Bill Russell is the greatest player of all-time

[RocketGreatness]

Not Jordan, Not Kareem, Sorry. The 11 rings, 5 NBA MVPs speak for themselves. I'm just waiting for the he had no scoring game argument.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

a case can certainly be made....
however, he played on absolutely stacked teams. 1960s not as strong as any era thereafter.
Kareem has 6 MVPs, more than anyone, ever. kicked ass against the best in both the 70s and 80s.

[VishaltotheG]

:oldlol:

[vert48]

Not Jordan, Not Kareem, Sorry. The 11 rings, 5 NBA MVPs speak for themselves. I'm just waiting for the he had no scoring game argument.8 Team League.

[AI3Anthony]

I had no idea he averaged 22.5rpg for his career. WOW. :bowdown:

[Lebron23]

Bill Murray is the GOAT Actor.

[KeylessEntry]

Nonsense. Every non racist knows that Yao Ming is the greatest player of all time

[strike first]

when you have 11 ****ing rings I dont think you even give a shit

[magnax1]

Wait.... How did he get unbanned? Did he hack the site??? Sooooooo weird.

[RocketGreatness]

a case can certainly be made....
however, he played on absolutely stacked teams. 1960s not as strong as any era thereafter.
Kareem has 6 MVPs, more than anyone, ever. kicked ass against the best in both the 70s and 80s.
Sorry, but everybody played in a stacked team back then....The other Celtic players were honored to play with Bill Russell, Bill Russell was not honored to play with those other Celtics.

[PHILA]

1960s not as strong as any era thereafter.

Actually the 60's was the 2nd strongest decade of NBA Basketball only to the 80's.

[RocketGreatness]

Actually the 60's was the 2nd strongest decade of NBA Basketball only to the 80's.
Correct Abe....by the way man, Wilt Chamberlain is the best individual basketball player ever....but he just wasn't the greatest. Definitely a Top 3 center to ever play the game, a lot could argue that he's the greatest. I just wouldn't.

[magnax1]

Sorry, but everybody played in a stacked team back then....The other Celtic players were honored to play with Bill Russell, Bill Russell was not honored to play with those other Celtics.
How did you get unbanned?
Oh, and Russell has a good case for GOAT, I don't agree, but he was a great player.

[Roundball_Rock]

a case can certainly be made....
however, he played on absolutely stacked teams.

If his team was stacked where were they before him and after he left? They were a lottery team (if it existed back then) after he left.

People forget that Russell averaged a solid amount of points and also ranked in the top 10 in assists 4x. Not bad for a guy who allegedly sucked on offense! Moreover, Russell could have scored more but he played a team first game instead of insisting on 20 shots every night regardless of how he was shooting, like many other legends.

[VishaltotheG]

Bill Murray is the GOAT Actor.

Nah Keanu Reeves is

[robertshaw_1]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Pippen is better than russell

[Desperado]

8 Team League.

All that means is the league was less watered down.

[Yung D-Will]

Actually the 60's was the 2nd strongest decade of NBA Basketball only to the 80's.

Please explain this one to me.

[iggy>]

Not Jordan, Not Kareem, Sorry. The 11 rings, 5 NBA MVPs speak for themselves. I'm just waiting for the he had no scoring game argument.
http://members.arstechnica.com/x/dramatic_reverb/family-guy-i-disagree-1.jpg

[plowking]

Sometimes when I read posts by certain members on here, I actually stop and think as to whether or not they're actually retarded.

[PHILA]

Please explain this one to me.

Kindly dispute it. It featured the greatest dynasty in sports history, the best single season team in NBA history, the best player in NBA history, the 2nd best player in NBA history, the most skilled offensive player in NBA history in addition to an abundance of talented athletes who played the sport properly.


Russell
Chamberlain
Robertson
Baylor
West
Lucas
Greer
Jones
Heinsohn
Bellamy
Reed
Frazier
Embry
Sanders
Havlicek
Cousy
Rodgers
Jackson
Cunningham
Walker
Jones
Twyman
Beaty
Lovellette
Chappell
Gola
Pettit
Ohl
Johnson
Unseld
Hayes
Guerin
Arizin
Attles
Shue
Bing
Monroe
Bradley
DeBusschere
Wilkens
Bridges
Thurmond
Barry


to name a few.

[Roundball_Rock]

I forgot to mention Russell lost ONE elimination game in his entire life (HS, college, NBA, Olympics). No other legend can come close to that. When the chips were down, Russell came through EVERY time except one. :bowdown:

The 8 team argument cuts both ways. As Desperado noted, each individual team was stronger back then. In Russell's case it does not really apply. His college (University of San Fran) did nothing before him. He won there--twice while leading a streak of 55 consecutive wins. Have they even made the NCAA tourney since he left? All the available evidence suggests Russell would find a way to win wherever he went and in any era.

[RocketGreatness]

If his team was stacked where were they before him and after he left? They were a lottery team (if it existed back then) after he left.

People forget that Russell averaged a solid amount of points and also ranked in the top 10 in assists 4x. Not bad for a guy who allegedly sucked on offense! Moreover, Russell could have scored more but he played a team first game instead of insisting on 20 shots every night regardless of how he was shooting, like many other legends.
Russell is the last guy ever to judge by, by using stats....He was that good, He's really the only NBA player that's a you have to see it to believe it type thing.

The only reason why Russell isn't valued anymore is because right now we are living in the post-Jordan Era. So we are use to isolation basketball and people taking over the game. That wasn't the case back then...The Celtics were a great team and they were led by Russell. They didn't have to run plays for Russell because he already had teammates good enough to score. Russell was somebody that did whatever it took to win games and championships, and that's what he did.

[RocketGreatness]

I had no idea he averaged 22.5rpg for his career. WOW. :bowdown:
He would easily be the #1 shot blocker of all-time if they had counted that stat back in the day. Oh and there's no doubt he would have gotten all 13 DPOYs if they had that award back then too. ALL 13 from ALL 13 years he played in the league.

[Roundball_Rock]

He would easily be the #1 shot blocker of all-time if they had counted that stat back in the day. Oh and there's no doubt he would have gotten all 13 DPOYs if they had that award back then too. ALL 13 from ALL 13 years he played in the league.

Let's be conservative on Russell and estimate:

5 MVP's
11 rings
8 FMVP's
10 DPOY's

I wonder how the GOAT conversation would look today if FMVP's and DPOY's existed back then...

Russell had to fight for MVP's with the GOAT individual player. How many would he have won in any other decade? Perhaps not much more or slightly less but he certainly faced tougher competition for MVP's than Kareem or Jordan did.


The Celtics were a great team and they were led by Russell.

Well, great when he was there. Where were they before and after him?

[ShaqAttack3234]

No, there's a couple of huge double standards that favor Russell in these arguments.

For one, he really was an average at best scorer. Despite getting nearly 17 shots per game some seasons, he never got more than 18.9 ppg and he was terribly inefficient with both a poor FG% and FT%. Look at the other top 10 players, they're all great scorers or great offensive players. Hell, look at the top 15, same thing. Russell is the only player who gets a pass for this.

And don't give me the whole "He didn't need to score" crap. He didn't shoot 44% from the field and 56% from the line because he wanted to.

And now, you have to ask yourselves, how well would his game translate to other eras? And yes, this clearly DOES matter. If it only mattered what they did in their own era then George Mikan would be top 5-10 all time.

Finally, go back and watch the footage. Honestly tell me that he dominated games like Jordan, Kareem, Shaq, Bird ect.

I have watched all of the available footage. And I didn't see anything to suggest you could throw the ball to him in the post and he could create his shot. He basically seemed to get his points off of open dunks and put backs from either being spoon fed by his teammates or running the floor. This would be less effective in a slower pace.

As far as assists? Actually look at how he got the assists. I wouldn't even say he's one of the 10 best passing centers from what I've seen. In that era, they'd basically throw the ball in the post and he'd throw it back out to the perimeter easily for an uncontested 15-18 footer with very little defensive pressure on the entry pass or pass to the perimeter.

And finally, yes, he was a great defender, but there have been plenty of great defenders, I don't think Russell was in another league than every other defensive player. And rebounding? Factor in pace and minutes(which are products of the era he played in) and his rebounding numbers aren't as impressive as Rodman's.

I'm tired of people using double standards and overrating the 60's players without pointing out their flaws.

[alexandreben]

How about those clutch games for Russell? including those win or go home games, PHILA had a great post :applause: here with those clutch games of Wilt, KAJ and Jordan:
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=176340&page=19

can someone share some clutch game stats(and win the game or not) of Russell's please?

[GregOstertag]

when you have 11 ****ing rings I dont think you even give a shit

:roll: excellent post

[MagicalLA]

Dwight > Yao

[branslowski]

I swear...Ppl must see somethin different than I did....But iv'e watched some clips from the 60's......Not impressed...Maybe its just me.

I won't deny the Greatness that is Bill Russel but, the overration of this man and this era is crazy...

Mbenga= 18ppg 28reb in that Era if he played then....Bookit.

I honestly think KeVin Durant would do some sick post work on Bill...



Juust my opinion...And Michael Jordan is the G.O.A.T

[NBASTATMAN]

Not Jordan, Not Kareem, Sorry. The 11 rings, 5 NBA MVPs speak for themselves. I'm just waiting for the he had no scoring game argument.


If you take a look at college and pro careers thankareem and Russell are the best.. Mj and Wilt would be third and fourth.

[RocketGreatness]

I swear...Ppl must see somethin different than I did....But iv'e watched some clips from the 60's......Not impressed...Maybe its just me.

I won't deny the Greatness that is Bill Russel but, the overration of this man and this era is crazy...

Mbenga= 18ppg 28reb in that Era if he played then....Bookit.

I honestly think KeVin Durant would do some sick post work on Bill...



Juust my opinion...And Michael Jordan is the G.O.A.T
Because you probably never watched anything past Michael Jordan.....you basically had to live in the 60s and 70s era to realize the greatness of Bill Russell....You can't just watch YouTube videos and expect sheer dominance.

Bill Russell can blame Fantasy Basketball and Sportscenter for his lack of respect by today's fan. We'll add YouTube there soon.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Because you probably never watched anything past Michael Jordan.....you basically had to live in the 60s and 70s era to realize the greatness of Bill Russell....You can't just watch YouTube videos and expect sheer dominance.

You were born in 1993 or 1994 you ****ing tool, you didn't live during the 60's either.

[branslowski]

Because you probably never watched anything past Michael Jordan.....you basically had to live in the 60s and 70s era to realize the greatness of Bill Russell....You can't just watch YouTube videos and expect sheer dominance.

Bill Russell can blame Fantasy Basketball and Sportscenter for his lack of respect by today's fan. We'll add YouTube there soon.

:oldlol:

Well for starters, how would you know all this sh!t being that your about 16yrs old?

Secondly, im pretty sure no one on this Forum lived through those times....And im pretty sure most on this Forum has watched Espn classics, NBATV Classics, Youtube Clips, exc to take atleast some grasp of what their opinion should be....Others like's to read what the ppl during that time had to say, but doing that is flawed imo, I come up with my own opinions by watching with my own eyes.

Its not SportsCenter, or Fantasy Basketball that directs any of my opinions...(Anyway, the crazy numbers Wilt/Bill put up would be Fantasy Basketball HOF, but the Game isn't that easy anymore)

[RocketGreatness]

You were born in 1993 or 1994 you ****ing tool, you didn't live during the 60's either.
And.....? :confusedshrug: I don't know why you're so mad all the time, but it's actually funny. :oldlol:


If you take a look at college and pro careers thankareem and Russell are the best.. Mj and Wilt would be third and fourth.
To me, the top 3 players of all-time are Kareem, Russell and Jordan. Biggest reason why I have Russell above Kareem is because Kareem missed the playoffs a couple of times with those Buck teams in the later years. It's hard to call him the greatest ever when he couldn't make the playoffs at one point in his career. Russell just never lost.

Jordan and Kareem are probably better individual players than Russell, but as far as greatness is concerned Russell is probably above both of them.

[RocketGreatness]

:oldlol:

Well for starters, how would you know all this sh!t being that your about 16yrs old?

Secondly, im pretty sure no one on this Forum lived through those times....And im pretty sure most on this Forum has watched Espn classics, NBATV Classics, Youtube Clips, exc to take atleast some grasp of what their opinion should be....Others like's to read what the ppl during that time had to say, but doing that is flawed imo, I come up with my own opinions by watching with my own eyes.

Its not SportsCenter, or Fantasy Basketball that directs any of my opinions...(Anyway, the crazy numbers Wilt/Bill put up would be Fantasy Basketball HOF, but the Game isn't that easy anymore)
Yeah and tell me how old you are? :oldlol:

No one on this forum live through those times? Ask Psealis that. You are one of those idiots that believe there's this magic time machine that clearly does not exist. Just for the record, You are right If we sent Mbenga into some magic time machine he probably could dominate that league. And I'm sure if we let Russell live in this era, he would be an even more unstoppable offensive player and a bigger defensive force.

Idiot. :oldlol:

[ShaqAttack3234]

And.....? :confusedshrug: I don't know why you're so mad all the time, but it's actually funny. :oldlol:


you basically had to live in the 60s and 70s era to realize the greatness of Bill Russell....You can't just watch YouTube videos and expect sheer dominance.

Once again, you didn't live during that era either so how is your opinion more valid than his?

[RocketGreatness]

Did anyone hear that? Hm, sounded like some dumbass wanted my attention. Meh.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Did anyone hear that? Hm, sounded like some dumbass wanted my attention. Meh.
Talk about wanting attention, you're the same clown who announced your return in the OTC, bumped your own thread 45 minutes later and everyone ignored you and talked about Lord Of The Rings. :roll:

And now that this account isn't banned anymore, it's really pathetic for you to post on your NoLayUpsRule2 account at the same time and don't even deny it's you because you sent me almost identical PMs with this account, NoLayupsRule2 and Just2Clutch(which got banned).

You need help.

[branslowski]

Yeah and tell me how old you are? :oldlol:

No one on this forum live through those times? Ask Psealis that. You are one of those idiots that believe there's this magic time machine that clearly does not exist. Just for the record, You are right If we sent Mbenga into some magic time machine he probably could dominate that league. And I'm sure if we let Russell live in this era, he would be an even more unstoppable offensive player and a bigger defensive force.Idiot. :oldlol:

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Dude wasn't even a Great Offensive player in an era with more possesions and weaker opponents...F*ck you think he would do in this era?...He would be Ben Wallace like on offence, or Kendrik Perkns...

Russel would avg 12ppg 11reb 3blk....Bookit.

Dude would'nt even be able to f*ck with Wilt either...Im not that big on Wilt, but atleast from what I watched, I know Wilt would avg sh!t like...25-28ppg 13reb 4blk if he played today...Easily would be top 5 player too...As for Russel....GTFO.

Im out of this thread...Cause nothings gonna change anyone's mind...

[NoLayupsRule2]

Talk about wanting attention, you're the same clown who announced your return in the OTC, bumped your own thread 45 minutes later and everyone ignored you and talked about Lord Of The Rings. :roll:

And now that this account isn't banned anymore, it's really pathetic for you to post on your NoLayUpsRule2 account at the same time and don't even deny it's you because you sent me almost identical PMs with this account, NoLayupsRule2 and Just2Clutch(which got banned).

You need help.
Yeah, and I'm definitely RocketGreatness....:oldlol: for the record I didn't PM you shit, so leave me the **** alone you creeper. :oldlol:

[magnax1]

Yeah, and I'm definitely RocketGreatness....:oldlol: for the record I didn't PM you shit, so leave me the **** alone you creeper. :oldlol:
Oh dang, this kid is RG. No doubt in my mind.

[chazzy]

How did this account get unbanned anyway?

[D-Rose]

God damn this crazy kid is out of control. How did the original RG account get unbanned? And yes layuprule2 you are RG ,it's so damn obvious :oldlol:

*insert pic of RG promising Jeff to never come back here*

[RocketGreatness]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Dude wasn't even a Great Offensive player in an era with more possesions and weaker opponents...F*ck you think he would do in this era?...He would be Ben Wallace like on offence, or Kendrik Perkns...

Russel would avg 12ppg 11reb 3blk....Bookit.

Dude would'nt even be able to f*ck with Wilt either...Im not that big on Wilt, but atleast from what I watched, I know Wilt would avg sh!t like...25-28ppg 13reb 4blk if he played today...Easily would be top 5 player too...As for Russel....GTFO.

Im out of this thread...Cause nothings gonna change anyone's mind...
Go factor in other shit like TECHONOLGY....You don't think any of that has changed from the 60s to the 2000s? Russell played with no blue-print, Shaq played with a blue-print, so did Kareem, so did Hakeem, so did Yao, etc...Russell has nothing to play off of, even your boy Kobe copied everything from Jordan.

W/o Jordan - Kobe = some bum on the street.

[magnax1]

How did this account get unbanned anyway?
Exactly what I want to know??? ISH is making dirty deals, RG must be blackmailing.
:lol

[chazzy]

W/o Jordan - Kobe = some bum on the straight.

On the straight what? And I have "2nd grade vocab?" :oldlol:

[ShaqAttack3234]

Yeah, and I'm definitely RocketGreatness....:oldlol: for the record I didn't PM you shit, so leave me the **** alone you creeper. :oldlol:

Yes you did, you PM'd LKizzle too and denied that. I Guess we're both lying, huh? You PM'd me about the Orlando Magic. You denied being BrianDawkins20 at first too, but we all remember how that turned out.


