and 69 Russell was 2nd on the team in APG. In 1967 he led the Celtics in APG at 5.8 (next most was 5.0). Clearly the offense ran through him as a passer in later years, and that doesn't even count that he intentionally swatted his blocks to his teammates to spur the fast break.

Not many C's in history have led their team in assists. Certainly nobody would say Jokic for example isn't effecting the offense because he only scored 16.7 PPG last season. His passing was a big reason the Nuggets were 4th in Ortg and his overall impact is reflected by his monster BPM and VORP.

Now imagine if Jokic had Russell's defense and rebounding and you're telling me there's no way he could be the best player in the league because he doesn't score a bunch? I think if Jokic could provide elite level defense and rebounding on top of his passing, he'd be viewed as one of the Top 5 best players in the league easily.

x2.

People forget how much harder it was to get an assist during that era too. Go watch a game from 1960. Bob Cousy led the league in assists with 7.1apg while the Celtics were averaging 110ppg. Does that sound right to anyone? I really think if stats would kept the same Russell would have been averaging someone around 7-8apg with 6-7 bpg. Just absurd numbers. His assists were artifically deflated and his blocks weren't even tracked. He (and Wilt) would have been getting QUADRUPLE DOUBLES frequently throughout the season.

FlashBolt
10-20-2017, 02:28 PM
They voted Russ MVP because it was more of his social impact than anything... let's be honest.

tredigs
10-20-2017, 02:34 PM
Lmao. Annnnnd we've officially heard it all. If anybody who uses sig's wants to quote for stupidity now is the time.

mngopher35
10-20-2017, 02:46 PM
I can see that given I was pointing out his numbers were likely inflated a bit then haha. I am not saying they only faced chumps throughout their career but you were using that season specifically to point out the drop and it seems obvious to me Russell held him down in comparison because of the lack of talent/ability to inflate stats on them. I question where to put Wilt more on my lists more than Russell probably. I think there is definitely some validity to his selfishness etc. and I think the MVP's by the players might even be an example of how it rubbed people the wrong way. I get the argument with BR's defense/leadership/accolades but I put a little less emphasis on team accolades and more on individual ability/impact. Russell/Wilt are players I have seen only games here and there of though, just a few series total overall so its much tougher to judge.

While players did love Russell and voted him MVP, how many former players have we heard say thing like 5> whatever when talking Kobe etc.? I think I understand why players wouldn't vote for a stat padding 50 point player and instead give it to best player on best team who they respect type of thing. Wilt generally got the 1st team Center though I think it was like 8 to 3. So I don't think it was just a given Russell was thought of as better, I think the accolades etc. can come partially from respect/top team/top player type stuff throughout the league with him.

I do think Russell was a great defender/leader/able to raise his ability/team when it mattered and him going next is just fine with me. I just think his offense holds him back compared to other guys here in a clear way and balance that with everything he does have including accolades even if I question them a tad.

But why are we assuming the only way to impact offense is via scoring?

in 64, 65, 66, 68 and 69 Russell was 2nd on the team in APG. In 1967 he led the Celtics in APG at 5.8 (next most was 5.0). Clearly the offense ran through him as a passer in later years, and that doesn't even count that he intentionally swatted his blocks to his teammates to spur the fast break.

Not many C's in history have led their team in assists. Certainly nobody would say Jokic for example isn't effecting the offense because he only scored 16.7 PPG last season. His passing was a big reason the Nuggets were 4th in Ortg and his overall impact is reflected by his monster BPM and VORP.

Now imagine if Jokic had Russell's defense and rebounding and you're telling me there's no way he could be the best player in the league because he doesn't score a bunch? I think if Jokic could provide elite level defense and rebounding on top of his passing, he'd be viewed as one of the Top 5 best players in the league easily.

It isn't just scoring and he was a good distributor for sure but this is top 10 player level lol his offense wasn't there. Scoring is bad comparatively and as a playmaker he was very good. Most of the guys we are talking about here are capable of both and do one at an elite level.

I mean kg was a great athletic defender/rebounder who could distribute well and scored better but his offense holds him back a bit still from this level. I am not saying bill sucked because he couldn't score I am just saying his overall offense just isn't at the same level as a guy like Hakeem who was at least close one e other end (and offense is more important IMO individually)

valade16
10-20-2017, 03:13 PM
It isn't just scoring and he was a good distributor for sure but this is top 10 player level lol his offense wasn't there. Scoring is bad comparatively and as a playmaker he was very good. Most of the guys we are talking about here are capable of both and do one at an elite level.

I mean kg was a great athletic defender/rebounder who could distribute well and scored better but his offense holds him back a bit still from this level. I am not saying bill sucked because he couldn't score I am just saying his overall offense just isn't at the same level as a guy like Hakeem who was at least close one e other end (and offense is more important IMO individually)

Shouldn't top 10 level be who provides top 10 level impact? Magic Johnson certainly didn't provide Top 10 level defense, so how come he can get in with such a glaringly obvious deficiency on one side of the court?

tredigs
10-20-2017, 03:52 PM
it all jumbles together at some point.

I mean you just gotta re-watch the old games here and there. I remember a little bit of Bird/Magic around the same time as the Battle of the Bay World Series, but one of my favorite things to do when I'm chilling is just go on YouTube and play a random old playoff game. I've actually got the Bulls '92 G6 Finals against Portland on right now on my side TV. It brings back a ton of memories for games like this, and for the older games a ton of context.

mngopher35
10-20-2017, 03:57 PM
Shouldn't top 10 level be who provides top 10 level impact? Magic Johnson certainly didn't provide Top 10 level defense, so how come he can get in with such a glaringly obvious deficiency on one side of the court?

I have already stated I prefer individual dominance offensively and he was a top 5 or so player on that end while being capable on defense (like Russell is on offense). I have Magic just a little bit higher because of that, it still comes down to a lack of offensive impact. There is for sure a balance here but guys like Gobert or Marc Gasol etc. aren't seen in the same light as like a Curry/Harden/Westbrook etc. Not saying that's BR as he can obviously have more impact than those guys but they are DPOY candidate guys and Marc has a nice impact offensively which could be considered somewhat similar. It's just to say that while both are lacking on one end of the court in a sense, Bill is lacking on the most important for an individual so it puts him a little lower

I do think it should be who had top 10 level impact and no one else has given me anyone else even remotely this high with as limited of an offensive game. I think his impact on the offensive end is a bit too low to be placed quite this high, that's been my key point. I am just fine with him over Kobe for 10 so I guess he doesn't get left out but in comparison to the people picked before him I think it's enough to hold him back to that spot.

valade16
10-20-2017, 04:17 PM
I mean you just gotta re-watch the old games here and there. I remember a little bit of Bird/Magic around the same time as the Battle of the Bay World Series, but one of my favorite things to do when I'm chilling is just go on YouTube and play a random old playoff game. I've actually got the Bulls '92 G6 Finals against Portland on right now on my side TV. It brings back a ton of memories for games like this, and for the older games a ton of context.

I watch hardwood classics all the time. Great stuff seeing those old games.

tredigs
10-20-2017, 06:38 PM
I watch hardwood classics all the time. Great stuff seeing those old games.

The best. Watching Finals G1 of the Magic's Lakers V the '91 Bulls now. Just watching the 1st quarter you can fully remember just how incredible MJ was on both ends of the floor.