PDA

View Full Version : PSD NBA All-Time Player Power Rankings: #10



mrblisterdundee
10-20-2017, 01:06 PM
Hakeem Olajuwon barely beat out Bill Russell last round. This round I added Charles Barkley, who was ranked 18th by ESPN's #NBARank (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarank160204/all-nbarank-16-20), to the player pool. Voting lasts two days.

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
9. Hakeem Olajuwon

mrblisterdundee
10-20-2017, 01:16 PM
I decided Russell should be in the top 10. His accomplishments are overrated by his being on an stacked team over most of his career in an easier era with less competition and fewer games, but he was still one of the best defenders in NBA history and a rebounding savant.

mngopher35
10-20-2017, 01:25 PM
Wow no David Robinson or KG with some of the other guys listed? interesting list there, just noticed that.

I think this is probably gonna go to BR, someone gonna make a case for Kobe?

mrblisterdundee
10-20-2017, 01:38 PM
Wow no David Robinson or KG with some of the other guys listed? interesting list there, just noticed that.

I think this is probably gonna go to BR, someone gonna make a case for Kobe?

I'm thinking of going to 20 on this list. I'll probably restart the active player ranking thread too and go to 20.

Hawkeye15
10-20-2017, 01:51 PM
Either Russell or Kobe here.

Hawkeye15
10-20-2017, 01:55 PM
I decided Russell should be in the top 10. His accomplishments are overrated by his being on an stacked team over most of his career in an easier era with less competition and fewer games, but he was still one of the best defenders in NBA history and a rebounding savant.

was he as good of a rebounder as Wilt, or Rodman? Reggie Evans? Danny Fortson? Kevin Love, or Andre Drummond?

We don't have rebound rates from Russell's day, but at the possession count, and how many minutes he played, I would guess that while he was an awesome rebounder, it's yet again a part of his game people overrate.

That being said, now is about the position I struggle bumping him any further from.

europagnpilgrim
10-20-2017, 02:09 PM
I decided Russell should be in the top 10. His accomplishments are overrated by his being on an stacked team over most of his career in an easier era with less competition and fewer games, but he was still one of the best defenders in NBA history and a rebounding savant.

Bill Russell is easily top 10 all time, especially when you factor in the rings hype(Jordan 6 vs 11) that put others on a high pedestal but then for some reason it doesn't fit well for others who have titles, especially more than Jordan and who was the main key to it, not talking about guys like Horry or those others back in that time with Russell, and not guys like Kerr/Fisher who have 5 rings as well, Russell has rings for both hands and a toe as the alpha, if you add his NCAA total the guy won 13 titles in a 15yr span, unreal and I don't give a damn what era he played in

Russell could have easily averaged 24-25ppg(as he did head to head vs Wilt) but he was willing to do whatever it took to make sure others got off, he was basically the head coach/PointCenter/defensive anchor/emotional-backbone-heart&soul

his team won 8 in a row and I don't care how many teams are in the league back then or now because having more teams doesn't make it tougher it only was done to make more money because right now its the Warriors vs the field of 30 other teams, which to me is worse and watered more down

its like when Tiger was on his AAA+ golf game and it was always Tiger vs the field, like nobody else had a chance because he was that dominant or was the golf league weak as a whole since nobody could challenge the young Tiger? that made golf boring but still you wanted to watch Tiger regardless, that's how it kind of feels right now in the nba like I am sure it felt that way to Wilt and the other teams back in the 60's chasing Russell

outside shot at winning is Cavs and to a lesser degree the Spurs and dangerous darkhorses like a Rockets/Thunder, which makes it a total of 5 teams out of 30plus to have a shot at a title, which is still not a strong league if you really think about it

its just as less competition with more games played in todays era once you wrap your mind around it and take out the emotions

europagnpilgrim
10-20-2017, 02:18 PM
was he as good of a rebounder as Wilt, or Rodman? Reggie Evans? Danny Fortson? Kevin Love, or Andre Drummond?

We don't have rebound rates from Russell's day, but at the possession count, and how many minutes he played, I would guess that while he was an awesome rebounder, it's yet again a part of his game people overrate.

That being said, now is about the position I struggle bumping him any further from.

he was a better rebounder than those last 4 guys you named, those first two are on his level with Wilt being on a higher level, nobody is on Wilt level when speaking about rebounding/holding the paint down, MDE

KnicksorBust
10-20-2017, 02:24 PM
Russell. But Kobe not being in the top 10 really irks me.

europagnpilgrim
10-20-2017, 02:26 PM
Hakeem Olajuwon barely beat out Bill Russell last round. This round I added Charles Barkley, who was ranked 18th by ESPN's #NBARank (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/nbarank160204/all-nbarank-16-20), to the player pool. Voting lasts two days.

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
9. Hakeem Olajuwon

Bird is not top 10 in my book of the best/most dominant to ever play, see the Rodman quote for my reasoning, the most honest on point quote from a player to a player, if Bird was melanin/carbon he would just be another player, Rodman is 1000000pct correct

when making a all time best 10 players ranking, you have to consider who you would draft first overall to lead your franchise from scratch and its 10 players easily I would take over Bird, easily

valade16
10-20-2017, 02:26 PM
It's also pretty obvious that whether people are conscious of it or not, rings matter to people when determining.

If you look at players who led their team here are the top players by rings:

Russell 11
Kareem 6
MJ 6
Kobe 5
Duncan 5
Magic 5
Shaq 4
Larry 3
LeBron 3

All 9 of them will be ranked in the top 11 all-time. Yet players like CP3, KG, Malone, Barkley, Robinson, etc. have better stats than many of the guys ranked above.

Whether we want to admit it or not, rings are definitely a factor in our ranking system.

valade16
10-20-2017, 02:27 PM
Russell. But Kobe not being in the top 10 really irks me.

I always say there are 11 guys worthy of being Top 10, so the question is, who gets left out, or who would you replace Kobe with in the Top 10?

KnicksorBust
10-20-2017, 02:29 PM
was he as good of a rebounder as Wilt, or Rodman? Reggie Evans? Danny Fortson? Kevin Love, or Andre Drummond?