Go factor in other shit like TECHONOLGY....You don't think any of that has changed from the 60s to the 2000s? Russell played with no blue-print, Shaq played with a blue-print, so did Kareem, so did Hakeem, so did Yao, etc...Russell has nothing to play off of, even your boy Kobe copied everything from Jordan.

W/o Jordan - Kobe = some bum on the straight.

Russell's innovations and play vs his own era are a big factor, and that's why he is top 10, but you have to factor in how well his game would translate across eras. Unless you think George Mikan is easily top 10, because Mikan's resume would put him top 10 and so would his innovations, yet nobody ranks Mikan that highly any more. In fact, Mikan changed the game as much as anyone.

[T_Element]

Sometimes when I read posts by certain members on here, I actually stop and think as to whether or not they're actually retarded.

It happens more than it should...


Go factor in other shit like TECHONOLGY....You don't think any of that has changed from the 60s to the 2000s? Russell played with no blue-print, Shaq played with a blue-print, so did Kareem, so did Hakeem, so did Yao, etc...Russell has nothing to play off of, even your boy Kobe copied everything from Jordan.

W/o Jordan - Kobe = some bum on the street.

Just one of many examples of people who should stop posting on here and get some help. For everyone's sake.

[NoLayupsRule2]

Yes you did, you PM'd LKizzle too and denied that. I Guess we're both lying, huh? You PM'd me about the Orlando Magic. You denied being BrianDawkins20 at first too, but we all remember how that turned out.

Really? What did I PM you? I just viewed my sent box, I didn't send you anything. Delusional kiddo. :oldlol:

I Pm'd L. Kizzle but who would waste their time PMing you?

[Alhazred]

Go factor in other shit like TECHONOLGY....You don't think any of that has changed from the 60s to the 2000s? Russell played with no blue-print, Shaq played with a blue-print, so did Kareem, so did Hakeem, so did Yao, etc...Russell had nothing to play off of, even your boy Kobe copied everything from Jordan.



Danny McCarthy Salem Massachusetts: Who was your hero growing up?

Bill Russell: My father. Outside of him, my basketball coaches were great. And also, don't forget George Mikan. This was a great player, this always bothers me when people talk about the greatest players to play the game, they don't discuss George enough. One time I met him, I was third string varsity in high school, and I met George Mikan. And he walked over to me and said, "Hi, Big Fella". And he was 6-10 and I was 6-6! And here was the No. 1 guy in basketball and I was a third string guy in high school and he talked to me about basketball for 15 minutes!

http://www.nba.com/celtics/chat/russell_050228.html

http://hoopedia.nba.com/images/2/2a/GeorgeMikan.jpg

[ShaqAttack3234]

Really? What did I PM you? I just viewed my sent box, I didn't send you anything. Delusional kiddo. :oldlol:

I Pm'd L. Kizzle but who would waste their time PMing you?

Maybe I got this account mixed up with your Just2Clutch account(it's hard to keep up). But atleast you admit to PMing LKizzle and then getting your panties in a bunch when he didn't reply. It's obvious you're RocketGreatness, you say the exact same things, you're the same age, you just happened to show up in this thread as soon as I mentioned this account.

Kiddo? :roll: You're one of the youngest of the youngest members here.

[NoLayupsRule2]

Maybe I got this account mixed up with your Just2Clutch account(it's hard to keep up). But atleast you admit to PMing LKizzle and then getting your panties in a bunch when he didn't reply. It's obvious you're RocketGreatness, you say the exact same things, you're the same age, you just happened to show up in this thread as soon as I mentioned this account.

Kiddo? :roll: You're one of the youngest of the youngest members here.
Yep..keep showing to me and everyone else in the world how ****ed up you are in the head. :oldlol:

Back to the question, Russell has a great case for the greatest player ever, but there is no right or wrong answer to it. It could go to Wilt, MJ, Kareem and many other players like even Magic.

[D-Rose]

http://www.unplggd.com/uimages/unplggd/101008_an_obsolete_computers5.jpg

That's RG all day long except there's a different ISH account open on each monitor.

[RocketGreatness]

http://www.nba.com/celtics/chat/russell_050228.html

http://hoopedia.nba.com/images/2/2a/GeorgeMikan.jpg
Good job......but even so, Wilt played off of him too probably. :pimp: But where do you think Russell ranks among the lists of centers and players of all-time? Since you have been probably the most credible poster here so far.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Yep..keep showing to me and everyone else in the world how ****ed up you are in the head. :oldlol:

Right, I'm the one who was offered 20 dollars to never return to this site again. :rolleyes:

You admitted to PMing LKizzle which is pathetic in itself because you had already asked him the same question in 1 or 2 threads and repeatedly called him out in numerous threads. You are most likely schizophrenic, why else would you have multiple accounts? All fans of different teams? You also clearly have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder which is why you PM'd LKizzle and called him out numerous times regarding the same question. And I guess the other posters who called you out for being RocketGreatness are ****ed up int he head too? You're right, everyone is ****ed up in the head except for you.....

[plowking]

Bill Russell said he doesn't like Yao Ming.

[Disaprine]

He probably is the greatest, is either him or Wilt.

[NoLayupsRule2]

Right, I'm the one who was offered 20 dollars to never return to this site again. :rolleyes:

You admitted to PMing LKizzle which is pathetic in itself because you had already asked him the same question in 1 or 2 threads and repeatedly called him out in numerous threads. You are most likely schizophrenic, why else would you have multiple accounts? All fans of different teams? You also clearly have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder which is why you PM'd LKizzle and called him out numerous times regarding the same question. And I guess the other posters who called you out for being RocketGreatness are ****ed up int he head too? You're right, everyone is ****ed up in the head except for you.....
Yep, keep it coming kiddo...show everyone in the world how obsessive you are over me and RocketGreatness. :oldlol:

[ShaqAttack3234]

Yep, keep it coming kiddo...show everyone in the world how obsessive you are over me and RocketGreatness. :oldlol:

It's hilarious you try calling anyone kiddo when you admit to being 17. I actually feel bad for you, I can't imagine what it's like to be schizophrenic. Do you hear voices saying "Are you going to let Dwight Howard get away with it? Who is he to steal Yao's glory?"

[che guevara]

Bill Russell said he doesn't like Yao Ming.
Yep.


Yao can't hold up Dwight's jockstrap.

[Showtime]

I don't see a problem with anybody saying Wilt, Russell, or KAJ is GOAT. Jordan is a top candidate for me, but he's not the definitive choice IMO.

[jlauber]

I get a kick out of the posters that put down the players of MY era (the 60's and 70's)

So, they are essentially saying that only the CURRENT players can be the greatest. Has to be. Using THEIR criteria that Russell would be a bench-warmer in the WNBA today...well, that means that Andrew Bogat would have crushed Shaq. After all, Shaq's peak was in the early 00's. And forget the Kobe-MJ debate...Stehen Curry would blow Jordan away. And what chance would Magic Johnson have had against Tyreke Evans?

Bynum> Hakeem
K. Perkins> Kareem
etc. etc.

And, no, we can't count Russell's 11 rings. Why? Because they happened 40 years ago. Throw that record out.

Wilt's scoring and rebounding records? PACE man...he would only be an 18-9 guy today...and that would be at the local YMCA. Can't count those records.

In fact...ANY record before 2010 should not count...and of course, those 2010 records will be burned in 2011.

[MagicalLA]

RG im sure you sucked many admin dick just to get this account unbanned, do you want to get banned again?

[jlauber]

BTW...Russell is the greatest of all-time.

[Rake2204]

I get a kick out of the posters that put down the players of MY era (the 60's and 70's)

So, they are essentially saying that only the CURRENT players can be the greatest. Has to be. Using THEIR criteria that Russell would be a bench-warmer in the WNBA today...well, that means that Andrew Bogat would have crushed Shaq. After all, Shaq's peak was in the early 00's. And forget the Kobe-MJ debate...Stehen Curry would blow Jordan away. And what chance would Magic Johnson have had against Tyreke Evans?

Bynum> Hakeem
K. Perkins> Kareem
etc. etc.

And, no, we can't count Russell's 11 rings. Why? Because they happened 40 years ago. Throw that record out.

Wilt's scoring and rebounding records? PACE man...he would only be an 18-9 guy today...and that would be at the local YMCA. Can't count those records.

In fact...ANY record before 2010 should not count...and of course, those 2010 records will be burned in 2011.
There's surely a happy medium and I agree, I do see some people dismissing any basketball played before 1994. However, I'll also go the other way and admit that I do not feel we should just assume every player mentioned as a great was no doubt a great, no questions asked.

I bet you and I would agree on a lot of things, but on the two things you happened to mention, I actually do believe there might actually be some competent disagreements to be had there.

I think in regards to Wilt and Bill's insane rebounding numbers, most of us likely took a look at their game highs of 50+ boards (20+ for the season) and used our current NBA as perspective. In my case, I said to myself, "It's like Dennis Rodman grabs every single rebound! And Wilt still averaged TEN more a game than him! Superhuman!"

Well, as it turns out, averaging that many rebounds in Wilt and Bill's era is still spectacular, but when we discover just how many shots were being taken and how many rebounds there were to be had, it begins to make a little more sense. Us youngsters can gather a little better perspective. In 1962, the Celtics took 9,000 shots and garnered 6,000 rebounds. In 2009, those numbers were 6,300 and 3,500. Again, these numbers don't discount skill, but it does help explain the inflated numbers. That is nearly 50% more shots and almost twice as many rebounds.

The other point is a lot more open to interpretation. I surely don't discount Russell's 11 rings just because they happened a while ago. And I definitely don't think he won those championships by not being great or not playing with terrific teammates. There was great competition in that era, but Boston as a team was still more talented and skilled than every other squad (in large part thanks to Bill). As such, Boston was the best of an 8 and 9 team league.

The process often (but certainly not always) worked out as follows: great Boston team has league's best record. Boston beats fourth best team in conference championship. Boston beats team that, even if 2nd best, is still head and shoulders below Boston's surplus of talent. It is my opinion that winning two short playoff series as the best team in a nine team league is much preferred to winning four long playoff series in a 29-30 team league. Imagine 2010 Cleveland only playing a 3-game series against the 2010 Celtics in order to reach the Finals (they'd probably still lose :-\ ).

I guess my main point is, for better or for worse, circumstances change over time. A lot of the stats and proofs we throw out just don't seem to hold the same weight and perspective throughout different eras (for an assortment of different reasons).

[jlauber]

There's surely a happy medium and I agree, I do see some people dismissing any basketball played before 1994. However, I'll also go the other way and admit that I do not feel we should just assume every player mentioned as a great was no doubt a great, no questions asked.

I bet you and I would agree on a lot of things, but on the two things you happened to mention, I actually do believe there might actually be some competent disagreements to be had there.

I think in regards to Wilt and Bill's insane rebounding numbers, most of us likely took a look at their game highs of 50+ boards (20+ for the season) and used our current NBA as perspective. In my case, I said to myself, "It's like Dennis Rodman grabs every single rebound! And Wilt still averaged TEN more a game than him! Superhuman!"

Well, as it turns out, averaging that many rebounds in Wilt and Bill's era is still spectacular, but when we discover just how many shots were being taken and how many rebounds there were to be had, it begins to make a little more sense. Us youngsters can gather a little better perspective. In 1962, the Celtics took 9,000 shots and garnered 6,000 rebounds. In 2009, those numbers were 6,300 and 3,500. Again, these numbers don't discount skill, but it does help explain the inflated numbers. That is nearly 50% more shots and almost twice as many rebounds.

The other point is a lot more open to interpretation. I surely don't discount Russell's 11 rings just because they happened a while ago. And I definitely don't think he won those championships by not being great or not playing with terrific teammates. There was great competition in that era, but Boston as a team was still more talented and skilled than every other squad (in large part thanks to Bill). As such, Boston was the best of an 8 and 9 team league.

The process often (but certainly not always) worked out as follows: great Boston team has league's best record. Boston beats fourth best team in conference championship. Boston beats team that, even if 2nd best, is still head and shoulders below Boston's surplus of talent. It is my opinion that winning two short playoff series as the best team in a nine team league is much preferred to winning four long playoff series in a 29-30 team league. Imagine 2010 Cleveland only playing a 3-game series against the 2010 Celtics in order to reach the Finals (they'd probably still lose :-\ ).

I guess my main point is, for better or for worse, circumstances change over time. A lot of the stats and proofs we throw out just don't seem to hold the same weight and perspective throughout different eras (for an assortment of different reasons).

I also agree with much of what you stated, but there is a common misconception about rebounding numbers. Team totals before the 73-74 season included team rebounds, and do not after that season. The 62 Celtics actually had 5326 rebounds, and the '10 Celts had 3165.

I mentioned it before, but Wilt's 60-61 team averaged 66 rpg. Rodman's '92 Pistons averaged 44. Using that math, Wilt's 27.2 rpg drops to about 18 in '92. Rodman averaged 18.7 rpg, and 40.3 mpg, to Wilt's 47 mpg. So, the logic is that Rodman had more rebounds per minute.

Wilt's 67 team averaged 60 rpg, and he was at 24.2. So, while it is was considerably more than Rodman's team's 44, it was not twice as many...not even close.

And, furthermore, Rodman's numbers came in a period of very weak rebounding centers. The BEST centers were getting 12-13, and the AVERAGE centers were at 8. Using that gauge, Rodman's numbers were accomplished against much weaker competition.

And, of course, if you factor in POST-SEASON rebounding...Rodman's BEST was at 16.0 (in 3 games BTW), and his next best was at 14.7. His career was at 9.9 rpg in the post-season. Meanwhile Wilt's numbers JUMP in the post-season. He had MANY post-seasons over 25, and two over 29, with a high of 30. No matter what math you use in the post-season, Chamberlain CRUSHES Rodman. AND, Wilt's numbers were accomplished against the likes of Russell, Thurmond, and Lucas...three of the greatest rebounders ever.

I am not naive enough to believe that Wilt would have be scoring 50 ppg, or grabbing 27 rpg in today's game. BUT, I would also argue, that a peak Wilt would certainly be better than a 25-15 guy. IMHO, a reasonable guesstimation would be 30-18, with a 35-20 possible. Why? Because even transporting Wilt's scoring numbers to say 2010, and dropping the number of shots, and FTs, to current levels, and then adjusting for league FG%...and Wilt would be at 39.5 ppg. Of course, that would be in 48 mpg. Drop his mpg down to 45, which would be VERY reasonable, considering that he holds the top-7 sevens for mpg, and almost always played 2-3 minutes, or more, per game than the next guy....and his scoring would drop to about 37 ppg.

Using MJ's 86-87 season, in which the league averaged 110 ppg on .480 shooting (compared to the 119 and .426 shooting in 61-62)...and adjusting shots, FTAs, and then raising Wilt's FG% to '87 levels, and he would have averaged 46 ppg. Sure, his mpg would have dropped, so maybe 43 ppg.

All of that is pure speculation, of course, but it is EDUCATED speculation, based on reasonable mathmatical adjustments. There are those that contend that Wilt would not be getting 30 FGAs in today's NBA. Maybe not, but Shaq had playoff games in 2000 with over 30 FGAs, and Olajuwon had a SERIES, against Shaq, no less, in which he averaged that. As for Wilt getting 30 FGAs...think about this. There was only one other center in the NBA, in the 60's, who took over 20 FGAs, and it was in ONE season (Bellamy with 23 in '62.) The FACT was, Wilt was routinely shooting twice as many shots over his peers in his era. Why would he not be doing the same in this era of the worsty centers in NBA history?

And that is my main point about Wilt's records. He was so FAR ahead of even his own contemporaries, that there is just no comparsion in any other era. Wilt SHATTERED all kinds of records during his 14 years in the NBA...and after he left, things returned to normal. Is that just a coincidence? In his last NBA season, at age 36, he led the NBA in rebounding at 18.6 rpg (how did Kareem or Shaq do at that age BTW?) Only Rodman's 18.7 in '92 bettered that mark. AND, while Wilt averaged 22.5 rpg in his FINAL post-season...which was nearly FOUR better than his regular season average...Rodman's DROPPED from 18.7 down to 10.2.

The FACT was, Wilt CRUSHED his peers in rebounding. And even moreso in the post-season. The same could not be said of Rodman.

How about Wilt's FG%? He was shooting .683 (and still averaging 24 ppg) in a league that shot .441. Not only that, but he routed his nearest competitor, Bellamy, by a staggering .162 mark (.521.) Don't bother trying to find anything comparable (other than Wilt's .727 in a league that shot .456...and his nearest rival was at .570)...no one else can come within a MILE of the differentials. He was outshooting his league by .271 and .242 margins. He was BLOWING AWAY the next guy by just mind-boggling numbers.

So, while I agree that Wilt would not be putting up his unfathomable numbers of his era...I just can't accept that he would merely be a 25-15 .550 player today.

[raptorfan_dr07]

I swear...Ppl must see somethin different than I did....But iv'e watched some clips from the 60's......Not impressed...Maybe its just me.

I won't deny the Greatness that is Bill Russel but, the overration of this man and this era is crazy...

Mbenga= 18ppg 28reb in that Era if he played then....Bookit.

I honestly think KeVin Durant would do some sick post work on Bill...