We don't have rebound rates from Russell's day, but at the possession count, and how many minutes he played, I would guess that while he was an awesome rebounder, it's yet again a part of his game people overrate.

That being said, now is about the position I struggle bumping him any further from.

Wilt? Of course. Rodman? Because it's rebounding, fine. Those other names are garbage. How many of them were top 3 in rebounding for a decade straight?

KnicksorBust
10-20-2017, 02:31 PM
I always say there are 11 guys worthy of being Top 10, so the question is, who gets left out, or who would you replace Kobe with in the Top 10?

Hakeem! Didn't you see me trying to block him in the other thread? :)

FlashBolt
10-20-2017, 02:33 PM
It's also pretty obvious that whether people are conscious of it or not, rings matter to people when determining.

If you look at players who led their team here are the top players by rings:

Russell 11
Kareem 6
MJ 6
Kobe 5
Duncan 5
Magic 5
Shaq 4
Larry 3
LeBron 3

All 9 of them will be ranked in the top 11 all-time. Yet players like CP3, KG, Malone, Barkley, Robinson, etc. have better stats than many of the guys ranked above.

Whether we want to admit it or not, rings are definitely a factor in our ranking system.

Well, you're trying to make it seem as if stats are the only measure.. why is it guys like KG are ranked over Wade despite KG having one ring? I can use that same argument to debunk what you're proposing. Stats, rings, accomplishments, era, generation, competition. Btw, did you leave Wilt out of that list intentionally? Most people would take Wilt over Russ because he was such a force on both ends. You can take Bill for leadership but he was not better than Wilt.

FlashBolt
10-20-2017, 02:37 PM
Wilt? Of course. Rodman? Because it's rebounding, fine. Those other names are garbage. How many of them were top 3 in rebounding for a decade straight?

Jerry Lucas averaged nearly 20 rebounds per game. Safe to say Love would average more... Does Bill lead the league today in rebounding or does he rebound even close to how he did during his days? You can't say X can't do this because of Y but not apply that to Bill. Does BILL average those absurd numbers in TODAY'S game? No. Not even close. Does Wilt average THOSE numbers? Nope. But he was so much better than the rest that he would have been able to put up absurd numbers in any era.

KnicksorBust
10-20-2017, 02:44 PM
Jerry Lucas averaged nearly 20 rebounds per game. Safe to say Love would average more

Okay? What does that prove?


Does Bill lead the league today in rebounding or does he rebound even close to how he did during his days?

He wouldn't have as many rebounds because the pace of the game has changed. There are less possesions. I don't see any reason why he can't lead the league in rebounds though. Do you believe Wilt Chamberlain could lead the league in rebounds? Because there were years Russell averaged more than Wilt so if Wilt could do it then Russell could do it.


You can't say X can't do this because of Y but not apply that to Bill.

When did I do that?


Does BILL average those absurd numbers in TODAY'S game? No. Not even close.

I agree. I never said he would? :confused:


Does Wilt average THOSE numbers? Nope.

And this proves what?

FlashBolt
10-20-2017, 02:52 PM
Okay? What does that prove?



He wouldn't have as many rebounds because the pace of the game has changed. There are less possesions. I don't see any reason why he can't lead the league in rebounds though. Do you believe Wilt Chamberlain could lead the league in rebounds? Because there were years Russell averaged more than Wilt so if Wilt could do it then Russell could do it.



When did I do that?



I agree. I never said he would? :confused:



And this proves what?

Lol, no point with you at all. You agree and disagree on the same topic which just makes zero sense at this point. The fact is, Bill and Wilt would not average those insane numbers = inflated numbers = not against the best competition = Bill's and Wilt's careers are nearly impossible to judge but considering Wilt was more dominant on both ends, he is the outlier of that generation. Nothing else needs to be said. Literally, fifty years later and you're trying to convince us what about Bill, exactly? Nearly everyone agrees he won't win 11 rings in his generation and he sure as hell ain't winning 11 rings in today's generation just playing defense. This subject is getting pointless.

mngopher35
10-20-2017, 02:56 PM
I'm just gonna vote BR no point in waiting on this one

Hawkeye15
10-20-2017, 03:03 PM
he was a better rebounder than those last 4 guys you named, those first two are on his level with Wilt being on a higher level, nobody is on Wilt level when speaking about rebounding/holding the paint down, MDE

but how do we know? By minutes/possessions, was Russell really grabbing rebounds at the rate those guys I listed are? RR is not the end all be all either, many teams kind of design funneling to certain players/areas.

I just hate when people go, "welp, he averaged 20 rpg, must have been amazing".

Though even translated for minutes/pace, he averaged around 13.5-ish rebounds a game if he played in the last 20 years. That is still pretty damn awesome

Hawkeye15
10-20-2017, 03:04 PM
It's also pretty obvious that whether people are conscious of it or not, rings matter to people when determining.

If you look at players who led their team here are the top players by rings:

Russell 11
Kareem 6
MJ 6
Kobe 5
Duncan 5
Magic 5
Shaq 4
Larry 3
LeBron 3

All 9 of them will be ranked in the top 11 all-time. Yet players like CP3, KG, Malone, Barkley, Robinson, etc. have better stats than many of the guys ranked above.

Whether we want to admit it or not, rings are definitely a factor in our ranking system.

well, those guys were all the biggest reason they have those rings, and showed up many times when it counted most. That is why a CP3 will never be top 20. He just doesn't show up when needed most. KG has a ring, but he wasn't a playoff killer. Those guys you listed are playoff killers, and have the hardware to show for it. Seriously, EVERY single player you listed had playoff feats everyone knows about.

Hawkeye15
10-20-2017, 03:06 PM
Wilt? Of course. Rodman? Because it's rebounding, fine. Those other names are garbage. How many of them were top 3 in rebounding for a decade straight?

yeah, it is impressive. Though the big man moving away from the rim has hurt guys like Love for instance. Badly. That and he shares the floor with LeBron/Thompson, who both rebound well. Looking through Russell's teams, its as if his teammates just let him gobble up everything haha

FlashBolt
10-20-2017, 03:14 PM
but how do we know? By minutes/possessions, was Russell really grabbing rebounds at the rate those guys I listed are? RR is not the end all be all either, many teams kind of design funneling to certain players/areas.

I just hate when people go, "welp, he averaged 20 rpg, must have been amazing".

Though even translated for minutes/pace, he averaged around 13.5-ish rebounds a game if he played in the last 20 years. That is still pretty damn awesome

In Bill's best rebounding season, he grabbed 34% of his team's rebounds. In Love's best rebounding season, he grabbed 34% of his team's rebounds. There's more factors to involve here, obviously. Things like minutes played, who they're playing against, height, how many long range shots are being shot (they bounce farther from the basket). I mean, Rodman grabbed 42% of his team's rebounds - which blows away Bill's best. And Bill played 45 minutes that season... which meant that he was almost always on the court when there was a rebound to be had. That season where Love averaged 34% of his team's rebounds, he only played 36 minutes.

FlashBolt
10-20-2017, 03:27 PM
yeah, it is impressive. Though the big man moving away from the rim has hurt guys like Love for instance. Badly. That and he shares the floor with LeBron/Thompson, who both rebound well. Looking through Russell's teams, its as if his teammates just let him gobble up everything haha

Don't forget the implementation of the three point shot where the shots are going to bounce further from the basket where guards are more likely to chew up the rebound. I mean, just take a look at today compared to the 2000 year. The best rebounding guard that year, Gary Payton, would average 7.4 per 48 minutes. That wouldn't even rank top 20 today. Russ grabbed 15 per 48 last season. Rebounding numbers have been the highest since 25 years ago due to a quicker pace in more teams releasing the ball for a three rather than pounding the ball to the basket every play but most of those rebounds have gone to guards.

valade16
10-20-2017, 03:32 PM
well, those guys were all the biggest reason they have those rings, and showed up many times when it counted most. That is why a CP3 will never be top 20. He just doesn't show up when needed most. KG has a ring, but he wasn't a playoff killer. Those guys you listed are playoff killers, and have the hardware to show for it. Seriously, EVERY single player you listed had playoff feats everyone knows about.

EDIT: NM, getting my conversations mixed up lol.

Hawkeye15
10-20-2017, 03:58 PM
Don't forget the implementation of the three point shot where the shots are going to bounce further from the basket where guards are more likely to chew up the rebound. I mean, just take a look at today compared to the 2000 year. The best rebounding guard that year, Gary Payton, would average 7.4 per 48 minutes. That wouldn't even rank top 20 today. Russ grabbed 15 per 48 last season. Rebounding numbers have been the highest since 25 years ago due to a quicker pace in more teams releasing the ball for a three rather than pounding the ball to the basket every play but most of those rebounds have gone to guards.

good point. Didn't even think of that.

mrblisterdundee
10-20-2017, 04:33 PM
Whether we want to admit it or not, rings are definitely a factor in our ranking system.

And teams are a pretty big factor in getting those teams. Russell was great, but he played on probably the most stacked team the NBA had seen until the present-day Warriors, in a league with fewer teams and less talent overall. That's why he has so many rings. Put 30 other talented dudes with Russell's same skill set on those teams, and they'd also probably have a ton of rings.


was he as good of a rebounder as Wilt, or Rodman? Reggie Evans? Danny Fortson? Kevin Love, or Andre Drummond?
We don't have rebound rates from Russell's day, but at the possession count, and how many minutes he played, I would guess that while he was an awesome rebounder, it's yet again a part of his game people overrate.
That being said, now is about the position I struggle bumping him any further from.

I just argued last thread about how overrated his accomplishments are, and how there's nothing to stop Rodman from filling the same role on those stacked Celtics teams. I don't think Rodman would have ever blocked shots like Russell, but I also don't think Russell could have defended all five positions as well as Rodman.

valade16
10-20-2017, 04:52 PM
And teams are a pretty big factor in getting those teams. Russell was great, but he played on probably the most stacked team the NBA had seen until the present-day Warriors, in a league with fewer teams and less talent overall. That's why he has so many rings. Put 30 other talented dudes with Russell's same skill set on those teams, and they'd also probably have a ton of rings.

I just argued last thread about how overrated his accomplishments are, and how there's nothing to stop Rodman from filling the same role on those stacked Celtics teams. I don't think Rodman would have ever blocked shots like Russell, but I also don't think Russell could have defended all five positions as well as Rodman.

What years? His teams were no more stacked from about 1965 on than most other dominant teams in NBA history (significantly less than many as a matter of fact).

In 1966 he played with 3 other Hall of Famers, John Havlicek, Sam Jones and KC Jones. KC Jones averaged 7 PPG over his career and never averaged over 10 PPG and certainly would not be a Hall of Famer had he not played on Russell's Celtics and won all those rings.

He beat Wilt's 76ers while Wilt also played with 3 other Hall of Famers: Hal Greer, Chet Walker and Billy Cunningham.

Even number of Hall of Fame support, Bill won. The Celtics then went on to beat the Lakers who featured 3 Hall of Famers in Jerry West, Elgin Baylor and Gail Goodrich. During that series Russell led the Celtics in scoring at 23.6 PPG on 53.8% FG and 74% FT.

He did the same thing in 1968 and 1969. Russell won titles even when his team wasn't more stacked than the other contenders.

europagnpilgrim
10-20-2017, 05:04 PM
Jerry Lucas averaged nearly 20 rebounds per game. Safe to say Love would average more... Does Bill lead the league today in rebounding or does he rebound even close to how he did during his days? You can't say X can't do this because of Y but not apply that to Bill. Does BILL average those absurd numbers in TODAY'S game? No. Not even close. Does Wilt average THOSE numbers? Nope. But he was so much better than the rest that he would have been able to put up absurd numbers in any era.