Juust my opinion...And Michael Jordan is the G.O.A.T

Just like many of us are NOT impressed with Kobe. In the same way, we don't like the crazy overrating of Kobe.

jlauber, RoundballRock, etc, where are you guys? This Kobe n*tgagger just said DJ Mbenga, that's right, DJ Mbenga would be a 18/28 guy in the 60's :oldlol: :roll: Oh I forgot, it's okay for Kobe slurpers to disrespect past eras and players, but not anyone else. I understand now, my mistake. DJ Mbenga would be lucky to even make a roster. The only reason that sorry waste of a roster spot is on a roster is because he's a 7footer. Having no talent in 2010 is the exact same thing as having no talent in 1965.

LMFAO at Kevin Durant putting moves on Bill Russell. Step down because basketball is clearly not your thing. There's a reason why Bill Russell is widely regarded as perhaps the greatest defensive player of all time. Kevin Durant would be Russell's b*tch.


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Dude wasn't even a Great Offensive player in an era with more possesions and weaker opponents...F*ck you think he would do in this era?...He would be Ben Wallace like on offence, or Kendrik Perkns...

Russel would avg 12ppg 11reb 3blk....Bookit.

Dude would'nt even be able to f*ck with Wilt either...Im not that big on Wilt, but atleast from what I watched, I know Wilt would avg sh!t like...25-28ppg 13reb 4blk if he played today...Easily would be top 5 player too...As for Russel....GTFO.

Im out of this thread...Cause nothings gonna change anyone's mind...

Even though Bill Russell was a better scorer than those guys ever were. Seriously, do these Kobe trolls understand how stupid they are, or are they really that oblivious to the garbage that comes out of their mouths?:confusedshrug: Ben Wallace has never averaged double figures in points. The closest he's come to is 9.7, which technically rounds up to 10 so he did it once. He had NO offensive moves. To compare Russell to Big Ben offensively, clearly tells me you were lying about having watched Russell highlights. This is the first year Kendrick Perkins has averaged double figures in points. Bill Russell's career PPG is 15.1 with season averages of 18.2, 18.9, 16.8, 16.9, and 16.6, this on a team full of scorers. In the playoffs, Russell upped his PPG average to 16.2, including playoff averages of 19.1, 20.3, and 22.4. Again, this on a team full of scoring options. The highest PPG either Wallace or Perk have reached in the playoffs is 11, and that was Perk last year. Big Ben's career high playoff PPG average is 10.3.

I must have missed when Kendrick Perkins or Ben Wallace dropped 30 points in Game 7 of the NBA Finals. I must have also missed when Wallace or Perk had 22 points and 35 rebounds in yet another Game 7. I definitely missed when Big Ben and Perk won 5 MVPs. Russell was also a better passer than Ben Wallace or Kendrick Perkins ever were. He just did what needed to be done to win, whether it was scoring, rebounding, playing defense, passing, whatever. The ultimate team player.

LMFAO at not being able to "f*ck with Wilt", when he held his own against Chamberlain multiple times, sometimes outplaying him. Russell and Chamberlain would easily be the two best big men in the game today, easily, and that's NOT up for debate. I'm getting pretty sick and tired of these Kobe n*tgaggers trashing TRUE great players and being allowed to run rampant on this board unchecked lately. They spread their collection of lies and misinformation like a f*cking disease. Learn some god damn history on the game and the true great players who came before. Until then, shut your @$$ up about things you clearly know nothing about and go back to wacking off to your Kobe posters and Kobe mixes on youtube. Sorry, but the amount of trolling and BS by Kobe morons the last week or so has been downright disgusting and unbearable.

Oh and RocketGreatness, this is probably the best topic you've ever created. Bill Russell definitely has a case for GOAT. IMO, MJ is the GOAT, but you could definitely make an argument for Bill Russell. Wait what, RG is back? His original username? Oh well, keep up with good threads RG and people wouldn't be so critical of you. And please, for the love of God, stick to one username.

[crisoner]

a case can certainly be made....
however, he played on absolutely stacked teams. 1960s not as strong as any era thereafter.
Kareem has 6 MVPs, more than anyone, ever. kicked ass against the best in both the 70s and 80s.


And he played well into his 40's. Most points ever etc. props to the Cap you can make arguments between him, Russell, Wilt, and Jordan.

[L.A. Jazz]

Russell is laughing at you throwing stats.
for me he was a D.Howard with HIGH basketballIQ.
he realized how you win games.
sometimes he needed to score 5 points more than his average.
the other day he just had to hold Wilt 5 points under his average.
he knew that most games will come down to the last 5 minutes and saved his energy to contain Wilt in the last minutes, only to win by a few points.

for me scoring is the easy thing in basketball. you find tons of scorers. but finding your defensive leader who can do everything (defend 1on1, block, steal, helpD, oulet pass) is the hardest thing to do. and when he then chips in 18-20points, there is nothing more you can ask for.

the funny thing is, Wilt could do everything Russell was doing on the defensive end (i think), but he was also their main offensive weapon. so he cant afford to foul and it on the bench and on the other side, he was obsessed with stats like most ISH members. result: only 2 rings.

now lets enjoy todays best teams (TEAMSSPORTS basketball) in the finals.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Just like many of us are NOT impressed with Kobe. In the same way, we don't like the crazy overrating of Kobe.

jlauber, RoundballRock, etc, where are you guys? This Kobe n*tgagger just said DJ Mbenga, that's right, DJ Mbenga would be a 18/28 guy in the 60's :oldlol: :roll: Oh I forgot, it's okay for Kobe slurpers to disrespect past eras and players, but not anyone else. I understand now, my mistake. DJ Mbenga would be lucky to even make a roster. The only reason that sorry waste of a roster spot is on a roster is because he's a 7footer. Having no talent in 2010 is the exact same thing as having no talent in 1965.

LMFAO at Kevin Durant putting moves on Bill Russell. Step down because basketball is clearly not your thing. There's a reason why Bill Russell is widely regarded as perhaps the greatest defensive player of all time. Kevin Durant would be Russell's b*tch.



Even though Bill Russell was a better scorer than those guys ever were. Seriously, do these Kobe trolls understand how stupid they are, or are they really that oblivious to the garbage that comes out of their mouths?:confusedshrug: Ben Wallace has never averaged double figures in points. The closest he's come to is 9.7, which technically rounds up to 10 so he did it once. He had NO offensive moves. To compare Russell to Big Ben offensively, clearly tells me you were lying about having watched Russell highlights. This is the first year Kendrick Perkins has averaged double figures in points. Bill Russell's career PPG is 15.1 with season averages of 18.2, 18.9, 16.8, 16.9, and 16.6, this on a team full of scorers. In the playoffs, Russell upped his PPG average to 16.2, including playoff averages of 19.1, 20.3, and 22.4. Again, this on a team full of scoring options. The highest PPG either Wallace or Perk have reached in the playoffs is 11, and that was Perk last year. Big Ben's career high playoff PPG average is 10.3.


Yeah, but he also shot 44% from the field for his career and 56% from the line. You could bring up the league average for FG% at the time and realize that's not as inefficient as it sounds at first, but then consider that if we're going by league averages, he wouldn't be getting anywhere near the 17 shots per game he needed to average 19 ppg in a slower pace era.

Russell simply wasn't a big scorer, it wasn't his game. Not saying he was Ben Wallace offensively, but certainly not a number 1 option type offensively.

[fos]

Bill Murray is the GOAT Actor.

This is true.

http://auteurs_production.s3.amazonaws.com/stills/9841/LifeAquaticw.jpg

[jlauber]

Yeah, but he also shot 44% from the field for his career and 56% from the line. You could bring up the league average for FG% at the time and realize that's not as inefficient as it sounds at first, but then consider that if we're going by league averages, he wouldn't be getting anywhere near the 17 shots per game he needed to average 19 ppg in a slower pace era.

Russell simply wasn't a big scorer, it wasn't his game. Not saying he was Ben Wallace offensively, but certainly not a number 1 option type offensively.

I agree with you. Had Russell been asked to carry a team offensively, I don't believe he could. That was certainly not his strength. But looking at past footage, some of it in his college days, he was more skilled than what he has been given credit for.

I realize that we just have no way of knowing how great a player would be in different era's. And, I agree that PACE has a HUGE influence on offensive numbers. As powerful as McGwire was, I seriously doubt that he would have been hitting prodigious HRs in the "deadball era." And, conversely, there is no way that Walter Johnson is going to have a 1.09 ERA in 2000 pitching in Coors Field (although Jiminez is at 0.78 right now.) And I doubt Terrell Owens, at his peak, would be catching a 100 passes in 1970.

I know that I get carried away here....just a natural reaction from all of the years of listening to the "Wilt was a loser", or "Wilt was a choker", etc., from most of whom never even saw him play. But, even I have to be realistic, here. If the average team has 90 possessions today, instead of the 120+ that they had in his era...it is almost a mathmatical impossibility for him to put up a 50-27 game...much less a season.

Instead, what I would ask, is that all we can really do is to compare the performances of players against their peers. I am reasonably certain that Babe Ruth would not be hitting 60 HRs in today's game. But, remarkably, he hit 54 in 1920, and in the process, he outhomered every other TEAM (except his, of course.) What would the equivalent of that be in today's game...250?

In any case, Russell was the greatest player of his era. He was voted that by his peers and the media on at least a couple of different occassions. I may disagree with some of their reasoning, but I can't argue that the majority of those who saw Russell play, believed him to be the greatest of his era.

Best of all-time? I just don't see how we would know. Not to toot my own horn, but I have probably witnessed more basketball, in terms of years, than almost anyone here. I saw Chamberlain, Oscar, West, Lucas, Russell, Kareem, M. Malone, Magic, Bird, MJ, Hakeem, Shaq, Kobe, and Lebron. The only thing I can say for sure, is that they were the best of their eras...AND, several of them faced each other in their careers...which then span over 50 years.

What I do know, is that today's BEST players are probably not SIGNIFICANTLY better than those of even 50 years ago. I WILL agree with ShaqAttack, though. There is no way that the average center of the 60's and 70's, would have been able to stop Shaq. Not if he were allowed to overpower them. And, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that that was Shaq's ONLY game. He was a marvelous athlete. He was playing 45 mpg in the playoffs, at 350 lbs. And, for every elbow that he hit someone with, he was being fouled by several players that were not called.

Of course, Shaq was dominating HIS generation, too. He was one-of-a-kind. As was Wilt, but for different reasons. We will probably never know how high he really jumped, or just how strong he was...but we do KNOW that he was truly gifted ATHLETE. Someone posted a thread about a 7-8 basketball player. One quick view, and I KNOW that Shaq would break that guy in two, and Wilt would be going around and over the guy all game long.

As for Russell. Just watch the footage, and keep an open mind. At first glance, he doesn't look like anything special. But pay close attention. His IMPACT was all over the floor. He almost always made the right play, whether on offense, or defense. The ultimate compliment that I can make about the guy, is that he made his TEAM better, and made the opposing TEAM worse.

And MJ was the greatest post-season scorer, and perhaps all-around player, that I ever saw. Only a fool would argue that. His post-season numbers speak for themselves.

Same with the rest. Kareem (the most skilled big man I ever saw), Oscar (the most fundamental player I ever saw), Magic (the best PG ever), Bird (the most skilled SF in NBA history), and other's too, like Olajuwon, Lucas, Kobe, Lebron, and Howard. ALL GREAT. I honestly believe that if you played these guys against each other in 100 games, that there would be no more than a 55-45 edge for any.

Personally, I have enjoyed watching them all.

[PHILA]

I honestly think KeVin Durant would do some sick post work on Bill...

My God..

[ThaRegul8r]

How about those clutch games for Russell? including those win or go home games, PHILA had a great post :applause: here with those clutch games of Wilt, KAJ and Jordan:
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=176340&page=19

can someone share some clutch game stats(and win the game or not) of Russell's please?

I have been conducting research on Russell, as well as Wilt and Kareem, which will go into greater detail than I've yet seen and will dispel common misconceptions and end the misinformation that's spread.

[ThaRegul8r]

I don't see a problem with anybody saying Wilt, Russell, or KAJ is GOAT. Jordan is a top candidate for me, but he's not the definitive choice IMO.

I'm going to present the case for each of the Big Three, to let people know that there were other great players besides Jordan and that there are other players with a claim to the title of GOAT, believe it or not. I'll put the facts out there, and people can make up their own minds, but at least it would be an INFORMED decision as opposed to the misinformation that circulates across the internet.

[ThaRegul8r]

By the way, speaking of misinformation, I figure jlauber and PHILA/Abraham Lincoln might find this interesting and feel the same way I do about it.

February 18, 1961, San Antonio Spurs center George Johnson blocked 13 shots in a 131-126 win over the Golden State Warriors, and the next day the Associated Press wrote,

[OnceInADECADE]

Bill is top 4 imo but i rather have Wilt

[ThaRegul8r]

For those who doubt Russell today, there is a documented account in the '70s, years removed from his last year in the NBA and coaching for the Sonics, a player said something about Russell being good "back in his day," which led to a showdown between Russell and Seattle players, and 40-year-old Russell snuffed them all. So 40-year-old Russell, years after his retirement could still shut down contemporary players of the day in the '70s, but prime Russell in the league today would be a scrub. I'll have to find it, I know it's in my notes somewhere.

[Sarcastic]

I have nothing but respect for Russell, but he was outplayed by Wilt virtually every time in their head to head match ups. Russell is number 2 greatest center and 5th best overall all time.

[alexandreben]

I have nothing but respect for Russell, but he was outplayed by Wilt virtually every time in their head to head match ups. Russell is number 2 greatest center and 5th best overall all time.
yes. and maybe you should clear about your standard, same thing as Auerbach and Jackson..

"better career" or "better player"

[Crystallas]

Bill Russell started the player union, and working one getting on together for years beforehand.

He was a great player, but nobody was going to give him the unbiased challenges that a normal player would get. You don't make your leader look bad.

[MakeHistory78]

Not Jordan, Not Kareem, Sorry. The 11 rings, 5 NBA MVPs speak for themselves. I'm just waiting for the he had no scoring game argument.
Bill Russell is nowhere to Jordan..He has 11 rings because he always had the best teammates...
Wilt>>>>Russell.Jordan is the greatest player ever and Wilt the second greatest.
Russell was never better player than Wilt or even Elgin Baylor how the hell is the GOAT?If you want to call him greatest winner that's ok but he isn't the greatest player ever.He wasn't better on the court than Jordan,Wilt,KAJ,Shaq,Bird,Magic.
It's not only about the rings but is also to be the best player in the game.The best player in the game in 1960's was always Wilt.

[alexandreben]

Bill Russell is nowhere to Jordan..He has 11 rings because he always had the best teammates...
Wilt>>>>Russell.Jordan is the greatest player ever and Wilt the second greatest.
Russell was never better player than Wilt or even Elgin Baylor how the hell is the GOAT?If you want to call him greatest winner that's ok but he isn't the greatest player ever.He wasn't better on the court than Jordan,Wilt,KAJ,Shaq,Bird,Magic.
It's not only about the rings but is also to be the best player in the game.The best player in the game in 1960's was always Wilt.
Jordan fanboys are mad...:roll:

Speaking of the GOAT, you have to count ring and winning as criteiras, how much weight you give depends on how and what do you value;

Russell won those 11 rings not just because he always had the best teammates, I said it many times, before the Celtics never passed the 2nd round in the playoffs even with a HOF coach Red Auerbach and multiple HOF players, it was Russell who made them better, they won a title in his first year on board (along with Tom of course), as the key pivot, Russell played an extremely important role in Celtics, for this factor, Jordan is nothing compare with Russell, no contest...

Russell's offense is just as sucks as KAJ's defense, only Wilt that who really dominate on the both end! not to mention the rebounds, shot blocking.. Shaq's so called domination definitely is no compare with Wilt Chamberlain.

[MakeHistory78]

Jordan fanboys are mad...:roll:

Speaking of the GOAT, you have to count ring and winning as criteiras, how much weight you give depends on how and what do you value;

Russell won those 11 rings not just because he always had the best teammates, I said it many times, before the Celtics never passed the 2nd round in the playoffs even with a HOF coach Red Auerbach and multiple HOF players, it was Russell who made them better, they won a title in his first year on board (along with Tom of course), as the key pivot, Russell played an extremely important role in Celtics, for this factor, Jordan is nothing compare with Russell, no contest...

Russell's offense is just as sucks as KAJ's defense, only Wilt that who really dominate on the both end! not to mention the rebounds, shot blocking.. Shaq's so called domination definitely is no compare with Wilt Chamberlain.
LOL..You call me a Jordan fanboy?GTFOH.18 years old youngsters like you are idiots.They learn the game from Wikipedia.."Russell has 11 rings" and that's why he is the greatest...:oldlol:
Jordan was the best offensive player and the best defensive player on the court.
Some basketball people called MJ greatest player ever from his 26 before the Eastern Finals against Pistons because he was damn good.
Stop reading Wikipedia and find games of Michael Jordan because you don't know what Jordan did on the courts.
Don't be stupid.
Don't waste my time with Russ.He is a Top-10 ever but nowhere to Top-3 ever.

[alexandreben]

LOL..You call me a Jordan fanboy?GTFOH.18 years old youngsters like you are idiots.They learn the game from Wikipedia.."Russell has 11 rings" and that's why he is the greatest...:oldlol:
Jordan was the best offensive player and the best defensive player on the court.
Some basketball people called MJ greatest player ever from his 26 before the Eastern Finals against Pistons because he was damn good.
Stop reading Wikipedia and find games of Michael Jordan because you don't know what Jordan did on the courts.
Don't be stupid.
Don't waste my time with Russ.He is a Top-10 ever but nowhere to Top-3 ever.
I watched the game since 80's, your God AKA Jordan consistantly being murdered by Larry year by year not to mentions his chocking performance and bailed out by Scottie:roll: Jordan fans always try to hide some ugly history... people called Jordan the greatest player ever only because the media needs new God just like today's Kobe and LeBron, that's the real reason they called Jordan the GOAT. Jordan worshippers are no better than Kobe worshippers.

IMO, the more approprie GOAT should be:
Russell/Wilt/KAJ/Jordan(/Magic/Bird)

Jordan should be either tie with the rest of Big Three, or ranked under KAJ.

[ginobli2311]

I watched the game since 80's, your God AKA Jordan consistantly being murdered by Larry year by year not to mentions his chocking performance and bailed out by Scottie:roll: Jordan fans always try to hide some ugly history... people called Jordan the greatest player ever only because the media needs new God just like today's Kobe and LeBron, that's the real reason they called Jordan the GOAT. Jordan worshippers are no better than Kobe worshippers.

IMO, the more approprie GOAT should be:
Russell/Wilt/KAJ/Jordan(/Magic/Bird)

Jordan should be either tie with the rest of Big Three, or ranked under KAJ.

every player has had failures in some way or another. the reason why a lot of people have jordan one is because he's by far the most complete player of all time.

he was dominant offensively. he was dominant defensively. and he is without a doubt the greatest crunch time player and big shot making player of all time. russell simply could not take over a game late the way that jordan could.

they are all great. but jordan's efficiency levels and all around game trump everyone else in my opinion.

[alexandreben]

every player has had failures in some way or another. the reason why a lot of people have jordan one is because he's by far the most complete player of all time.

he was dominant offensively. he was dominant defensively. and he is without a doubt the greatest crunch time player and big shot making player of all time. russell simply could not take over a game late the way that jordan could.

they are all great. but jordan's efficiency levels and all around game trump everyone else in my opinion.
Wilt and Jordan, they are all great, but Wilt Chamberlain is the only one that really dominate both ends, not Jordan.
Scoring;
one on one defense;
help defense;
passing;
shot blocking;
rebounding;

the only thing you can argue is the stealling, maybe Jordan is better.

anyways, due to their "stupid super ego", they both look bad compare with Russell and Bird...

[ginobli2311]

Wilt and Jordan, they are all great, but Wilt Chamberlain is the only one that really dominate both ends, not Jordan.
Scoring;
one on one defense;
help defense;
passing;
shot blocking;
rebounding;

the only thing you can argue is the stealling, maybe Jordan is better.

anyways, due to their "stupid super ego", they both look bad compare with Russell and Bird...

i agree that wilt could dominate both ends. but so could jordan. jordan was dominant defensively. the bulls were dominant defensively and jordan was a huge reason why.

like i said. factor in jordan's ability to take over games and make clutch shots and it puts him over the edge.

[alexandreben]

i agree that wilt could dominate both ends. but so could jordan. jordan was dominant defensively. the bulls were dominant defensively and jordan was a huge reason why.

like i said. factor in jordan's ability to take over games and make clutch shots and it puts him over the edge.
it's not that Wilt "could" dominate, he DID DOMINATE both ends;

you forgot Scottie? Harper? you made it sounds like Jordan led a bunch of scrubs to give great defense to Bulls...

[ThaRegul8r]

russell simply could not take over a game late the way that jordan could.

You mean like Old Russell in his last season

[ginobli2311]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]You mean like Old Russell in his last season

[ThaRegul8r]

i agree that wilt could dominate both ends. but so could jordan.

Wilt.

'65: 110-109 win, two blocks in the last 18 seconds to preserve the win. Jordan ever do that?

'67: Wilt blocks the first five shots Seattle takes, and intimidates them to the point that they miss their first 11 shots before finally making one. Jordan dominate like that defensively?

'69: Playoff game against the Hawks. West hits a three-point play to tie the game with 1:21 left. Johnny Egan hits with 18 seconds left to put the Lakers up by 2. Wilt blocks Zelmo Beatty with six seconds left to preserve the win. Jordan do that?

Random games I'm scanning through.

"Could?" Why try to shortchange some players? I don't get it.

[ThaRegul8r]

i know plenty about russell sir. i think its fair to say that jordan had the advantage in crunch time play with his ability to take over. no doubt russell was good on both ends in this time as well. just not on jordan's level.

I'd put money on it you didn't know what I just told you. To use the vernacular you'd be familiar with, "stop fronting."

[alexandreben]

jordan's efficiency levels and all around game trump everyone else in my opinion.
How do you judge Jordan's efficiency level?

[ginobli2311]

Wilt.

'65: 110-109 win, two blocks in the last 18 seconds to preserve the win. Jordan ever do that?

'67: Wilt blocks the first five shots Seattle takes, and intimidates them to the point that they miss their first 11 shots before finally making one. Jordan dominate like that defensively?

'69: Playoff game against the Hawks. West hits a three-point play to tie the game with 1:21 left. Johnny Egan hits with 18 seconds left to put the Lakers up by 2. Wilt blocks Zelmo Beatty with six seconds left to preserve the win. Jordan do that?

Random games I'm scanning through.

"Could?" Why try to shortchange some players? I don't get it.


i used could. as wilt did dominate both ends. not could as in (at times). i wasn't trying to short change him at all.

[Duncan21formvp]

Not Jordan, Not Kareem, Sorry. The 11 rings, 5 NBA MVPs speak for themselves. I'm just waiting for the he had no scoring game argument.

I usually have Russell 3rd.

I believe in the GOAT argument you have to have everything.

Other than MJ, Kareem is the guy who has the resume most similar.

People overrate winning so much. Its not winning that matters, its how you PERFORMED while Winning.

Performance, rings, accolades, productivity as a player determines the GOAT.


PLAYOFFS
1. Michael Jordan* 28.59
2. George Mikan* 28.51
3. LeBron James 27.08
4. Shaquille O'Neal 26.16
5. Tim Duncan 25.74
6. Hakeem Olajuwon* 25.69
7. Tracy McGrady 24.66
8. Dirk Nowitzki 24.66
9. Charles Barkley* 24.18
10. Dwyane Wade 24.04


REGULAR SEASON
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/per_career.html

1. Michael Jordan* 27.91
2. LeBron James 26.86
3. Shaquille O'Neal 26.59
4. David Robinson* 26.18
5. Wilt Chamberlain* 26.13
6. Dwyane Wade 25.67
7. Bob Pettit* 25.37
8. Tim Duncan 25.02
9. Neil Johnston* 24.72
10. Charles Barkley* 24.63
11. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 24.58
12. Magic Johnson* 24.11

MJ led in Playoff Win Shares 7x and Russell 5x. The most for any player

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_career_p.html

1. Michael Jordan* 39.76
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 35.56
3. Magic Johnson* 32.63
4. Wilt Chamberlain* 31.46
5. Shaquille O'Neal 31.08
6. Tim Duncan 28.61
7. Bill Russell* 27.76
8. Julius Erving* 26.89
9. Jerry West* 26.75
10. Kobe Bryant 26.12



MJ led in Season Win Shares 9x and Wilt and Kareem as well led in it 9x. The most for any player

MJ led in Playoff Offensive Win Shares 7x and Jerry West 6x and Magic 4x. The most for any player

MJ led in Offensive Win Shares 8x and Kareem 6x and Neil Johnson 5x and Wilt 4x. The most for any player

Kareem led in Playoff PER 7x and MJ 6x (also led in it in 1986 with a 30 PER, so really 7x) and Wilt 6x. The most for any player

Kareem led in WS Per 48 Minutes 9x and MJ 8x and Wilt 8x, the most for any player

1. Michael Jordan* 0.2505
2. David Robinson* 0.2502
3. Wilt Chamberlain* 0.2480
4. Neil Johnston* 0.2413
5. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* 0.2284
6. Magic Johnson* 0.2249
7. LeBron James 0.2242
8. Tim Duncan 0.2190
9. Manu Ginobili 0.2167
10. Charles Barkley* 0.2163




MJ and Kareem both led in WS per 48 Minutes in the playoffs 5x, the most for any Player.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ws_per_48_career_p.html

1. Michael Jordan* 0.2553
2. George Mikan* 0.2541
3. LeBron James 0.2287
4. Magic Johnson* 0.2078
5. Dirk Nowitzki 0.2059
6. Tim Duncan 0.2037
7. Jerry West* 0.2031
8. Wilt Chamberlain* 0.1998
9. David Robinson* 0.1992

[ginobli2311]

How do you judge Jordan's efficiency level?

well.

for starters. jordan's PER is the best all time. win shares per 48 minutes is number 1 all time.

mvp award shares number 1.

i could go on. but i don't want to take the time right now.

[MasterDurant24]

Actually the 60's was the 2nd strongest decade of NBA Basketball only to the 80's.
True but they only had eight teams. And playing on a ultra stacked team in a leauge with only 8 teams sends him down the list quite a bit. I don't think his teams could of beat the Bulls, Sixers, Pistons, Celtics, or Lakers.

[MasterDurant24]

Wilt.

'65: 110-109 win, two blocks in the last 18 seconds to preserve the win. Jordan ever do that?

'67: Wilt blocks the first five shots Seattle takes, and intimidates them to the point that they miss their first 11 shots before finally making one. Jordan dominate like that defensively?

'69: Playoff game against the Hawks. West hits a three-point play to tie the game with 1:21 left. Johnny Egan hits with 18 seconds left to put the Lakers up by 2. Wilt blocks Zelmo Beatty with six seconds left to preserve the win. Jordan do that?

Random games I'm scanning through.

"Could?" Why try to shortchange some players? I don't get it.

Defense for a center and a guard is quite different. And Jordan was only 6'4( he isn't 6'6 as listed) and couldn't block a ton of shots like the 7'0 Chamberlain. But defense is simply locking down your man and Jordan did it constanly. Both were dominant defenders.

[alexandreben]

Wilt.

'65: 110-109 win, two blocks in the last 18 seconds to preserve the win. Jordan ever do that?

'67: Wilt blocks the first five shots Seattle takes, and intimidates them to the point that they miss their first 11 shots before finally making one. Jordan dominate like that defensively?

'69: Playoff game against the Hawks. West hits a three-point play to tie the game with 1:21 left. Johnny Egan hits with 18 seconds left to put the Lakers up by 2. Wilt blocks Zelmo Beatty with six seconds left to preserve the win. Jordan do that?

Random games I'm scanning through.

"Could?" Why try to shortchange some players? I don't get it.
yes, and like i said, the only thing can be argued is Jordan's stealing, no more...

btw, Big Z is tough guy too, i remember i read in an ramdom article that Wilt had very low FG% against him.

[alexandreben]

well.

for starters. jordan's PER is the best all time. win shares per 48 minutes is number 1 all time.

mvp award shares number 1.

i could go on. but i don't want to take the time right now.

PER, Win Share, TRB%, EFG%, etc..

I've always had problems with these kind of complex stats, they're just flaw as raw stats, take PER for example, the more you shoot the more PER you will get as long as your FG% is higher than 30.4%...

Jordan and Wilt had that high of PER is only because they all took a lot of shot(especially compare with Russell), however, it doesn't mean that Russell is not efficient as them.

To quote Dave Berri, the author of The Wages of Wins:
"Hollinger argues that each two point field goal made is worth about 1.65 points. A three point field goal made is worth 2.65 points. A missed field goal, though, costs a team 0.72 points. Given these values, with a bit of math we can show that a player will break even on his two point field goal attempts if he hits on 30.4% of these shots. On three pointers the break-even point is 21.4%. If a player exceeds these thresholds, and virtually every NBA played does so with respect to two-point shots, the more he shoots the higher his value in PERs. So a player can be an inefficient scorer and simply inflate his value by taking a large number of shots."

[alexandreben]

True but they only had eight teams. And playing on a ultra stacked team in a leauge with only 8 teams sends him down the list quite a bit. I don't think his teams could of beat the Bulls, Sixers, Pistons, Celtics, or Lakers.
Fist of all, 60's is definitely the second best era in NBA;

Secondly, how can people judge an era by the number of the teams??!! the logic is bizarre, take this for example, imagine if next year NBA shrink to 8 teams, the quality of the 2010 era is going up or going down(like you said)?:roll:

[ginobli2311]

PER, Win Share, TRB%, EFG%, etc..

I've always had problems with these kind of complex stats, they're just flaw as raw stats, take PER for example, the more you shoot the more PER you will get as long as your FG% is higher than 30.4%...

Jordan and Wilt had that high of PER is only because they all took a lot of shot(especially compare with Russell), however, it doesn't mean that Russell is not efficient as them.

To quote Dave Berri, the author of The Wages of Wins:
"Hollinger argues that each two point field goal made is worth about 1.65 points. A three point field goal made is worth 2.65 points. A missed field goal, though, costs a team 0.72 points. Given these values, with a bit of math we can show that a player will break even on his two point field goal attempts if he hits on 30.4% of these shots. On three pointers the break-even point is 21.4%. If a player exceeds these thresholds, and virtually every NBA played does so with respect to two-point shots, the more he shoots the higher his value in PERs. So a player can be an inefficient scorer and simply inflate his value by taking a large number of shots."

there is a flaw in every stat. they must be used in context. i'd say any overall stat that has about almost all of the top 15 players in the top 20 PER all time is pretty accurate. hard to argue with it when all the greats are right at the top. i count 16 or 17 of the top 25 players of all time being in the top 25 PER all time.

is it perfect? nope. but taken in context its a great overall stat.

[MasterDurant24]

Fist of all, 60's is definitely the second best era in NBA;

Secondly, how can people judge an era by the number of the teams??!! the logic is bizarre, take this for example, imagine if next year NBA shrink to 8 teams, the quality of the 2010 era is going up or going down(like you said)?:roll:
Are you an idiot? THERE IS LESS TEAMS TO COMPETE AGAINST! How you fail to see that I don't know. There's less teams to go through in the playoffs as well.

[alexandreben]

Are you an idiot? THERE IS LESS TEAMS TO COMPETE AGAINST! How you fail to see that I don't know. There's less teams to go through in the playoffs as well.
I won't use those impolite words like you did, at the mean time, try to imagine that by only had 8 team, there will be more "Miami Big-Three" in the league, a whole lot of superstars play in one team, and then you can imagine the competition... get the point?

[MasterDurant24]

I won't use those impolite words like you did, at the mean time, try to imagine that by only had 8 team, there will be more "Miami Big-Three" in the league, a whole lot of superstars play in one team, and then you can imagine the competition... get the point?
But they didn't have the wear and tear of playing 18, 23, or 30 teams each season. Plus, after playing the same teams so much is not as hard to develop a strategy to beat them. I'm not degrading the 60's title as the 2nd greatest era. But it is much easier to win only playing 7 other teams as compared to 10 or 20 more teams.

[alexandreben]

there is a flaw in every stat. they must be used in context. i'd say any overall stat that has about almost all of the top 15 players in the top 20 PER all time is pretty accurate. hard to argue with it when all the greats are right at the top. i count 16 or 17 of the top 25 players of all time being in the top 25 PER all time.

is it perfect? nope. but taken in context its a great overall stat.
using a non-perfect stats to argue is one thing, using a stats with full of flaws like PER is another...

Bill Russell, one of the GOAT candidate, his single season PER ranking unbelivablly out of top 250... shocking...

Russell's career PER ranking is 94...

How can you use a stats like that to judge a player's efficiency??!!

[alexandreben]

But they didn't have the wear and tear of playing 18, 23, or 30 teams each season. Plus, after playing the same teams so much is not as hard to develop a strategy to beat them. I'm not degrading the 60's title as the 2nd greatest era. But it is much easier to win only playing 7 other teams as compared to 10 or 20 more teams.
Imagine in 2010 NBA re-distribute all the stars into a few teams, how can it be easier to win? Lakers can win easier by beating teams like "LeBon+Wade+Bosh+Nash", or "Howard+Stoudemire+Anthony+Paul"???!!!

81 games a season, one month tighter schedule than nowadays, battling with HOF on nightly basis, played under much tougher condition, with much more difficult rules than nowadays...

i always don't get why young kids nowadays just don't give any credit to the old schools...

[ginobli2311]

using a non-perfect stats to argue is one thing, using a stats with full of flaws like PER is another...

Bill Russell, one of the GOAT candidate, his single season PER ranking unbelivablly out of top 250... shocking...

Russell's career PER ranking is 94...

How can you use a stats like that to judge a player's efficiency??!!

did you read my post about context? clearly not.

[Bird]

Imagine in 2010 NBA re-distribute all the stars into a few teams, how can it be easier to win? Lakers can win easier by beating teams like "LeBon+Wade+Bosh+Nash", or "Howard+Stoudemire+Anthony+Paul"???!!!

81 games a season, one month tighter schedule than nowadays, battling with HOF on nightly basis, played under much tougher condition, with much more difficult rules than nowadays...

i always don't get why young kids nowadays just don't give any credit to the old schools...

Not to mention traveling coach or on buses, poor conditioning, worse basketball courts/gyms.