For how long did he avg 20 rebounds per game? that means a lot, you have to do it at least for a decade strong to be considered something special in my eyes, Bill would most definitely be in the top 2-3 annually for rebounds and blocks and charges, he would be Draymond/Rodman on superroids without the 3pt shot, and seeing the pagan hate climate that it was back then he and Wilt were 50x mentally stronger than any of todays or in between athletes, Russell was hated by the fanbase that he won 11 rings for, imagine that

So if Jordan and Kobe put up 35 and 37ppg you don't think Wilt couldn't average 40ppg in todays game? Wilt would average those numbers easily, does Jordan or Kobe avg those per game averages back then in the baby infant stages of perimeter play? I highly doubt it so it works both ways


In todays game Booker went for 70pts, a little while back Kobe dropped 81, Robinson had like 72 so I am pretty sure what you see today mirrors what was back then(Wilt) except Wilt would or could drop those type of numbers at will if he truly wanted to, and he could have done that in any era except the newer era wouldn't allow it for embarrassment purposes so we wouldn't get to see the 100pt game but he would own the 70-80pt games, easily

if Wilt would have been drafted in the 70's he would have owned it more than Jabbar and that is about as hard to do as anything but he was that damn dominant

europagnpilgrim
10-20-2017, 05:22 PM
In Bill's best rebounding season, he grabbed 34% of his team's rebounds. In Love's best rebounding season, he grabbed 34% of his team's rebounds. There's more factors to involve here, obviously. Things like minutes played, who they're playing against, height, how many long range shots are being shot (they bounce farther from the basket). I mean, Rodman grabbed 42% of his team's rebounds - which blows away Bill's best. And Bill played 45 minutes that season... which meant that he was almost always on the court when there was a rebound to be had. That season where Love averaged 34% of his team's rebounds, he only played 36 minutes.

So is it a players fault that he is built and conditioned to play longer minutes than others? if Russell can play those 45minutes then Love and Rodman and whoever else should be able to do it as well, especially in the new advanced age of nutrition and blah blah blah(fill in the blahs)

is it easier to pad stats against 32 mostly watered down teams or 16 strong to superstrong teams? you know if the league was 16 teams it would be way more battles of elite players on a regular and then you would see who was who and what is what, Bill played the cream of the crop back then, its a reason why Russell told Jordan that Paxson wouldn't have been able to save him in 93' because he wouldn't have been able to make the roster back then

Did Love have any other double digit rebounder mates while he was with TWolves? that plays a factor into rebounds as well, and also guys like Rodman are just that, strictly rebound/defense purpose, Love was a scorer/rebounder minus the elite defense

Russell was the head coach/anchor of defense/initiator of offense and the vocal and emotional super leader back then when you got called that N word(though its origins mean King/Emperor/Queen, but many have no clue) for just walking down the street, so to me he had way more on his plate and he did it at the highest level, he was right under Wilt as far as being a freak athlete, Russell is mightily underrated especially by those who use the same standards to boost up certain players

from now on lets just say pick your favorite 10 players because the best most dominant players don't get judged properly because of all the agendas people have, and the media is the biggest hoax/propaganda that you can imagine, everybody looks at a media outlet list and takes it like its the holy grail when its far from it

europagnpilgrim
10-20-2017, 05:35 PM
well, those guys were all the biggest reason they have those rings, and showed up many times when it counted most. That is why a CP3 will never be top 20. He just doesn't show up when needed most. KG has a ring, but he wasn't a playoff killer. Those guys you listed are playoff killers, and have the hardware to show for it. Seriously, EVERY single player you listed had playoff feats everyone knows about.

That's where you are buying into the media frenzy of picking and choosing, when you get some free time go and watch those hardwood classics and you will see many a times that Pippen saved those playoff games and iced them with put back tips/dunks/timely shots, we all know Kukoc bailed out Jordan in that 98' series vs Pacers in game 7, Grant/Cartwright/Pippen anchored that first 3peat(defensively) and the biggest reason Jordan won in 91' was because he got to face the elderly one leg version of the Lakers instead of the better Portland team that year

all those guys on that list had guys who contribute that don't show up in stat sheet or highlight but if you watch the games you would be like damn Jordan or Magic or whoever wouldn't have won ****, its just like how everyone says Magic is the best PG ever but if you don't watch the game you wouldn't see others actually bringing the ball up running PG while sharing the same floor with Magic

Lebron needed all the help he could get to win the Finals and I remember when Rio/Miller/Battier went stupid ape **** from long distance to clinch the title which is just as important, but I get it that they are the brand/household/box office names, and individually they all put in work to put themselves in position to be that media brand

the title teams other players showed up just as much

if CP3 is a top 5 PG ever then someone may have him in the top 20

So KG not being a playoff killer means what? I mean the dude balled out in Minny for a decade plus and the team outside of the early big 3 of Guggs/Marbury/KG and that 04' team they weren't equipped to do much in the playoffs or even make it for that matter, but KG showed up

even Kerr has feats in playoffs I recall, that dagger against Utah in I think 97' and those daggers he put through Jersey with the Spurs

every single player on that list had some of the best teammates/players in the league, from top to bottom, and HOF level coaches to add to it(minus Lebron who didn't)

europagnpilgrim
10-20-2017, 05:38 PM
The Truth is always in the building, you know that Flashlight

thanks for the shoutout, now refute what I say with your facts, hurry up time is money

FlashBolt
10-20-2017, 05:39 PM
The conspiracy theorist is here!

europagnpilgrim
10-20-2017, 05:40 PM
no, wilt couldn't average 40 ppg in today's NBA.

he also would average less than 15 rpg.


no he would avg 40ppg and 18-20rpg, easily

he was way back in the 60's and he is still the best most naturally gifted athlete ever, in any sport

europagnpilgrim
10-20-2017, 05:40 PM
The conspiracy theorist is here!

The Truth is always in the building, you know that Flashlight

thanks for the shoutout, now refute what I say with your facts, hurry up time is money

basch152
10-20-2017, 05:42 PM
For how long did he avg 20 rebounds per game? that means a lot, you have to do it at least for a decade strong to be considered something special in my eyes, Bill would most definitely be in the top 2-3 annually for rebounds and blocks and charges, he would be Draymond/Rodman on superroids without the 3pt shot, and seeing the pagan hate climate that it was back then he and Wilt were 50x mentally stronger than any of todays or in between athletes, Russell was hated by the fanbase that he won 11 rings for, imagine that

So if Jordan and Kobe put up 35 and 37ppg you don't think Wilt couldn't average 40ppg in todays game? Wilt would average those numbers easily, does Jordan or Kobe avg those per game averages back then in the baby infant stages of perimeter play? I highly doubt it so it works both ways


In todays game Booker went for 70pts, a little while back Kobe dropped 81, Robinson had like 72 so I am pretty sure what you see today mirrors what was back then(Wilt) except Wilt would or could drop those type of numbers at will if he truly wanted to, and he could have done that in any era except the newer era wouldn't allow it for embarrassment purposes so we wouldn't get to see the 100pt game but he would own the 70-80pt games, easily

if Wilt would have been drafted in the 70's he would have owned it more than Jabbar and that is about as hard to do as anything but he was that damn dominant

no, wilt couldn't average 40 ppg in today's NBA.

he also would average less than 15 rpg.

It's honestly hilarious to me seeing wilt and russell homers coming up with these ridiculous arguments.

" he and wilt were 50x mentally stronger than any of today's athletes"

seriously? **** outta here with that nonsense

europagnpilgrim
10-20-2017, 05:43 PM
Okay? What does that prove?



He wouldn't have as many rebounds because the pace of the game has changed. There are less possesions. I don't see any reason why he can't lead the league in rebounds though. Do you believe Wilt Chamberlain could lead the league in rebounds? Because there were years Russell averaged more than Wilt so if Wilt could do it then Russell could do it.



When did I do that?



I agree. I never said he would? :confused:



And this proves what?

I thought the pace is up now? you and those pace talkers are funny

it was old slow and non athletes back then but they played at a faster pace then supreme talented bigger faster athletes of today, you guys need to cut it out

basch152
10-20-2017, 05:54 PM
no he would avg 40ppg and 18-20rpg, easily

he was way back in the 60's and he is still the best most naturally gifted athlete ever, in any sport

😂😂😂😂

not sure if troll or just one of the most idiotic people I've ever seen.

yep, adding outside shooting and bigger, better athletes compared to his weak competition would hardly lower his rebounds at all! why would you think it would?

Chronz
10-20-2017, 06:14 PM
good point. Didn't even think of that.

Is it even true tho?

KnicksorBust
10-20-2017, 08:05 PM
Okay? What does that prove?



He wouldn't have as many rebounds because the pace of the game has changed. There are less possesions. I don't see any reason why he can't lead the league in rebounds though. Do you believe Wilt Chamberlain could lead the league in rebounds? Because there were years Russell averaged more than Wilt so if Wilt could do it then Russell could do it.



When did I do that?



I agree. I never said he would? :confused:



And this proves what?

I thought the pace is up now? you and those pace talkers are funny

it was old slow and non athletes back then but they played at a faster pace then supreme talented bigger faster athletes of today, you guys need to cut it out

Dont know your history? It started in the prehistoric era where the game was slow and boring (Mikan years). Then they created this thing called the SHOT CLOCK. Scoring went up from about 80ppg to about 115ppg in 10 years. You are also confusing pace with efficiency. Back in the mid 60s there were a ton more possessions and rebound opportunities than today.

FlashBolt
10-20-2017, 08:06 PM
The Truth is always in the building, you know that Flashlight

thanks for the shoutout, now refute what I say with your facts, hurry up time is money

Impossible to refute an old senile man who probably thinks he got abducted by aliens

europagnpilgrim
10-20-2017, 09:01 PM
��������

not sure if troll or just one of the most idiotic people I've ever seen.

yep, adding outside shooting and bigger, better athletes compared to his weak competition would hardly lower his rebounds at all! why would you think it would?

it takes a idiot/troll to know one from what I was told from my intelligent elders

dude averaged over 70ppg for a 10 game stretch before dropping that myth 100pt game and he mentioned in a interview that if it was all about scoring he would have blew the scoring record out of reach because he would have put up 70ppg for that 7yr stretch where he avg like 40ppg

they didn't add no outside shooting it just got better like it should with time, and Wilt is the biggest baddest athlete ever to step foot on the hardwood, imagine if Lebron was a Footer or imagine if the Greek Freak/Gobert had Hulk strength and could play 48mpg and still be ready to play another 48 a hour later, well that was Wilt

I did lower his rebounds ''bosh187'' from his 22-27rpg that he would get back then to like 18-20 which is a 7-9rpg dip if you knew anything about the numbers he put up back then, just like I said he would put up 40ppg in modern day and not the 70ppg he could have put up if he wanted back in his era

Booker just dropped 70pts in this so called bigger faster better competition and Wilt is 10x the player he will ever be, fact

europagnpilgrim
10-20-2017, 09:09 PM
Impossible to refute an old senile man who probably thinks he got abducted by aliens

damn boy I thought you would be in a better mood since you just got a baby big 3 back in the fold over there in the okc

you don't even know what senile means, and you are wet behind the ears and drinking similac, you a ole cristobal colon(Columbus to you) supporter, you think he found where you stand at right now

I bet you didnt know the true aboriginal people been here for hundreds of thousands(more like millions,google Lucy, and no not the movie version ) of years, but you want to mention aliens which is something I never have mentioned to you before and you duck and dodge all the other so called 'conspiracies'' that you claim that I have said on here, and yet you have not shown me nothing to shut up what I speak about, but I will show you so just let me know if you want to get your mind right and come over to the Bright race and I will send you information that will blow you flashlightinthepan mind

europagnpilgrim
10-20-2017, 09:20 PM
Dont know your history? It started in the prehistoric era where the game was slow and boring (Mikan years). Then they created this thing called the SHOT CLOCK. Scoring went up from about 80ppg to about 115ppg in 10 years. You are also confusing pace with efficiency. Back in the mid 60s there were a ton more possessions and rebound opportunities than today.

Wilt revolutionized pretty much everything back then, he was the reason why pace was high because his outlet was better than Unseld/Love combined(its close though), no I am not confusing pace with efficiency because we all know back then they shot horrible as a team because the game was in the early stages and you had a West and a couple others who could shoot but it had teams shooting 40pct and lower back then, I am talking about pace and why did inferior slow white players play at a faster pace than supreme bigger faster stronger athletes of today, it should be the opposite, rather efficient or not

Heediot
10-20-2017, 09:29 PM
I can see wilt getting over 15 boards, no way he's getting 40points a game.