As for the guy who keeps bringing up there was only 8 teams:

That means there is MORE competition every year. Teams had 3 and 4 Hall of Famers. Each team had multiple stars, instead of some teams lacking stars.

As for the argument of Wilt being the GOAT:

If he was the GOAT, why did his scoring drop in the playoffs, per game, by 8 points per game?

If he was so good, how come his teams records in game 7's was 4-5, compared to Russell's teams records in game 7's, which was 10-0?

How come, after Bill Russell retired in 1969, from his "better team", did Wilt's teams win only ONE title in his last 4 seasons? Not to mention, for Russell having "better teammates", why did Wilt play with 6 50 at 50 players, while Russell only played with 4?

In Russell's last season, how did the heavily favored Lakers, with Hall of Fame Trio Jerry West, Wilt and Elgin Baylor lose the title, after being up 3 games to 1, to an aging Bill Russell and crew?

And, head to head record, of Wilt versus Russell, for their career: Wilt was 58 & 84.

Not to mention he was traded twice in his prime.

[Calabis]

Go factor in other shit like TECHONOLGY....You don't think any of that has changed from the 60s to the 2000s? Russell played with no blue-print, Shaq played with a blue-print, so did Kareem, so did Hakeem, so did Yao, etc...Russell has nothing to play off of, even your boy Kobe copied everything from Jordan.

W/o Jordan - Kobe = some bum on the street.

Man you are really reaching here....yes Russell would be great today, but he would be a cross between Garnett and Rodman...without the scoring. Also Wilt/Russell would never avg 22 Rebs a game today...that's just fact. What else is fact is that he was surrounded by scorers(his first 3 chips he was the 4th leading scorer), he would be lucky to have one today. Another factor you fail to weigh in on, is clutch moments...game winners??? Jordan could control the game, with the ball in his hand and is one of the best perimeter defenders of all time, he dominated on both sides of the floor....I would rather have that, then a guy who dominates on one side, and needs scorers around him. If we are using Chips as a measuring stick, then Robert Horry is the greatest player of this era...lol.

Take Jordan back to that time and he would avg 50-60 points a game, put Russell in 90's and he would be Dennis Rodman with ability to block shots....If you want to factor in technology, then factor in free agency and allowing worlds best athletes to play. No way he has 11 chips in 80's-90's, or 2000's

[Calabis]

I watched the game since 80's, your God AKA Jordan consistantly being murdered by Larry year by year not to mentions his chocking performance and bailed out by Scottie:roll: Jordan fans always try to hide some ugly history... people called Jordan the greatest player ever only because the media needs new God just like today's Kobe and LeBron, that's the real reason they called Jordan the GOAT. Jordan worshippers are no better than Kobe worshippers.

IMO, the more approprie GOAT should be:
Russell/Wilt/KAJ/Jordan(/Magic/Bird)

Jordan should be either tie with the rest of Big Three, or ranked under KAJ.
You didn't watch shit in the 80's, because if you did, you would know that Jordan murdered the Celtics, but he was surrounded by a band of misfits, going up against Bird, DJ, Mchale, Parrish...how many HOF's is that??? (Jordan at 22 years old) Larry bird stated Michael was the best player he has ever played against. Also how the hell did Pippen bail out MJ, yet Cousy, Sam Jones, Sharman, Heinshon, Havlicek...not bail out Russell,...you are a complete moron

[DC Zephyrs]

Bill Russell is not even close to the greatest player of all time.

[Psileas]

But they didn't have the wear and tear of playing 18, 23, or 30 teams each season.

The number of games was almost the same (exactly the same from 1968 and on, 81 games in 1967 and 80 from 1962 to 1966), the schedule was not longer (quite the contrary), there were still teams in both the Atlantic and Pacific coast and the means of transport were less advanced. So, the number of teams is not this important in this argument.


Plus, after playing the same teams so much is not as hard to develop a strategy to beat them. I'm not degrading the 60's title as the 2nd greatest era. But it is much easier to win only playing 7 other teams as compared to 10 or 20 more teams.

The same arguments for a random 60's team apply to their 60's opponents.


If he was the GOAT, why did his scoring drop in the playoffs, per game, by 8 points per game?


The 8 ppg margin is scewed by the fact that Wilt played double the playoff games in his non-high scoring seasons, and so are other things, such as his playoff PER or his playoff total points. There was only 1 season when Wilt's playoff ppg fell by 8 or more points, and even this was his 1962 outlier.
And there have been a lot of mentions about Wilt facing Russell or Thurmond in more than 40% of his playoff games or about Kareem, another strong GOAT candidate, also having significantly less efficient playoffs whenever he faced Wilt or Thurmond himself.


If he was so good, how come his teams records in game 7's was 4-5, compared to Russell's teams records in game 7's, which was 10-0?

Uh, Wilt actually has a positive record in "do or die" games. You didn't include his 1960 and 1962 series against Syracuse. Neither the fact that he averaged almost 30 ppg and 26.5 rpg in these 11 games.


How come, after Bill Russell retired in 1969, from his "better team", did Wilt's teams win only ONE title in his last 4 seasons? Not to mention, for Russell having "better teammates", why did Wilt play with 6 50 at 50 players, while Russell only played with 4?

1970: Serious injury problem for Wilt, injury problems for Baylor-these playoffs were the last meaningful games of his career. The Knicks had a better team.

1971: The Bucks were better, especially since the Lakers played without Jerry West in the playoffs.

1973: Again, the Knicks were better and a bit healthier. The Lakers played practically the whole playoffs without Happy Hairston, their main PF.

You can't be using seriously the "top-50 teammates" argument, as long as you know that Wilt played in 3 teams and had no top-50 teammate play with him for even 5 years. Hey, for how many top-10 coaches did Wilt play compared to Russell?


Not to mention he was traded twice in his prime.

And we saw what happened to his former teams. At least, the Warriors were lucky enough to already have a developing Thurmond and acquire Barry. No such luck for the Sixers.

[MakeHistory78]

I watched the game since 80's, your God AKA Jordan consistantly being murdered by Larry year by year not to mentions his chocking performance and bailed out by Scottie:roll: Jordan fans always try to hide some ugly history... people called Jordan the greatest player ever only because the media needs new God just like today's Kobe and LeBron, that's the real reason they called Jordan the GOAT. Jordan worshippers are no better than Kobe worshippers.

IMO, the more approprie GOAT should be:
Russell/Wilt/KAJ/Jordan(/Magic/Bird)

Jordan should be either tie with the rest of Big Three, or ranked under KAJ.
You watched the game since 80's??LOL...
Look I haven't problem if anyone consider Wilt the greatest ever.He was a monster he always was damn good.I respect him.KAJ the same.
But I have to laugh if anyone consider Russell the GOAT.
Was Russell a better player than Wilt??No.
You can say that Wilt was better than Jordan and is debatable.Βut Russell better than Jordan and Wilt??:oldlol:
Russell wasn't better even than Robertson and Baylor.How the hell is the greatest player ever?:confusedshrug:
Top-3 ever imo

1.Jordan(the best player ever and the best performer in the playoffs)
2.Wilt/KAJ
3.KAJ/Wilt

[MasterDurant24]

You watched the game since 80's??LOL...
Look I haven't problem if anyone consider Wilt the greatest ever.He was a monster he always was damn good.I respect him.KAJ the same.
But I have to laugh if anyone consider Russell the GOAT.
Was Russell a better player than Wilt??No.
You can say that Wilt was better than Jordan and is debatable.Βut Russell better than Jordan and Wilt??:oldlol:
Russell wasn't better even than Robertson and Baylor.How the hell is the greatest player ever?:confusedshrug:
Top-3 ever imo

1.Jordan(the best player ever and the best performer in the playoffs)
2.Wilt/KAJ
3.KAJ/Wilt
This. Although,I admit, I was wrong about the 8 team thing though. Y'all made some good points. But I don't think Russell is GOAT or even top 5.

[alexandreben]

You didn't watch shit in the 80's, because if you did, you would know that Jordan murdered the Celtics, but he was surrounded by a band of misfits, going up against Bird, DJ, Mchale, Parrish...how many HOF's is that??? (Jordan at 22 years old) Larry bird stated Michael was the best player he has ever played against. Also how the hell did Pippen bail out MJ, yet Cousy, Sam Jones, Sharman, Heinshon, Havlicek...not bail out Russell,...you are a complete moron
I used to hate Jordan back in the 80's:roll:

Jordan fans really tried to hide those history by saying Jordan murdered Celtics single handly... even though we all know that the ugly truth is Jordan lost to Celtics 16 times in a row and 3 years in a row in the playoffs in the very 1st round, had not Pippen bailed out Jordan, Jordan still couldn't get to the 2nd round... Jordan fans tried to hide that too...

Bird just played that his tricky little mind game to say Jordan is God so that he and Celtics can take the advantage of it... he is very bad bird...:roll: Bird was the teacher of Jordan, he outsmarted Jordan and outplayed him, and Celtics beat Bulls year after year, he owned Jordan back in the 80's...

Sam Jones and Havlicek bailed out Russell many many times... not to mention that Havlicek certainly was the best player in the Celtics back in 68'.. he could've had more FMVP...

[alexandreben]

You watched the game since 80's??LOL...
Look I haven't problem if anyone consider Wilt the greatest ever.He was a monster he always was damn good.I respect him.KAJ the same.
But I have to laugh if anyone consider Russell the GOAT.
Was Russell a better player than Wilt??No.
You can say that Wilt was better than Jordan and is debatable.Βut Russell better than Jordan and Wilt??:oldlol:
Russell wasn't better even than Robertson and Baylor.How the hell is the greatest player ever?:confusedshrug:
Top-3 ever imo

1.Jordan(the best player ever and the best performer in the playoffs)
2.Wilt/KAJ
3.KAJ/Wilt
It really depends on how and what do you value, if you're referring only to pure ability, Wilt kicked Russell's a$$ hardly 8 out of 10 times:lol Wilt definitely is a better player than Russell...

Nevertheless, if we talk about GOAT... the ring and team winning criteria are quite important too... Russell sent his team to finals and won a title in his very first year, the same team with same key rosters and same HOF coach that suffered failing in the first or second round in the playoffs for 6 years in a row... he just made everyone around him played better, he is the key...

same criteria can be used to Magic, he just made everyone play better, even without KAJ he managed his team to a 63 win; Bird is even more ridiculous, with same roster as last year he helped his team from a 29 win to a 61 win in his rookie season, and he dominate the ROY voting by 63-3 against Magic...

the winning and ring criteria are the factors you can't get away when speaking of GOAT... unless you want to list a "pure ability" players ranking.

for "pure ability", Wilt Chamberlain is NO.1 of all time, no one close...

[nycelt84]

Bill Russell is nowhere to Jordan..He has 11 rings because he always had the best teammates...
Wilt>>>>Russell.Jordan is the greatest player ever and Wilt the second greatest.
Russell was never better player than Wilt or even Elgin Baylor how the hell is the GOAT?If you want to call him greatest winner that's ok but he isn't the greatest player ever.He wasn't better on the court than Jordan,Wilt,KAJ,Shaq,Bird,Magic.
It's not only about the rings but is also to be the best player in the game.The best player in the game in 1960's was always Wilt.

Elgin Baylor never won a single MVP award in his career while Russell won 5 which is also 1 more than Wilt. Russell was also named the greatest player in NBA history for the 35th anniversary team. He was definitely better than Baylor and in my mind he was better than Wilt.

[alexandreben]

Elgin Baylor never won a single MVP award in his career while Russell won 5 which is also 1 more than Wilt. Russell was also named the greatest player in NBA history for the 35th anniversary team. He was definitely better than Baylor and in my mind he was better than Wilt.
Russell indeed is the GOAT, even though he's not, at least he ties the GOAT with Wilt and KAJ, Jordan, Magic and Bird are behind them, remain strong GOAT candidates though.

[Alhazred]

I used to hate Jordan back in the 80's:roll:

Jordan fans really tried to hide those history by saying Jordan murdered Celtics single handly... even though we all know that the ugly truth is Jordan lost to Celtics 16 times in a row and 3 years in a row in the playoffs in the very 1st round, had not Pippen bailed out Jordan, Jordan still couldn't get to the 2nd round... Jordan fans tried to hide that too...

Rookie Pippen bailed out Jordan? How, because he scored 25 points in a deciding game? Jordan himself had a statline of 39/6/4 that same game! :oldlol: It was a good performance by Pippen, but I wouldn't exactly call it "bailing him out".


Bird just played that his tricky little mind game to say Jordan is God so that he and Celtics can take the advantage of it... he is very bad bird...:roll: Bird was the teacher of Jordan, he outsmarted Jordan and outplayed him, and Celtics beat Bulls year after year, he owned Jordan back in the 80's...

The Celtics owned the Bulls only up until 88. After that, the Bulls were the better team and won most of their matchups. Also, if the "God disguised as Michael Jordan" comment was just false praise to mess with him, then why did Bird continue to praise him years afterwards? Even in his book that he wrote with Magic, When the Game was Ours, he admits that Jordan didn't have a decent team until Pippen, Grant and the rest of the Bulls developed.


"Early on, people were saying Michael didn't have a team mentality," Bird said. "That was because he didn't have a team."

Straight from Bird's mouth. :confusedshrug:

[Bird]

The 8 ppg margin is scewed by the fact that Wilt played double the playoff games in his non-high scoring seasons, and so are other things, such as his playoff PER or his playoff total points. There was only 1 season when Wilt's playoff ppg fell by 8 or more points, and even this was his 1962 outlier.
And there have been a lot of mentions about Wilt facing Russell or Thurmond in more than 40% of his playoff games or about Kareem, another strong GOAT candidate, also having significantly less efficient playoffs whenever he faced Wilt or Thurmond himself.

Maybe only 1 season where it fell more than 8 ppg, but MOST seasons, his playoff scoring was lower:

(note, regular season is the first number, playoffs the second)
1960: 37.6, 33.2
1961: 38.4, 37
1962: 50.4, 35 (Mulligan here...seriously, it was 50 a game)
1963: Not in playoffs
1964: 36.9, 34.7
1965: 34.7, 29.3
1966: 33.5, 28
1967: 24.1, 21.7
1968: 24.3, 23.7
1969: 20.5, 13.9
1970: 27.3, 22.1
1971: 20.7, 18.3
1972: 14.8, 14.7
1973: 13.2, 10.4

There was only 3 seasons where we didn't see a 2 point or more drop...so it wasn't only one season that led to his lowered scoring in the playoffs, not the "double amount of games in his lower scoring years", like you said. He only had 3 seasons with less than 11 playoff games.

Ironically enough, after his 50 point season, his points dropped steadily every season until he turned 33.



Uh, Wilt actually has a positive record in "do or die" games. You didn't include his 1960 and 1962 series against Syracuse. Neither the fact that he averaged almost 30 ppg and 26.5 rpg in these 11 games.

Wilt was actually 10-11 in elimination games. That's not a positive record.



1970: Serious injury problem for Wilt, injury problems for Baylor-these playoffs were the last meaningful games of his career. The Knicks had a better team.

1971: The Bucks were better, especially since the Lakers played without Jerry West in the playoffs.

1973: Again, the Knicks were better and a bit healthier. The Lakers played practically the whole playoffs without Happy Hairston, their main PF.


1970: Wilt sure was healthy in the playoffs, averaging 22 points and 22 rebounds in 47 minutes a game. Doesn't sound a like a serious problem to me.

1971: Without West, but still had Baylor and Wilt.

1973: I'll give you Hairston, but they had 4 of the 6 best players in the finals in Goodrich, Wilt, West and Jim McMillan, only Frazier and Debusschere were really QUITE effective (with Earl Monroe averaging 16 points as well). I can call this one a coin flip, but not a 4-1 whooping.



You can't be using seriously the "top-50 teammates" argument, as long as you know that Wilt played in 3 teams and had no top-50 teammate play with him for even 5 years. Hey, for how many top-10 coaches did Wilt play compared to Russell?


Sure I can. Paul Arizin all 3 years in Philly, crap in SF, Hal Greer all years in Philadelphia plus Billy Cunningham for the last 3 seasons and then West and Baylor in LA.

He NEVER had a 5 year stretch where he wasn't playing with one of the 50 greatest players of all time. He had a 2 year stretch in SF, but that was it.

He actually played for THREE hall of fame coaches.



And we saw what happened to his former teams. At least, the Warriors were lucky enough to already have a developing Thurmond and acquire Barry. No such luck for the Sixers.

This, I can and will agree with you about. But his former teams were also shot because he was traded for fifty cents on the dollar, because he was a terrible person to try to coach.

Look, i'm not trying to take anything away from Wilt. He is solidly #3 on my list. No one will EVER surpass the guy (it's pretty impossible for anyone to crack the top 4 anymore, because no one will be as dominant as the 4), it's that people are making it out like Wilt was head and shoulders above Russell, when he statistically played WORSE against Russell, than everyone else.

How can you say a guy is better than someone, if his numbers drop when he plays against that guy?

[Psileas]

Maybe only 1 season where it fell more than 8 ppg, but MOST seasons, his playoff scoring was lower:

(note, regular season is the first number, playoffs the second)
1960: 37.6, 33.2
1961: 38.4, 37
1962: 50.4, 35 (Mulligan here...seriously, it was 50 a game)
1963: Not in playoffs
1964: 36.9, 34.7
1965: 34.7, 29.3
1966: 33.5, 28
1967: 24.1, 21.7
1968: 24.3, 23.7
1969: 20.5, 13.9
1970: 27.3, 22.1
1971: 20.7, 18.3
1972: 14.8, 14.7
1973: 13.2, 10.4

There was only 3 seasons where we didn't see a 2 point or more drop...so it wasn't only one season that led to his lowered scoring in the playoffs, not the "double amount of games in his lower scoring years", like you said. He only had 3 seasons with less than 11 playoff games.

You made a claim about Wilt averaging 8 ppg in the playoffs (7.5 actually). 7.5 is a far cry from the 2+ that you mention. In his whole career, only in 2 postseasons did he average 7.5 ppg less in the playoffs than the regular season. As long as Wilt participated in more than 4-5 postseasons, this 7.5 margin is mainly explained by the distribution of games. If this distribution was equal, Wilt would average more than 25 ppg in his playoff career. If this distribution favored his high scoring years as much as it favored the '67-'73 period, he'd be close to 28 ppg.
Wilt played in less than 11 games in 3 postseasons, but all 3 were in his high scoring days and 2 of them comprised of only 3 and 5 games. He also missed the playoffs in 1963, so that's 4 of his 7 high scoring seasons giving him only 17 playoff games.



Ironically enough, after his 50 point season, his points dropped steadily every season until he turned 33.

If this implies anything, in 1965 he was on pace to score more ppg than in 1964 until he got traded. In his new team, his scoring average fell immediately from 39 ppg to 30 ppg. Then in 1966, his scoring with the Sixers went up from 30 ppg to 33.5. Also, he averaged slightly more ppg in '68 than '67.



Wilt was actually 10-11 in elimination games. That's not a positive record.

No, I mean "do or die" games on the part of both teams. You mentioned games 7. Well, Wilt took part in one full "best of 3" and one full "best of 5" series, as well, and won them both.



1970: Wilt sure was healthy in the playoffs, averaging 22 points and 22 rebounds in 47 minutes a game. Doesn't sound a like a serious problem to me.

Then, the Finals shouldn't sound like a serious problem to you, either, since he averaged 23 pts and 24 rebs.
Fact is, Wilt returned 3 games before the start of the playoffs, after having missed 70 games. If Jordan was considered rusty in his '95 comeback, I don't see why Wilt shouldn't be. Apart from the need of some people to magnify his failures, that is.



1971: Without West, but still had Baylor and Wilt.

No, they didn't have Baylor, either. I didn't mention him, because I had already said that by the end of the '70 Finals, Baylor's career was practically over. Keith Erickson, a double figure scorer, also missed 4 playoff games.



1973: I'll give you Hairston, but they had 4 of the 6 best players in the finals in Goodrich, Wilt, West and Jim McMillan, only Frazier and Debusschere were really QUITE effective (with Earl Monroe averaging 16 points as well). I can call this one a coin flip, but not a 4-1 whooping.

All games were close, so I won't call it really whooping, either. Second, notice how balanced the Knicks were in the Finals, with all their starting five averaging between 15.6 and 18.6 ppg. Third, I won't take Jim McMillian over Willis Reed in my top-6 performers.



Sure I can. Paul Arizin all 3 years in Philly, crap in SF, Hal Greer all years in Philadelphia plus Billy Cunningham for the last 3 seasons and then West and Baylor in LA.

You prove my point. Different teams, different teammates. He didn't have all these guys together. Russell played at least 5 season with each one of his top-50 teammates.



He NEVER had a 5 year stretch where he wasn't playing with one of the 50 greatest players of all time. He had a 2 year stretch in SF, but that was it.

That's good, but in 1959, one season before his rookie season, 5 of the league's 8 teams had at least a top-50 player and among these 5, Arizin's Warriors were the worst. In 1965, when he was traded, only the Bullets did not have any top-50 players, and even they had Walt Bellamy, who wasn't much worse, either.



He actually played for THREE hall of fame coaches.


This, I can and will agree with you about. But his former teams were also shot because he was traded for fifty cents on the dollar, because he was a terrible person to try to coach.

Wilt was a player who was difficult to deal with, but still conventional enough to change his role more times than once. He went from super scoring to high scoring and passing to super passing to Bill Russell roles. But, like for any other superstar, you had to convince him for this. In the beginning of his career, Wilt played for coaches who had literally as much NBA coaching experience as Wilt himself (and some didn't even coach after him). His team did well in '64 under Hannum. In Philadelphia, he was coached by Schayes, who, apart from not being experienced as a coach himself, had problems controlling his players, because his personality was deemed too nice. In 1970, he played for Joe Mullaney, another rookie coach. Now, imagine some of these guys asking the top individual force of the league to change his game.
Actually, most coaches and teammates of Wilt did not generally complain about his overall stance as a professional. There were bad moments for Wilt himself, but such moments were not exactly uncommon for a lot of high profiled players.



Look, i'm not trying to take anything away from Wilt. He is solidly #3 on my list. No one will EVER surpass the guy (it's pretty impossible for anyone to crack the top 4 anymore, because no one will be as dominant as the 4), it's that people are making it out like Wilt was head and shoulders above Russell, when he statistically played WORSE against Russell, than everyone else.

How can you say a guy is better than someone, if his numbers drop when he plays against that guy?

If Russell can't match Wilt's standards, at least when facing each other, how Wilt fared against him is secondary to me. Games between the two, especially playoff ones, when Russell managed to play at Wilt's level, are celebrated. For example, some games of the 1962 playoffs. For me, that's evidence that Wilt > Russell. Not to the extent of their stats, but it's tough for me to change opinion, judging on what I see.

[ThaRegul8r]

Defense for a center and a guard is quite different. And Jordan was only 6'4( he isn't 6'6 as listed) and couldn't block a ton of shots like the 7'0 Chamberlain.

Interesting. So if Jordan couldn't block shots like that when he was a guard, how did Chamberlain lead the league in assists, since that's what guards do, not centers?

How did Wilt once have 21 assists in a game, which was seven off from the all-time record at the time, held by Bob Cousy and Guy Rodgers, both GUARDS?

How did Wilt have 19 assists in a PLAYOFF game, which tied the all-time record, held by Bob Cousy, a GUARD?

Why is it that the only two players afterwards who got triple 15s in the playoffs (triple double with at least 15 points, 15 rebounds and 15 assists)

[momo]

Dwight > Yao

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[PHILA]

By the way, speaking of misinformation, I figure jlauber and PHILA/Abraham Lincoln might find this interesting and feel the same way I do about it.

February 18, 1961, San Antonio Spurs center George Johnson blocked 13 shots in a 131-126 win over the Golden State Warriors, and the next day the Associated Press wrote, “Johnson’s latest rejection performance was his sixth time with 10 or more blocks in a game. In contrast, the legendary Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain never had a 10-block game.”

:wtf:

Now, I've seen on various message boards over the years people argue Hakeem Olajuwon as the greatest defensive center of all-time because he's "the all-time leader in blocks," and I've even seen people say that Russell and Chamberlain had zero blocked shots.

Now you can dismiss this as an ignorant fan who doesn't know anything about NBA history, which, unfortunately, there are all too many of.

But for a paid sports writer whose job is to write about sports to say something as incredibly ignorant as "the legendary Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain never had a 10-block game" was utterly astonishing to me. There've been many articles say they weren't officially kept, so we'll never know, but for someone to out and out say Russell and Chamberlain never did it is an outright lie.

For people who might have heard of them, this naturally leads to the "past players are inferior to modern players" syndrome. I couldn't get over how ridiculous that was, when, if he'd bothered to do any actual RESEARCH, he would have seen NUMEROUS 10+ block games by Russell and Chamberlain. But instead, he'd lead modern fans who don't know any better that after a modern player had a double-digit block game, he accomplished something even Russell and Chamberlain never did.

That just came to my mind, and even professional sportswriters can spread misinformation just as much as message board posters, only they have a bigger forum and thus any misinformation they spread will reach more people.
Shameful indeed. Nate Thurmond as well had 12 blocked shots for the Bull in what was the first officially recorded quadruple double in NBA history with 22 points, 14 rebounds, 13 assists, and 12 blocks.

http://www.nba.com/bulls/history/thurmond_741018.html

"You know and I know and any good basketball fan knows that there were plenty of quadruple-doubles back in the 1960s. When I first came into the league, I played alongside with Wilt Chamberlain, and there were nights he and I were playing volleyball out there on the floor, blocking shots, deflecting passes, tipping rebounds. So it’s fairly obvious that Wilt had plenty of chances to get double figures in four categories; think about after he was traded from the San Francisco Warriors back to Philadelphia—Wilt led the league in assists with the 76ers! Or what about his move to the Los Angeles Lakers, when he was less a scorer and more a complementary player?

Bill Russell could also fill the stat sheet and was a threat for a quadruple-double on a nightly basis. He was a great shot-blocker and passer, besides being a tremendous overall defender.

You think I never had a quadruple-double before 1973-74, when the NBA first started recording blocks and steals? Let me put it this way: I had 12 blocks in my quadruple-double game, and it was my 12th year in the league. That’s with two bad knees and more than 30,000 minutes pounding NBA floors, night after night. You bet I had plenty of quadruple-doubles before 1974.

I’m not trying to brag, but there were games where it was ridiculous the number of shots I blocked. When I was young, there were nights when guys couldn’t come close to getting shots off on me. Only Russell could have blocked more in his career.

I’d really like to know where I stand with blocks for my entire career. When you look at the list of career blocked shots leaders today, Russell and I are nowhere to be found. Quite frankly, that list is filled with pretenders to the title, all because the NBA didn’t record blocks for any of Bill’s and the majority of my career. Sure, I could put up points, but my game was really defense, so I’m a little disappointed that most of my blocks were never recorded."





Early in Russell's 2nd year he had 9 blocks against the Knicks to help lead the Celtics back from a big deficit to a 10 point victory with 25 points, 23 rebounds, 9 blocks, 3 steals.


Park City Daily News - Oct 31, 1957 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=POUcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zEUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3967,5650259&dq)

"Sure they had to score a zillion points to win, but it was Russell who beat us, nobody else. If he hadn't batted down all those shots in the first half, we'd have taken such a commanding lead, they'd have given up."



Daytona Beach Morning Journal - Apr 2, 1960 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=EpseAAAAIBAJ&sjid=kMwEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3772,533473&dq)

'He blocked at least 12 shots and hogged the rebounds. At one point in the last quarter, Russell blocked three consecutive Hawk shots, grabbing each rebound. His work seemed to demoralize the Western Division Champions.'


'The Hawks rallied briefly at the outset of the last quarter and trailed by only one point, 79-78. But the Cousy and his mates took over. The Hawks only got two field goals and four free throws the rest of the ball game and wound up with only 31 points in the entire 2nd half, one less than they made in the first quarter.'



Sports Illustrated - January 27, 1969 (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1082021/2/index.htm)

'"Defense is the thing we're really living on," van Breda Kolff admits, and Chamberlain has been superb, sometimes even awesome, on defense. In a recent game on national television he blocked 23 shots against Phoenix.'

[PHILA]

Apparently what Butch said during the '68 season before the trade was what set off the bad blood between them.


"He can pass well if he wants to. If he wants to he can play defense better than anybody in the league. If he wanted to he could be two Bill Russell's on defense. But Wilt's always been celebrated; he doesn't know the word work. It's not his fault. That's just the way things are with him."

[alexandreben]

Rookie Pippen bailed out Jordan? How, because he scored 25 points in a deciding game? Jordan himself had a statline of 39/6/4 that same game! :oldlol: It was a good performance by Pippen, but I wouldn't exactly call it "bailing him out".



The Celtics owned the Bulls only up until 88. After that, the Bulls were the better team and won most of their matchups. Also, if the "God disguised as Michael Jordan" comment was just false praise to mess with him, then why did Bird continue to praise him years afterwards? Even in his book that he wrote with Magic, When the Game was Ours, he admits that Jordan didn't have a decent team until Pippen, Grant and the rest of the Bulls developed.



Straight from Bird's mouth. :confusedshrug:
Jordan was swept in the playoffs for 3 years in a row, had not the clutch performance by the "Player Of The Game" Scottie Pippen, Jordan could've had been swept in the fourth time, even Jordan put up better numbers than Pippen, if you check the detail, it was Pippen who led the Bulls to tie with Cavs and outscored them when Jordan on the bench, Pippen was key in that deciding game, that's why Pippen was the Player of the Game instead of Jordan, even if the latter put up better number, Pippen really put up a lot of clutch performance... context no numbers..

yes, like I said, Bulls started to win more when Pippen on board, of course, Celtics had their injury problems as well, but without Pippen, Jordan could've ended up like a rich man version of Allen Iverson..

I believe Bird just wanted to trick Jordan, just like Russell... look at the young Jordan's game when Bird called him God(and swept Jordan in the playoffs at the mean time), he couldn't shoot the ball, and he played a lot of dumb shots as well, just like Kobe's so called "amazing shot"... by the late 80's and early 90's, Jordan finally became Jordan, that's another stroy.

[MasterDurant24]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Interesting. So if Jordan couldn't block shots like that when he was a guard, how did Chamberlain lead the league in assists, since that's what guards do, not centers?

How did Wilt once have 21 assists in a game, which was seven off from the all-time record at the time, held by Bob Cousy and Guy Rodgers, both GUARDS?

How did Wilt have 19 assists in a PLAYOFF game, which tied the all-time record, held by Bob Cousy, a GUARD?

Why is it that the only two players afterwards who got triple 15s in the playoffs (triple double with at least 15 points, 15 rebounds and 15 assists)

[Bird]

You made a claim about Wilt averaging 8 ppg in the playoffs (7.5 actually). 7.5 is a far cry from the 2+ that you mention. In his whole career, only in 2 postseasons did he average 7.5 ppg less in the playoffs than the regular season. As long as Wilt participated in more than 4-5 postseasons, this 7.5 margin is mainly explained by the distribution of games. If this distribution was equal, Wilt would average more than 25 ppg in his playoff career. If this distribution favored his high scoring years as much as it favored the '67-'73 period, he'd be close to 28 ppg.
Wilt played in less than 11 games in 3 postseasons, but all 3 were in his high scoring days and 2 of them comprised of only 3 and 5 games. He also missed the playoffs in 1963, so that's 4 of his 7 high scoring seasons giving him only 17 playoff games.




If this implies anything, in 1965 he was on pace to score more ppg than in 1964 until he got traded. In his new team, his scoring average fell immediately from 39 ppg to 30 ppg. Then in 1966, his scoring with the Sixers went up from 30 ppg to 33.5. Also, he averaged slightly more ppg in '68 than '67.




No, I mean "do or die" games on the part of both teams. You mentioned games 7. Well, Wilt took part in one full "best of 3" and one full "best of 5" series, as well, and won them both.




Then, the Finals shouldn't sound like a serious problem to you, either, since he averaged 23 pts and 24 rebs.
Fact is, Wilt returned 3 games before the start of the playoffs, after having missed 70 games. If Jordan was considered rusty in his '95 comeback, I don't see why Wilt shouldn't be. Apart from the need of some people to magnify his failures, that is.




No, they didn't have Baylor, either. I didn't mention him, because I had already said that by the end of the '70 Finals, Baylor's career was practically over. Keith Erickson, a double figure scorer, also missed 4 playoff games.




All games were close, so I won't call it really whooping, either. Second, notice how balanced the Knicks were in the Finals, with all their starting five averaging between 15.6 and 18.6 ppg. Third, I won't take Jim McMillian over Willis Reed in my top-6 performers.




You prove my point. Different teams, different teammates. He didn't have all these guys together. Russell played at least 5 season with each one of his top-50 teammates.




That's good, but in 1959, one season before his rookie season, 5 of the league's 8 teams had at least a top-50 player and among these 5, Arizin's Warriors were the worst. In 1965, when he was traded, only the Bullets did not have any top-50 players, and even they had Walt Bellamy, who wasn't much worse, either.





Wilt was a player who was difficult to deal with, but still conventional enough to change his role more times than once. He went from super scoring to high scoring and passing to super passing to Bill Russell roles. But, like for any other superstar, you had to convince him for this. In the beginning of his career, Wilt played for coaches who had literally as much NBA coaching experience as Wilt himself (and some didn't even coach after him). His team did well in '64 under Hannum. In Philadelphia, he was coached by Schayes, who, apart from not being experienced as a coach himself, had problems controlling his players, because his personality was deemed too nice. In 1970, he played for Joe Mullaney, another rookie coach. Now, imagine some of these guys asking the top individual force of the league to change his game.
Actually, most coaches and teammates of Wilt did not generally complain about his overall stance as a professional. There were bad moments for Wilt himself, but such moments were not exactly uncommon for a lot of high profiled players.


If Russell can't match Wilt's standards, at least when facing each other, how Wilt fared against him is secondary to me. Games between the two, especially playoff ones, when Russell managed to play at Wilt's level, are celebrated. For example, some games of the 1962 playoffs. For me, that's evidence that Wilt > Russell. Not to the extent of their stats, but it's tough for me to change opinion, judging on what I see.

I can tell you are a far bigger fan of Wilt than you are of Russell....which is mighty fine.

I can agree with you that Wilt was the better athlete and scorer.