FlashBolt
10-20-2017, 09:32 PM
damn boy I thought you would be in a better mood since you just got a baby big 3 back in the fold over there in the okc

you don't even know what senile means, and you are wet behind the ears and drinking similac, you a ole cristobal colon(Columbus to you) supporter, you think he found where you stand at right now

I bet you didnt know the true aboriginal people been here for hundreds of thousands(more like millions,google Lucy, and no not the movie version ) of years, but you want to mention aliens which is something I never have mentioned to you before and you duck and dodge all the other so called 'conspiracies'' that you claim that I have said on here, and yet you have not shown me nothing to shut up what I speak about, but I will show you so just let me know if you want to get your mind right and come over to the Bright race and I will send you information that will blow you flashlightinthepan mind

May I recommend a psychiatrist.

europagnpilgrim
10-20-2017, 09:33 PM
May I recommend a psychiatrist.

may I recommend you challenge and put some intelligent feedback into my fašade conspiracies? please do

and lastly what a typical response when you have no knowledge of what I am speaking on this matter, stick to sports boy, now go play I am busy

KnicksorBust
10-21-2017, 01:14 PM
Okay? What does that prove?



He wouldn't have as many rebounds because the pace of the game has changed. There are less possesions. I don't see any reason why he can't lead the league in rebounds though. Do you believe Wilt Chamberlain could lead the league in rebounds? Because there were years Russell averaged more than Wilt so if Wilt could do it then Russell could do it.



When did I do that?



I agree. I never said he would? :confused:



And this proves what?

Lol, no point with you at all. You agree and disagree on the same topic which just makes zero sense at this point. The fact is, Bill and Wilt would not average those insane numbers = inflated numbers = not against the best competition = Bill's and Wilt's careers are nearly impossible to judge but considering Wilt was more dominant on both ends, he is the outlier of that generation. Nothing else needs to be said. Literally, fifty years later and you're trying to convince us what about Bill, exactly? Nearly everyone agrees he won't win 11 rings in his generation and he sure as hell ain't winning 11 rings in today's generation just playing defense. This subject is getting pointless.

Your being dense and arguing against points I never made. Russell is the greatest rebounder/shot blocker/defender in NBA History. He wouldn't average the same raw rebounding stats because the game is different. There are less possessions and less opportunities. But that is irrelevant Your brilliant argument is what? "Kevin Love would average 20 rebounds in the 1960s!" Even if I agree that doesn't PROVE anything for you. It doesn't change the fact that Russell was a top 3 rebounder every year for over a decade. The fact that you can't even concede Russell's rebounding prowess is proof of how blinded you are in this argument. Rebounding/Shot Blocking/Defense/Winning. Nobody did the combination of those 4 things better than Russell. That is not debatable.

Oh and I am still waiting for you to name even a handful of Wilt's teammates from Warriors/Sixers/Lakers. Can you? I doubt it.

FlashBolt
10-21-2017, 03:35 PM
Your being dense and arguing against points I never made. Russell is the greatest rebounder/shot blocker/defender in NBA History. He wouldn't average the same raw rebounding stats because the game is different. There are less possessions and less opportunities. But that is irrelevant Your brilliant argument is what? "Kevin Love would average 20 rebounds in the 1960s!" Even if I agree that doesn't PROVE anything for you. It doesn't change the fact that Russell was a top 3 rebounder every year for over a decade. The fact that you can't even concede Russell's rebounding prowess is proof of how blinded you are in this argument. Rebounding/Shot Blocking/Defense/Winning. Nobody did the combination of those 4 things better than Russell. That is not debatable.

Oh and I am still waiting for you to name even a handful of Wilt's teammates from Warriors/Sixers/Lakers. Can you? I doubt it.

So you ask me to name a handful of Wilt's teammates.. I ask you to do the same without Google. Why? Because that's literally the only way you would know. So yeah, if you're testing my Google skills, go for it. Other than that, you'll have a difficult time convincing anyone that Bill would be the best rebounder/defender/shot-blocker of all-time considering he isn't even the best rebounder ever... And I already told you, Kevin Love averaged 34% of his teammates rebounds - which is his highest ever. Bill's highest was 34% as well. So what do you mean it doesn't prove anything? All you base off Bill was that he played in a weak era and played great defense while averaging rebounds. Is that really your argument? Do you ignore that a guy like Kevin Love has a superior offensive game? Do you ignore that Kevin Love actually plays in a generation where there's an absurd amount of talent? Who in Bill's/Walt's time do you think could realistically be a top ten player today? I bet you won't find many. Rebound/defense/shot-blocking/winning. Yes, without context, Russell is the best. So go ahead and say it, Russ is better than MJ. But you won't. Why? C'mon, I'll hold you to it. Since Russell is the best at those things, he should be the GOAT, no? Greatest rebounder and defender of all-time while winning the most rings (almost 2x MJ's), that's GOAT-worthy. Say it.

KnicksorBust
10-21-2017, 05:05 PM
Your being dense and arguing against points I never made. Russell is the greatest rebounder/shot blocker/defender in NBA History. He wouldn't average the same raw rebounding stats because the game is different. There are less possessions and less opportunities. But that is irrelevant Your brilliant argument is what? "Kevin Love would average 20 rebounds in the 1960s!" Even if I agree that doesn't PROVE anything for you. It doesn't change the fact that Russell was a top 3 rebounder every year for over a decade. The fact that you can't even concede Russell's rebounding prowess is proof of how blinded you are in this argument. Rebounding/Shot Blocking/Defense/Winning. Nobody did the combination of those 4 things better than Russell. That is not debatable.

Oh and I am still waiting for you to name even a handful of Wilt's teammates from Warriors/Sixers/Lakers. Can you? I doubt it.

So you ask me to name a handful of Wilt's teammates.. I ask you to do the same without Google. Why? Because that's literally the only way you would know. So yeah, if you're testing my Google skills, go for it. Other than that, you'll have a difficult time convincing anyone that Bill would be the best rebounder/defender/shot-blocker of all-time considering he isn't even the best rebounder ever... And I already told you, Kevin Love averaged 34% of his teammates rebounds - which is his highest ever. Bill's highest was 34% as well. So what do you mean it doesn't prove anything? All you base off Bill was that he played in a weak era and played great defense while averaging rebounds. Is that really your argument? Do you ignore that a guy like Kevin Love has a superior offensive game? Do you ignore that Kevin Love actually plays in a generation where there's an absurd amount of talent? Who in Bill's/Walt's time do you think could realistically be a top ten player today? I bet you won't find many. Rebound/defense/shot-blocking/winning. Yes, without context, Russell is the best. So go ahead and say it, Russ is better than MJ. But you won't. Why? C'mon, I'll hold you to it. Since Russell is the best at those things, he should be the GOAT, no? Greatest rebounder and defender of all-time while winning the most rings (almost 2x MJ's), that's GOAT-worthy. Say it.

No google necessary bud. I already know. On the Warriors he played with HALL OF FAMERS Paul Arizin, Guy Rodgers, and Tom Gola. On the Sixers he played with HALL OF FAMERS Hal Greer, Chet Walker, and Billy Cunningham. On the Lakers he played with HALL OF FAMERS Elgin Baylor, Gail Goodrich, and Jerry West. Impressive no?

On the KLove stats it is just silly. Because he grabbed 34% of his teams boards once on a terrible team he is as good as Russell? Consistency makes greatness more legit. Russ was top 3 in boards for a decade+. Love don't have it.

Lastly, you believe because I think Russell should be above Hakeem that means I think he should be ranked above MJ? :laugh: More fake arguments to things I never said. Come on man.

Chronz
10-21-2017, 09:11 PM
Is he really arguing k love being as good as Russell?

KnicksorBust
10-21-2017, 09:13 PM
Is he really arguing k love being as good as Russell?

Yeah how would you handle it? Lol

Chronz
10-21-2017, 09:49 PM
Cleveland would be a super team today if they had Russell in place of love. As I've said before, the stats are only "inflated" if you're foolish enough to apply the most basic level of analysis.

FlashBolt
10-22-2017, 11:05 AM
No google necessary bud. I already know. On the Warriors he played with HALL OF FAMERS Paul Arizin, Guy Rodgers, and Tom Gola. On the Sixers he played with HALL OF FAMERS Hal Greer, Chet Walker, and Billy Cunningham. On the Lakers he played with HALL OF FAMERS Elgin Baylor, Gail Goodrich, and Jerry West. Impressive no?

On the KLove stats it is just silly. Because he grabbed 34% of his teams boards once on a terrible team he is as good as Russell? Consistency makes greatness more legit. Russ was top 3 in boards for a decade+. Love don't have it.

Lastly, you believe because I think Russell should be above Hakeem that means I think he should be ranked above MJ? :laugh: More fake arguments to things I never said. Come on man.

No, you said Russ was the greatest rebounder/defender/shot-blocker/winner. So therefore, how does all that not quantify as the GOAT? Surely, it should. MJ was just the greatest scorer so why do we call him the GOAT? Was MJ the best rebounder/defender/winner? Nope. So can you explain why you put MJ above Russell or are you advocating that Russell was better? Are you really judging Russell's achievements against inferior competition as absolute? And I wasn't saying Love>Russell. I was showing you that Love rebounded at the same rate during his prime so why are you proposing that Russell is the greatest rebounder when a guy like Dennis Rodman grabbed much more rebounds per opportunity than Russell? Your argument is severely lacking. Top 3 in boards for a decade... because, there weren't many guys his size who played that amount of minutes. He doesn't average top 3 in rebounds this era or the 90's. It's common sense, buddy. You play against weaker competition, your stats are more inflated. Add in the minutes played and extra possessions, then your stats are going to look historically great. But you can throw away context and end your conversation there. I still haven't heard you say Bill is better than MJ. Certainly, I would expect the GOAT at rebounding/defense/shot-blocking/winning to be better than a scrub like MJ - who won almost less than half Bill's rings and was just a selfish scorer. Say it or explain yourself.

FlashBolt
10-22-2017, 11:06 AM
Cleveland would be a super team today if they had Russell in place of love. As I've said before, the stats are only "inflated" if you're foolish enough to apply the most basic level of analysis.

Right. So Bill averages 15/25 in today's league. You said it, not me.

mrblisterdundee
10-22-2017, 01:23 PM
Cleveland would be a super team today if they had Russell in place of love. As I've said before, the stats are only "inflated" if you're foolish enough to apply the most basic level of analysis.

Cleveland already is a super team, relative to the rest of the eastern conference. Russell would be great for the Cavaliers in place of Love, with the understanding that his stats translate to roughly Mutombo's or Gobert's in today's game. But I'd love to have a defensive hybrid of Mutombo and Rodman holding down the middle.

Chronz
10-22-2017, 01:37 PM
Right. So Bill averages 15/25 in today's league. You said it, not me.

Show me where I said that and you'll understand why I never took your statistical take seriously

Chronz
10-22-2017, 01:39 PM
Cleveland already is a super team, relative to the rest of the eastern conference. Russell would be great for the Cavaliers in place of Love, with the understanding that his stats translate to roughly Mutombo's or Gobert's in today's game. But I'd love to have a defensive hybrid of Mutombo and Rodman holding down the middle.

Lol if they could run their teams offense and had the innate ability to step their game up in the playoffs. I also doubt they're on his level as a leader either.

Relative to the east? Why would I limit myself to that

Chronz
10-22-2017, 01:40 PM
Btw if longevity matters how is Kobe so low

tredigs
10-23-2017, 04:32 AM
Never change Chronz.

KnicksorBust
10-23-2017, 11:40 AM
No, you said Russ was the greatest rebounder/defender/shot-blocker/winner. So therefore, how does all that not quantify as the GOAT? Surely, it should. MJ was just the greatest scorer so why do we call him the GOAT? Was MJ the best rebounder/defender/winner? Nope. So can you explain why you put MJ above Russell or are you advocating that Russell was better? Are you really judging Russell's achievements against inferior competition as absolute?

I'm not even going to entertain arguing why MJ is the GOAT because we all believe it. It's a fallacy to say I put Russell ahead of him and make me debate myself. You should be embarrassed that you think this is a good argument.