But the opinion of mine you won't change was that Russell was the better player. He made his teammates better, he didn't care about personal stats (unlike Wilt, who cared about setting personal records; even when his assists saw their huge spike it was because he was trying to lead the league in assists, not because he wanted to get his teammates more involved), Russell excelled in big games, he would NEVER have been traded in his prime (including for Wilt...Red made it very clear he would NEVER coach Wilt; and that was coming from the greatest coach of all time) and he was a winner, plain and simple.

Much like politics and religion, once someone is set in the way they view things in basketball, it is dam near impossible to change their mind.

[ThaRegul8r]

THERE IS LESS TEAMS TO COMPETE AGAINST! How you fail to see that I don't know. There's less teams to go through in the playoffs as well.

It's not as if expansion means there will be more contenders. It just meeans more teams that will be irrelevant. All 30 teams don't have the same chance to win a title. I know it, you know it, the fans of the teams know it. In the last 25 years, seven teams have won titles. How are the extra number of teams relevant when the majority of them have zero chance, and the same teams have been winning for the last quarter century?

[ThaRegul8r]

Much like politics and religion, once someone is set in the way they view things in basketball, it is dam near impossible to change their mind.

This.

[Calabis]

Damn, I just said defense was different. Any good passer, center or pg, can get alot of assists. Any good, skilled rebounder can get a number of rebounds. But guards tend to guard the perimeter instead of the paint, where most blocks occur. And I didn't say blocking shots is what centers do. I just said that since Wilt was a 7'0 foot, super long player that played down low, he's more likely to get more blocks. Not saying that he wasn't a great shot blocker though, that's what made him get more than the normal amount of blocks.

Well for what its worth, Jordan is tops in blocks among guards all time, he is 3rd in rebounding all time, 2nd in steals all time

[alexandreben]

I can tell you are a far bigger fan of Wilt than you are of Russell....which is mighty fine.

I can agree with you that Wilt was the better athlete and scorer.

But the opinion of mine you won't change was that Russell was the better player. He made his teammates better, he didn't care about personal stats (unlike Wilt, who cared about setting personal records; even when his assists saw their huge spike it was because he was trying to lead the league in assists, not because he wanted to get his teammates more involved), Russell excelled in big games, he would NEVER have been traded in his prime (including for Wilt...Red made it very clear he would NEVER coach Wilt; and that was coming from the greatest coach of all time) and he was a winner, plain and simple.

Much like politics and religion, once someone is set in the way they view things in basketball, it is dam near impossible to change their mind.
then who's the guy that trained the young Wilt in the summer and tried convince Wilt to go to New England university so that he can pick Wilt to Celtics?:roll:

[ThaRegul8r]

Well for what its worth, Jordan is tops in blocks among guards since the statistics have been kept, he is 3rd in rebounding all time, 2nd in steals since the statistics have been kept

Fixed.

[Calabis]

Fixed.

So why don't you go find out the stats of a era you never seen? I find it funny that NBA GM's, Coaches and Players who grew up at that time or witnessed that time state MJ is the Greatest Basketball Player they have seen, yet your opinion is suppose to hold weight?? LOL

[Alhazred]

Jordan was swept in the playoffs for 3 years in a row, had not the clutch performance by the "Player Of The Game" Scottie Pippen, Jordan could've had been swept in the fourth time, even Jordan put up better numbers than Pippen, if you check the detail, it was Pippen who led the Bulls to tie with Cavs and outscored them when Jordan on the bench, Pippen was key in that deciding game, that's why Pippen was the Player of the Game instead of Jordan, even if the latter put up better number, Pippen really put up a lot of clutch performance... context no numbers..

You make it sound as if MJ wasn't key to the victory, as well. Of course Scottie was vital to their victory and was clutch that game, but so was Jordan, arguably more so than Pippen.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/09/sports/nba-playoffs-jordan-and-bulls-in-2d-round.html?scp=31&sq=1988


Sparrow, for his part, said that while the victory proved that the Bulls could win with Jordan, it reinforced the point that they couldn't win without him. As proof Sparrow pointed out Jordan's two crucial third-quarter blocks, a pair of shrewd assists and his clutch free throw shooting down the stretch.

''The key to having players like Michael Jordan is that in the last five minutes he can take over a game,'' Sparrow said. ''That's the key to having superstar players, it's not what they've done in the first 43 minutes of the game, but what they do in the last five: how many times they get on the foul line, how many big shots they hit, how many key passes they make and how well they stop their man defensively. Michael made a super contribution to a team effort today.''


yes, like I said, Bulls started to win more when Pippen on board, of course, Celtics had their injury problems as well, but without Pippen, Jordan could've ended up like a rich man version of Allen Iverson..

And where would Bird and Magic have been without their amazing supporting casts? Please tell me where Bird would have been without McHale, Maxwell, Parish, Archibald and other role players, or Magic without Kareem, Worthy, Scott and Nixon? Take away the best teammates of any legend and put them on a crap team and I doubt they'd be able to win a single championship. Not Wilt, not Shaq, not Russell, not MJ, not Kareem, not Bird, not Magic or anybody else. Even the weakest championship winning teams like Hakeem's Rockets and Duncan's Spurs had solid role players who knew how to play well under pressure.


I believe Bird just wanted to trick Jordan, just like Russell... look at the young Jordan's game when Bird called him God(and swept Jordan in the playoffs at the mean time), he couldn't shoot the ball, and he played a lot of dumb shots as well, just like Kobe's so called "amazing shot"... by the late 80's and early 90's, Jordan finally became Jordan, that's another stroy.

Or maybe he was just complimenting MJ on his amazing performance? :confusedshrug:

[ThaRegul8r]

So why don't you go find out the stats of a era you never seen? I find it funny that NBA GM's, Coaches and Players who grew up at that time or witnessed that time state MJ is the Greatest Basketball Player they have seen, yet your opinion is suppose to hold weight?? LOL

So saying "since the statistics have been kept" rather than making the all-encompassing statement "all-time" is an opinion, rather than fact?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/web/COM1150366/1/index.htm

Pay particular attention to the last sentence.

And I said nothing about a greatest player of all time in my post. Show me where I mentioned it. Your insecurity is "LOL"able.

[Bird]

then who's the guy that trained the young Wilt in the summer and tried convince Wilt to go to New England university so that he can pick Wilt to Celtics?:roll:

Probably the same guy who never coached him.

No one could have predicted that he was going to be completely full of himself, be uncoachable and completely selfish on and off the court.

[rfoster24]

Actually the 60's was the 2nd strongest decade of NBA Basketball only to the 80's.

Pretty sure basketball players have gotten better each decade. 60's ha. bill russell blockin a ton of little white boy's layups. yeah he sure is great. Honestly, who's actually watched some film of russell playing? its pathetic!

[Calabis]

So saying "since the statistics have been kept" rather than making the all-encompassing statement "all-time" is an opinion, rather than fact?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/web/COM1150366/1/index.htm

Pay particular attention to the last sentence.

And I said nothing about a greatest player of all time in my post. Show me where I mentioned it. Your insecurity is "LOL"able.

LOL insecure, you responded to my post to another poster, whats even funnier is your bragging about a era you never witnessed, your pasting articles and stats, yet you don't take in account that, the worlds best players were not even playing in the league in the 60's, due to racism and other cultural issues...then the ABA came along which showcased athleticism and more wide-open offenses, thus the NBA merged because the ABA was putting out a more appealing product, that happened in 1976.

Bill Russell would be great in any era, as would Wilt, but the numbers they put up would not happen in the 80's-2000's sorry

[alexandreben]

You make it sound as if MJ wasn't key to the victory, as well. Of course Scottie was vital to their victory and was clutch that game, but so was Jordan, arguably more so than Pippen.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/09/sports/nba-playoffs-jordan-and-bulls-in-2d-round.html?scp=31&sq=1988

And where would Bird and Magic have been without their amazing supporting casts? Please tell me where Bird would have been without McHale, Maxwell, Parish, Archibald and other role players, or Magic without Kareem, Worthy, Scott and Nixon? Take away the best teammates of any legend and put them on a crap team and I doubt they'd be able to win a single championship. Not Wilt, not Shaq, not Russell, not MJ, not Kareem, not Bird, not Magic or anybody else. Even the weakest championship winning teams like Hakeem's Rockets and Duncan's Spurs had solid role players who knew how to play well under pressure.

Or maybe he was just complimenting MJ on his amazing performance? :confusedshrug:
Make no mistake, Pippen was the key to end Jordan's embarassing swept 3 years in a row, media certainly gave many of the credits to Jordan instead of the rookie Pippen, just like many years later, most of the people regard Jordan as the clear cut GOAT while ranking Pippen like out of 30 or even not talke about Pippen... Pippen was one of the most underrated players...

KAJ led Lakers 4 years with terrible winning percentage even with his NO.1 salary in the league of 500,000 dollars, until Magic joined Lakers... he brought a 47 wins lakers(with KAJ & Cooper) to a 60 wins and a title in his rookie season;

as for Bird, I'll tell you that he brought a 29 wins Celtics(with same roster Cowens, Maxwell, Archibald and other role players) to a 61 wins and a title in his second season, yes, same roster!! the only thing you can argue about is the half-way traded Pete Maravich, in his last season he played 26 games with Celtics only averaged 11 ppg, Fitch should give great credit to Bird, it was Bird who made the team a whole lot better even with original rosters of HOF...

Bill Russell brought Celtics to title when Celtics struggled to pass 2nd round or even 1st round for 6 years...

even the "loser and choker" Wilt single handly brought a 32 wins Warriors to a 49 wins playoffs contender and lost to Celtics in 2nd round in his rookie season..

the so called "God" AKA Jodan, the clear cut GOAT, should've done better than that, he's the chosen one, he should've had higher standard than the "loser" Wilt Chamberlain, yet, he repeated got swetp in the 1st round... even with the league's second best rebounder Charles Okley as his body guard..

[alexandreben]

So saying "since the statistics have been kept" rather than making the all-encompassing statement "all-time" is an opinion, rather than fact?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/web/COM1150366/1/index.htm

Pay particular attention to the last sentence.

And I said nothing about a greatest player of all time in my post. Show me where I mentioned it. Your insecurity is "LOL"able.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/web/COM1150366/1/index.htm
Philadelphia 76ers single-season records:

Points: Chamberlain, 2,649 (33.5 ppg), 1965-66
Rebounds: Chamberlain, 1,957 (24.2 rpg), 1966-67
Blocked shots: Shawn Bradley, 274 (3.34 bpg), 1994-95

Three-point-three-four? Wilt used to block 3.34 shots before breakfast, undoubtedly with some appreciative lady nearby, scrambling the eggs.

this is hilarious..:lol :roll:

[PHILA]

**** Shawn Bradley.

[ThaRegul8r]

LOL insecure, you responded to my post to another poster

?

You responded to a post by another poster who was replying to a post I initially made. What are you talking about?

And everything I said was factual. I said nothing about rebounds, because those were kept. Blocks and steals weren't officially. I made a post here once about how Jerry West routinely had double-figure games in steals, and this combined with what we already know when the stats were finally officially kept (West is on record as having an "official" 10-steal game in his last season in the league) casts doubt on Jordan's all-time ranking in steals. Yet somehow you take it to make some irrelevant statement about Jordan being the Greatest of All Time when it was never mentioned in the post you were responding to.


whats even funnier is your bragging about a era you never witnessed, your pasting articles and stats, yet you don't take in account that, the worlds best players were not even playing in the league in the 60's, due to racism and other cultural issues...then the ABA came along which showcased athleticism and more wide-open offenses, thus the NBA merged because the ABA was putting out a more appealing product, that happened in 1976.

What's funny is that you're making assumptions when you don't know anything about me aside from the fact that I post here. You have no idea what I've seen, or how long I've been around. I've never once stated it because it's irrelevant. If one makes intelligent posts and knows what they're talking about, their age doesn't matter. Conversely, if one demonstrates ignorance and clearly doesn't know what they're talking about, again, age doesn't matter. To often that becomes the subject of an ad hominem attack, where the poster says something about them being a "geezer" and makes some kind of age-related insult instead of focusing on the content of their posts.


Bill Russell would be great in any era, as would Wilt

Now this is an intelligent, sensible post.

[Alhazred]

Make no mistake, Pippen was the key to end Jordan's embarassing swept 3 years in a row, media certainly gave many of the credits to Jordan instead of the rookie Pippen, just like many years later, most of the people regard Jordan as the clear cut GOAT while ranking Pippen like out of 30 or even not talke about Pippen... Pippen was one of the most underrated players...

I haven't seen a top fifty list rank Scottie out of the top 30 since Slam's list from 2002, and they ranked him at 27 for last year's list. I've even seen him ranked as high as 19 before on an Athlon Sports top 50 list back in 98. I think he's ranked accurately most of the time, generally in the 25-30 range, arguably even top 20-25.


KAJ led Lakers 4 years with terrible winning percentage even with his NO.1 salary in the league of 500,000 dollars, until Magic joined Lakers... he brought a 47 wins lakers(with KAJ & Cooper) to a 60 wins and a title in his rookie season;

Let's see, Magic got to play with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar his first season in the league. MJ got to play with Orlando Woolridge. This isn't even a comparison.


as for Bird, I'll tell you that he brought a 29 wins Celtics(with same roster Cowens, Maxwell, Archibald and other role players) to a 61 wins and a title in his second season, yes, same roster!! the only thing you can argue about is the half-way traded Pete Maravich, in his last season he played 26 games with Celtics only averaged 11 ppg, Fitch should give great credit to Bird, it was Bird who made the team a whole lot better even with original rosters of HOF...

So Bill Fitch gets none of the credit for the Celtics turnaround, despite winning the Coach of the Year award? Of course Bird was the main reason for their turnaround, but don't pretend that it was him and him alone.

Also, the Celtics gained Parish and McHale in Bird's second season, so I wouldn't say it was exactly the same roster as before Bird showed up.


Bill Russell brought Celtics to title when Celtics struggled to pass 2nd round or even 1st round for 6 years...

They also had an All-Star backcourt with Cousy and Sharman plus Red Auerbach as coach. Cousy also won MVP in Russell's rookie year, plus they also acquired Tom Heinsohn the same year.


even the "loser and choker" Wilt single handly brought a 32 wins Warriors to a 49 wins playoffs contender and lost to Celtics in 2nd round in his rookie season..

The Warriors also got knocked out of the first round in 61 and his team didn't even qualify for the playoffs two years later. I'm sure they had plenty of good reasons for falling short, but so did the Bulls in Jordan's early years.


the so called "God" AKA Jodan, the clear cut GOAT, should've done better than that, he's the chosen one, he should've had higher standard than the "loser" Wilt Chamberlain, yet, he repeated got swetp in the 1st round... even with the league's second best rebounder Charles Okley as his body guard..

Didn't Wilt miss the playoffs with one of the league's best playmakers at his side, Guy Rodgers? Not sure what point you're trying to make, I never labeled Wilt a "loser". He fell short several times, sure, but then so have a lot of great players. I even ranked Wilt as high as second on my personal all-time list on this site.

[MasterDurant24]

Well for what its worth, Jordan is tops in blocks among guards all time, he is 3rd in rebounding all time, 2nd in steals all time
Well, that's why Jordan is Jordan. He did the extraordinary.

[jlauber]

I'm going to present the case for each of the Big Three, to let people know that there were other great players besides Jordan and that there are other players with a claim to the title of GOAT, believe it or not. I'll put the facts out there, and people can make up their own minds, but at least it would be an INFORMED decision as opposed to the misinformation that circulates across the internet.

Looking forward to it.

Personally, I have come to believe that Russell and Magic were the two greatest "winners" in NBA history.

You can find flaws in many of the other greats...

MJ played on FIVE losing teams. And his title teams were LOADED. Just take a look at the Bulls in '93-94, withOUT MJ.

Kareem was a HUGE disappointment in his first ten years, in terms of team success, and was riding Magic's coat-tails in his last ten. I have presented a full argument on this topic before, but to summarize...Magic outvoted Kareem for MVP in EIGHT of their ten seasons (the last eight BTW.) Obviously, Kareem couldn't do much for the Lakers before Magic, while Magic carried the Laker teams to 63-19 and 58-24 records, withOUT Kareem.

Olajuwon played on two title teams, and lost in another Finals. He was also part of EIGHT first-round exits. Just inexcuseable for a GOAT candidate.

Shaq played on SIX playoff teams that were SWEPT.

Duncan had his struggles in several post-seasons.

Kobe has struggled in a few Finals.

Bird was only the best player in ONE Finals, and his Finals shooting percentage stands at .455, in a decade of the highest shooting teams in NBA history. He also had some miserable post-season series.

And Wilt only has two rings (although he nearly won FIVE more.)

Russell and Magic never played on a losing team. In fact, both averaged about 60 wins a season, in their CAREERS. Russell's teams also won an astonishing 27 times in 29 post-season series (and he was injured in one that lost.) Meanwhile, Magic won five titles in nine Finals, and once again, played 12 years and averaged 59 wins per season. And those five rings came in an era of the Celtics of the 80's, as well as the Sixers of the first half of that decade, and the Pistons in the last half.

[alexandreben]

I haven't seen a top fifty list rank Scottie out of the top 30 since Slam's list from 2002, and they ranked him at 27 for last year's list. I've even seen him ranked as high as 19 before on an Athlon Sports top 50 list back in 98. I think he's ranked accurately most of the time, generally in the 25-30 range, arguably even top 20-25.
Pippen should be ranked above 20;



Let's see, Magic got to play with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar his first season in the league. MJ got to play with Orlando Woolridge. This isn't even a comparison.
didn't Jordan played with Charles Oakley, the second best rebounder in the league? didn't Jordan played with the HOF George Gervin? Jordan fans should stop to pretend that Jordan played with scrubs teammates and single handly save the Bulls... Before Jordan, Bulls made 27 wins, with Jordan they won 38, next year with thout Jordan Bulls made 30 wins, that's to say that the "God" Jordan can only generate 8 wins for his team... compare with Bird, no contest...



So Bill Fitch gets none of the credit for the Celtics turnaround, despite winning the Coach of the Year award? Of course Bird was the main reason for their turnaround, but don't pretend that it was him and him alone.
if you look at Fitch's r

[MasterDurant24]

[QUOTE=alexandreben]Pippen should be ranked above 20;


didn't Jordan played with Charles Oakley, the second best rebounder in the league? didn't Jordan played with the HOF George Gervin? Jordan fans should stop to pretend that Jordan played with scrubs teammates and single handly save the Bulls... Before Jordan, Bulls made 27 wins, with Jordan they won 38, next year with thout Jordan Bulls made 30 wins, that's to say that the "God" Jordan can only generate 8 wins for his team... compare with Bird, no contest...



if you look at Fitch's r

[MasterDurant24]

Pippen should be ranked above 20;

Who do you think he should be ahead of?

[Supermensch]

No, he is not the GOAT and yes, it is because of his not-so-great offensive game.

Offense is just far too important a part of the game to overlook when talking about the GOAT.

Russell is the Scottie Pippen of centers, and in no way am I saying that as a bad thing. His game was much better than his stats, obviously (like Pippen) but 15 points a game for an entire career on a low field goal % doesn't cut it.

[MakeHistory78]

The funniest thing of all is that two of Russell's teammates said that Jordan is the Greatest.But some haters continue the stupidities.LOL

"He's by far the best since Naismith hung up the basket. He touches every base. He could play three, maybe four positions and maybe even center, too. He has no discernible weakness. The keys to basketball, despite the emphasis on big men, is still speed and quickness. He has them in abundance. When I jumped as high as I could, I got to the bottom of the net. When he jumps as high as he can, he's over the backboard. He's the best, without question." -Bob Cousy


"I don't know if he knows how good he is. He's tremendous. I've never seen anything like him. He's only 6-6. That's amazing. You seldom see a person that size do those things. He's so creative and to be able to take over a game at that size, it's amazing. Oscar and West were the best, but there's no other version of Jordan, the hang time, how high he jumps, how quick he moves. The guy amazes me. ... He's the best I've ever seen." -Sam Jones


As I said imo Jordan is the GOAT.If anyone consider Wilt or KAJ the Greatest I haven't problem..But I find ridiculous if anyone consider Russell the GOAT because of the rings.
He wasn't better than Wilt as a player.Not even close.
Wilt 7

[jlauber]

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]The funniest thing of all is that two of Russell's teammates said that Jordan is the Greatest.But some haters continue the stupidities.LOL

"He's by far the best since Naismith hung up the basket. He touches every base. He could play three, maybe four positions and maybe even center, too. He has no discernible weakness. The keys to basketball, despite the emphasis on big men, is still speed and quickness. He has them in abundance. When I jumped as high as I could, I got to the bottom of the net. When he jumps as high as he can, he's over the backboard. He's the best, without question." -Bob Cousy


"I don't know if he knows how good he is. He's tremendous. I've never seen anything like him. He's only 6-6. That's amazing. You seldom see a person that size do those things. He's so creative and to be able to take over a game at that size, it's amazing. Oscar and West were the best, but there's no other version of Jordan, the hang time, how high he jumps, how quick he moves. The guy amazes me. ... He's the best I've ever seen." -Sam Jones


As I said imo Jordan is the GOAT.If anyone consider Wilt or KAJ the Greatest I haven't problem..But I find ridiculous if anyone consider Russell the GOAT because of the rings.
He wasn't better than Wilt as a player.Not even close.
Wilt 7

[jlauber]

The number of games was almost the same (exactly the same from 1968 and on, 81 games in 1967 and 80 from 1962 to 1966), the schedule was not longer (quite the contrary), there were still teams in both the Atlantic and Pacific coast and the means of transport were less advanced. So, the number of teams is not this important in this argument.



The same arguments for a random 60's team apply to their 60's opponents.




The 8 ppg margin is scewed by the fact that Wilt played double the playoff games in his non-high scoring seasons, and so are other things, such as his playoff PER or his playoff total points. There was only 1 season when Wilt's playoff ppg fell by 8 or more points, and even this was his 1962 outlier.
And there have been a lot of mentions about Wilt facing Russell or Thurmond in more than 40% of his playoff games or about Kareem, another strong GOAT candidate, also having significantly less efficient playoffs whenever he faced Wilt or Thurmond himself.



Uh, Wilt actually has a positive record in "do or die" games. You didn't include his 1960 and 1962 series against Syracuse. Neither the fact that he averaged almost 30 ppg and 26.5 rpg in these 11 games.



1970: Serious injury problem for Wilt, injury problems for Baylor-these playoffs were the last meaningful games of his career. The Knicks had a better team.

1971: The Bucks were better, especially since the Lakers played without Jerry West in the playoffs.

1973: Again, the Knicks were better and a bit healthier. The Lakers played practically the whole playoffs without Happy Hairston, their main PF.

You can't be using seriously the "top-50 teammates" argument, as long as you know that Wilt played in 3 teams and had no top-50 teammate play with him for even 5 years. Hey, for how many top-10 coaches did Wilt play compared to Russell?



And we saw what happened to his former teams. At least, the Warriors were lucky enough to already have a developing Thurmond and acquire Barry. No such luck for the Sixers.

:applause:

[jlauber]

You made a claim about Wilt averaging 8 ppg in the playoffs (7.5 actually). 7.5 is a far cry from the 2+ that you mention. In his whole career, only in 2 postseasons did he average 7.5 ppg less in the playoffs than the regular season. As long as Wilt participated in more than 4-5 postseasons, this 7.5 margin is mainly explained by the distribution of games. If this distribution was equal, Wilt would average more than 25 ppg in his playoff career. If this distribution favored his high scoring years as much as it favored the '67-'73 period, he'd be close to 28 ppg.
Wilt played in less than 11 games in 3 postseasons, but all 3 were in his high scoring days and 2 of them comprised of only 3 and 5 games. He also missed the playoffs in 1963, so that's 4 of his 7 high scoring seasons giving him only 17 playoff games.




If this implies anything, in 1965 he was on pace to score more ppg than in 1964 until he got traded. In his new team, his scoring average fell immediately from 39 ppg to 30 ppg. Then in 1966, his scoring with the Sixers went up from 30 ppg to 33.5. Also, he averaged slightly more ppg in '68 than '67.




No, I mean "do or die" games on the part of both teams. You mentioned games 7. Well, Wilt took part in one full "best of 3" and one full "best of 5" series, as well, and won them both.




Then, the Finals shouldn't sound like a serious problem to you, either, since he averaged 23 pts and 24 rebs.
Fact is, Wilt returned 3 games before the start of the playoffs, after having missed 70 games. If Jordan was considered rusty in his '95 comeback, I don't see why Wilt shouldn't be. Apart from the need of some people to magnify his failures, that is.




No, they didn't have Baylor, either. I didn't mention him, because I had already said that by the end of the '70 Finals, Baylor's career was practically over. Keith Erickson, a double figure scorer, also missed 4 playoff games.




All games were close, so I won't call it really whooping, either. Second, notice how balanced the Knicks were in the Finals, with all their starting five averaging between 15.6 and 18.6 ppg. Third, I won't take Jim McMillian over Willis Reed in my top-6 performers.




You prove my point. Different teams, different teammates. He didn't have all these guys together. Russell played at least 5 season with each one of his top-50 teammates.




That's good, but in 1959, one season before his rookie season, 5 of the league's 8 teams had at least a top-50 player and among these 5, Arizin's Warriors were the worst. In 1965, when he was traded, only the Bullets did not have any top-50 players, and even they had Walt Bellamy, who wasn't much worse, either.





Wilt was a player who was difficult to deal with, but still conventional enough to change his role more times than once. He went from super scoring to high scoring and passing to super passing to Bill Russell roles. But, like for any other superstar, you had to convince him for this. In the beginning of his career, Wilt played for coaches who had literally as much NBA coaching experience as Wilt himself (and some didn't even coach after him). His team did well in '64 under Hannum. In Philadelphia, he was coached by Schayes, who, apart from not being experienced as a coach himself, had problems controlling his players, because his personality was deemed too nice. In 1970, he played for Joe Mullaney, another rookie coach. Now, imagine some of these guys asking the top individual force of the league to change his game.
Actually, most coaches and teammates of Wilt did not generally complain about his overall stance as a professional. There were bad moments for Wilt himself, but such moments were not exactly uncommon for a lot of high profiled players.


If Russell can't match Wilt's standards, at least when facing each other, how Wilt fared against him is secondary to me. Games between the two, especially playoff ones, when Russell managed to play at Wilt's level, are celebrated. For example, some games of the 1962 playoffs. For me, that's evidence that Wilt > Russell. Not to the extent of their stats, but it's tough for me to change opinion, judging on what I see.

:applause:

[Calabis]

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]The funniest thing of all is that two of Russell's teammates said that Jordan is the Greatest.But some haters continue the stupidities.LOL

"He's by far the best since Naismith hung up the basket. He touches every base. He could play three, maybe four positions and maybe even center, too. He has no discernible weakness. The keys to basketball, despite the emphasis on big men, is still speed and quickness. He has them in abundance. When I jumped as high as I could, I got to the bottom of the net. When he jumps as high as he can, he's over the backboard. He's the best, without question." -Bob Cousy


"I don't know if he knows how good he is. He's tremendous. I've never seen anything like him. He's only 6-6. That's amazing. You seldom see a person that size do those things. He's so creative and to be able to take over a game at that size, it's amazing. Oscar and West were the best, but there's no other version of Jordan, the hang time, how high he jumps, how quick he moves. The guy amazes me. ... He's the best I've ever seen." -Sam Jones


As I said imo Jordan is the GOAT.If anyone consider Wilt or KAJ the Greatest I haven't problem..But I find ridiculous if anyone consider Russell the GOAT because of the rings.
He wasn't better than Wilt as a player.Not even close.
Wilt 7

[Calabis]

I'm a Wilt fan, and I have come to respect MJ's post-season play. But, as far as quoting other players or sources, that game can be played to a pointless end. I certainly won't take the time to look up all of the players who marvelled at Russell's play. The fact was, Russell was overwhelmingly voted the best player of his era, by his peers, and media alike. Personally, I didn't see it that way, but it is hard to argue with a consensus opinion of the times.

IMHO, Wilt was the greatest individual player ever. In fact, it is not even close. Aside from FT shooting and 3pt shooting, he had no weaknesses. And even in FT shooting he is among the career leaders in FTs made. MJ, Kareem, and perhaps even a prime Shaq can fight for second place. But in terms of total impact on the game, Russell's rings speak for themselves. He made his teammates better, and his opponents worse.

Regarding Russell's offense, I have posted the games and numbers before, and I don't have time to look them up now, but his offensive skills have become very under-rated by the "ESPN Generation." Just off the top of my head, he had one 30 point, 38 rebound game in a clinching game win in the Finals, and also had a 30 point, 40 rebound in game seven of the '62 Finals (a 125-123 win.) He shot .702 from the field in the '65 Finals (averaging 18 ppg in the process), and led Boston in scoring in the '66 Finals at 23.6 ppg.

His .441 career FG% is very deceptive, as well. It must be noted that he shot above the league average for much of his career. To put that in context, he would have been shooting somewhere around 50% in most seasons of the 80's.

I'm sure Regul8r can post many more examples of Russell's offensive skills, but in any case, there is footage on YouTube available which sheds a much better light on his overall offensive game. He was hardly a "brick-layer", and I contend that he was every bit as skilled as the vast majority of the centers of today's era.

And for those that argue that he was 6-9 (actually 6-10), and around 220 lbs...he was also a WORLD CLASS high-jumper. In fact, in 1956, he was ranked #7 in the WORLD. He had a high-jump of 6'-9" and was only a few inches from the world record at the time. He was also an outstanding 440 participant, as well. IMHO, he was probably capable of the same heights that Dwight Howard is reaching today.

And before anyone here belittles his rebounding, he was every bit as gifted as Dennis Rodman, who was the best rebounder of his era. For anyone to suggest that Russell would be ordinary in today's game is ridiculous.

Furthermore, he was a defensive GENIUS. Individually, he may have been the greatest defensive player ever. However, he was an even greater TEAM defender. Here again, there is amazing footage available on YouTube, which illustrates his TOTAL defensive IMPACT. And Regul8r has posted some statistical evidence which credits Russell's defensive impact being the equal of Jordan's offensive impact.

And Alexbrethran made an excellent point...for Russell to be ranked so low in PER and offensive numbers...well, it pretty much makes those stats pointless. West, Baylor, and Oscar were truly GREAT offensive players...yet those three won a COMBINED ONE MVP Award during the Russell era. Make no mistake about it...Russell was truly one of the greatest ever...if not THE greatest ever.


Who gives a crap about Russell and Wilt getting 40 rebs, that shit wouldn't happen in the 80's-2000's. The 60's were very non athletic, yet once a good athlete was actually allowed in...ie Russell and Wilt, those are the results you got, ridiculous numbers. Put Jordan back in the 60's and he would avg 60ppg, take Wilt and Russell and put them in todays game, yeah they still would be great/all stars, but there numbers drop significantly and 30 pt/40 rebound games don't happen

[vert48]

He is the greatest winner, but Russell is not even close the greatest player of all time.

[Alhazred]

Pippen should be ranked above 20;

Whatever you say.


didn't Jordan played with Charles Oakley, the second best rebounder in the league? didn't Jordan played with the HOF George Gervin? Jordan fans should stop to pretend that Jordan played with scrubs teammates and single handly save the Bulls... Before Jordan, Bulls made 27 wins, with Jordan they won 38, next year with thout Jordan Bulls made 30 wins, that's to say that the "God" Jordan can only generate 8 wins for his team... compare with Bird, no contest...

Gervin? Are you kidding me? They only played together for Gervin's last season and MJ was injured for most of it. Also, Gervin played a grand total of 11 minutes against Boston in the 86 First Round.

As for Oakley, he was a good role player, but not exactly a star. The best record that a team has ever had with him as the team's second scoring option was the 1990 Knicks who won 45 games. I wouldn't really call him a great player, to be honest.

[quote]if you look at Fitch's r

[MakeHistory78]

I'm a Wilt fan, and I have come to respect MJ's post-season play.
MJ was and is by far the best player ever in the post-season.Many people consider Mike the greatest because he was the most exciting player to watch,the best competitor,the best closer,the best offensive and defensive player on the court and because of his accolades.He was the perfect player.No one come close to perfection like Mike did.
Even if you or anyone think that MJ was/is over-hyped he deserve that because of his greatness.

You are a Wilt fan and that's good.I respect him.He took the game to another level with his dominance.60's was all about him.
But again imo he wasn't such perfect as MJ.Just my opinion.
Jordan was a beast from his rookie season and at the post-season was always better than the regular season and this is the scariest with him.

If you want me to give credit to Russell that's ok if we talk about Top-10.He is a top-10 ever player.But Top-3 not even close imo.

[ThaRegul8r]

The funniest thing of all is that two of Russell's teammates said that Jordan is the Greatest.But some haters continue the stupidities.LOL

...


"I don't know if he knows how good he is. He's tremendous. I've never seen anything like him. He's only 6-6. That's amazing. You seldom see a person that size do those things. He's so creative and to be able to take over a game at that size, it's amazing. Oscar and West were the best, but there's no other version of Jordan, the hang time, how high he jumps, how quick he moves. The guy amazes me. ... He's the best I've ever seen." -Sam Jones

Odd. Sam Jones said this just a couple years ago when point-blank questioned:

John (Atlanta, GA)

Where would you rank Kobe among NBA all-time greats? top 5? top 10?

Sam Jones (2:40 PM)
For my all-time rankings, Bill is No. 1, Jordan is No. 2 and Kobe is No. 3.

But let's not let the facts get in the way of your agenda, though.

[jlauber]

Who gives a crap about Russell and Wilt getting 40 rebs, that shit wouldn't happen in the 80's-2000's. The 60's were very non athletic, yet once a good athlete was actually allowed in...ie Russell and Wilt, those are the results you got, ridiculous numbers. Put Jordan back in the 60's and he would avg 60ppg, take Wilt and Russell and put them in todays game, yeah they still would be great/all stars, but there numbers drop significantly and 30 pt/40 rebound games don't happen

I'm curious as to how you think Kareem, in his PRIME, in the 70's, would have fared against Hakeem in HIS prime? We do KNOW that Kareem, as the oldest player in the league, in the 85-86 season, averaged 41 ppg against a rising Hakeem over the course of three straight games. We also KNOW that Kareem, in HIS prime, shot very poorly against both Thurmond and Wilt in his H2H battles against each...and both Nate and Wilt were well past their peaks. Chamberlain also outrebounded Kareem on a regular basis. It just brings the players of the 60's, like Thurmond and Wilt into a better perspective. And that does not include Russell, who was probably the best defensive player of his era.