And I wasn't saying Love>Russell. I was showing you that Love rebounded at the same rate during his prime so why are you proposing that Russell is the greatest rebounder when a guy like Dennis Rodman grabbed much more rebounds per opportunity than Russell? Your argument is severely lacking. Top 3 in boards for a decade...

I would say that's a pretty strong case. How many players were an elite top 3 rebounder in the league for a decade straight? Russell...Wilt...Rodman... who else? I'm open to putting Rodman in that top tier. Not Kevin Love.


because, there weren't many guys his size who played that amount of minutes. He doesn't average top 3 in rebounds this era or the 90's. It's common sense, buddy. You play against weaker competition, your stats are more inflated. Add in the minutes played and extra possessions, then your stats are going to look historically great. But you can throw away context and end your conversation there.

But I'm not relying on raw stats. I'm relying on a comparison against their peers. When looking at all-time greats that is the only way you can compare. How did they do against their peers in the situation they are in? If you want to make adjustments because things like pace of play/of the level of competition/etc that is fine but Russell succeeded against Wilt and Wilt succeeded against Kareem and Kareem succeeded in the 80s. It's not that big of a stretch of the imagination to see Russell as a hyper destructive defender/rebounder/passer in the modern game. In fact that way the game has moved away from the basket would only help him. He would be great in Pick and Roll switching on to the aggressive ball handlers of today. His rim protection, speed, athleticism, and passing play in any era.


I still haven't heard you say Bill is better than MJ. Certainly, I would expect the GOAT at rebounding/defense/shot-blocking/winning to be better than a scrub like MJ - who won almost less than half Bill's rings and was just a selfish scorer. Say it or explain yourself.

:laugh: MJ is a "scrub" and was just a "selfish scorer." Where do you come up with this stuff? You completely ignore the Wilt Chamberlain stuff even though we went back and forth on it. Then I post all the Hall of Famers he played with (of which you knew maybe 1?) and you just disregard that paragraph entirely and excuse me of calling MJ a scrub. I don't know if that makes you great at debate or terrible.

AntiG
10-23-2017, 01:36 PM
if Barkley and Malone are on this list, so does Drexler.

FlashBolt
10-23-2017, 02:12 PM
I'm not even going to entertain arguing why MJ is the GOAT because we all believe it. It's a fallacy to say I put Russell ahead of him and make me debate myself. You should be embarrassed that you think this is a good argument.



I would say that's a pretty strong case. How many players were an elite top 3 rebounder in the league for a decade straight? Russell...Wilt...Rodman... who else? I'm open to putting Rodman in that top tier. Not Kevin Love.



But I'm not relying on raw stats. I'm relying on a comparison against their peers. When looking at all-time greats that is the only way you can compare. How did they do against their peers in the situation they are in? If you want to make adjustments because things like pace of play/of the level of competition/etc that is fine but Russell succeeded against Wilt and Wilt succeeded against Kareem and Kareem succeeded in the 80s. It's not that big of a stretch of the imagination to see Russell as a hyper destructive defender/rebounder/passer in the modern game. In fact that way the game has moved away from the basket would only help him. He would be great in Pick and Roll switching on to the aggressive ball handlers of today. His rim protection, speed, athleticism, and passing play in any era.



:laugh: MJ is a "scrub" and was just a "selfish scorer." Where do you come up with this stuff? You completely ignore the Wilt Chamberlain stuff even though we went back and forth on it. Then I post all the Hall of Famers he played with (of which you knew maybe 1?) and you just disregard that paragraph entirely and excuse me of calling MJ a scrub. I don't know if that makes you great at debate or terrible.

So you won't admit Bill is better than MJ despite Bill being the GOAT at rebounding, defense, shot-blocking, and winning. Can you tell me why you think MJ is better? It seems you don't want to explain the contextual reasons. Why? Because it coincides with your idea that Bill was historically great?

Again, Bill leading for a decade straight is due to minutes played and a lack of quality players.. as already proven by someone who listed the players above 6'8 and not many at all played the amount of minutes Bill played. It's rebounding over inferior competition - not over the likes of Shaq+Kareem+D.Rob+Hakeem+Ewing.

Also, I already proved to you that Dennis was the best rebounder but you just ignored it. And you keep talking about Bill as if I am saying he was a scrub. I said he is a top 11-15 player to me. That's close enough to where most have him ranked. What does saying Wilt doing a good job against Kareem prove? Kareem outplayed him because Wilt was obviously much older but Wilt's size was the only reason Kareem had difficulty. Kareem was never a great rebounder, either.

I never said he couldn't play in any era.. I said he wouldn't be as successful. Not even close to what he achieved in the 50-60's..

Chronz
10-24-2017, 06:18 PM
Kareem was never a great rebounder? We talking ever or old ninny Kareem ? Coincide?

YAALREADYKNO
10-24-2017, 08:58 PM
Kobe

KnicksorBust
10-26-2017, 02:29 PM
So you won't admit Bill is better than MJ despite Bill being the GOAT at rebounding, defense, shot-blocking, and winning. Can you tell me why you think MJ is better? It seems you don't want to explain the contextual reasons. Why? Because it coincides with your idea that Bill was historically great?

Again, Bill leading for a decade straight is due to minutes played and a lack of quality players.. as already proven by someone who listed the players above 6'8 and not many at all played the amount of minutes Bill played. It's rebounding over inferior competition - not over the likes of Shaq+Kareem+D.Rob+Hakeem+Ewing.

Also, I already proved to you that Dennis was the best rebounder but you just ignored it. And you keep talking about Bill as if I am saying he was a scrub. I said he is a top 11-15 player to me. That's close enough to where most have him ranked. What does saying Wilt doing a good job against Kareem prove? Kareem outplayed him because Wilt was obviously much older but Wilt's size was the only reason Kareem had difficulty. Kareem was never a great rebounder, either.

I never said he couldn't play in any era.. I said he wouldn't be as successful. Not even close to what he achieved in the 50-60's..

I value a player's offensive skills, defensive skills, accolades, and success.

Bill may be a 6 offensively, but he is a 10, 10, and 10 in the other categories.
MJ is a 10 in every category. Therefore, MJ > Bill.

I don't think I could make it much simpler for you. Congratulations you got me to actually explain why I thought Michael Jordan was the GOAT. :laugh: