Russell Is Overrated

[Soundwave]

I'm sorry, but I just can't overlook a lot of things. He was a great player, but IMO he's not GOAT just based on titles. Some facts

- He was the clear no.3 (THREE) option on the Celtics. Havlicek and Jones were the Celtics 1-2 scorers and would often average over 25 ppg each, giving Boston the best offense in the league most years.

- He never shot anywhere close to 50% FG in his career. Despite probably having a ton of gimme baskets around the hoop. His offensive game was fairly average at best.

- His career high ppg is 18.9, often times he wasn't even in the top 15 for NBA ppg.

- He played in an era where there were like 10 players total in the entire league who were 6-10 or taller and he was probably more athletic and stronger than all of them save maybe Wilt. It wasn't all "short white guys", but the fact is the league was far smaller back then, that's just a fact. Probably a good deal less athletic as well.

- For a "defensive powerhouse" the Celtics allowed well over 100 ppg scored pretty much every year.

- In a 9-10 team league the Celtics were hands down the most talented overall pretty much every year scoring like 110 ppg in many seasons, despite Russell chipping in maybe 14-18 ppg and 5 assists per.

He was a monster on the glass, there's no doubt there, and I don't doubt he was great in the locker room, but he was also on a stacked team and could focus on grabbing rebounds against mostly smaller players every night and not having burden much of the offensive load.

[B-Low]

Pretty good analysis based on 3 minute youtube videos and stat websites :oldlol:

All the best in depth scouting reports feature the word "probably"

[fpliii]

:facepalm

[Nashty]

http://www.behindthebasket.com/btb/2011/9/15/its-all-about-the-ws-bill-russell.html

[Soundwave]

Why not do some research?

A lot of the things I listed were facts.

He was the no.3 option offensively on his team (fact).

He never shot over 50% from the field in his career (fact). Not even close actually.

He never average over 19 ppg in any season and was often outside of the top 15 in NBA scoring (fact).

The Celtics were often times the most loaded offensive team in a 9-10 team league with Havlicek and Jones as their 1-2 punch upfront averaging over 110 ppg some seasons (fact).

There were only like 10 players taller than 6-10 back in those days for the entire league (fact).

I'm not saying he wasn't a great player, I'm just saying there should be some context here too.

I personally would not take him over Kareem or Wilt or Shaq (that's not a knock on him, those are three great players as well). I think he benefited a lot from playing on a stacked team and could focus his energy on grabbing boards.

[FreezingTsmoove]

Why not do some research?

A lot of the things I listed were facts.

He was the no.3 option offensively on his team (fact).

He never shot over 50% from the field in his career (fact).

He never average over 19 ppg in any season and was often outside of the top 15 in NBA scoring (fact).

The Celtics were often times the most loaded offensive team in a 9-10 team league with Havlicek and Jones as their 1-2 punch upfront averaging over 110 ppg some seasons (fact).

There were only like 10 players taller than 6-10 back in those days for the entire league (fact).

I'm not saying he wasn't a great player, I'm just saying there should be some context here too.
Only like, and fact in the same sentence. Yeah your opinion sure matters (fact)

[Soundwave]

Only like, and fact in the same sentence. Yeah your opinion sure matters (fact)

Those are facts I think many people are not aware of. Not opinion.

My opinion doesn't make his career high only 18.9 ppg or change the fact that he never came close to shooting 50% even once in his career.

Or that Havlicek and Jones were the 1-2 offensive options for the Celtics. Shouldn't they be given some due? If Scottie Pippen ever was the no.1 option for even 1 of the Bulls titles, we'd hear about it non-stop. Ditto for Wade in Miami or Kobe in LA (over Shaq).

I think there's this assumption on this board that he was relatively close to Wilt offensively, and then far better defensively. He wasn't even in the same ball park with Wilt offensively. Not. Even. Close.

[CavaliersFTW]

Do yourselves a favor and head over to the quality Bill Russell thread
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=305291
(which is what made Soundwave so butthurt that he had to make this thread)

[FreezingTsmoove]

Those are facts I think many people are not aware of. Not opinion.

My opinion doesn't make his career high only 18.9 ppg or change the fact that he never came close to shooting 50% even once in his career.

Or that Havlicek and Jones were the 1-2 offensive options for the Celtics. Shouldn't they be given some due? If Scottie Pippen ever was the no.1 option for even 1 of the Bulls titles, we'd hear about it non-stop. Ditto for Wade in Miami or Kobe in LA (over Shaq).

I think there's this assumption on this board that he was relatively close to Wilt offensively, and then far better defensively. He wasn't even in the same ball park with Wilt offensively. Not. Even. Close.
I'm not denying the stat facts but you can't call a sentence a fact while using the word like b

[Nashty]

Boston was 690-273 (.717) when he was playing and 26-26 (.500) when he was not playing (fact).

[Soundwave]

Boston was 690-273 (.717) when he was playing and 26-26 (.500) when he was not playing (fact).

And I'm not saying he didn't have an impact.

He was obviously the best rebounder in the league and one of the few guys actually 6-10 and probably was stronger than most guys in the league at that time.

But I think at the same time there were a lot of holes in his game that don't get any mention and were glossed over because he could let Havlicek and Jones and others carry the offensive load.

We're talking about a Celtics team that some seasons averaged a whopping 110 ppg+, lol, yet he couldn't get more than 18/5 assists or shoot better than 50%?

[CavaliersFTW]

And I'm not saying he didn't have an impact.

He was obviously the best rebounder in the league and one of the few guys actually 6-10 and probably was stronger than most guys in the league at that time.

But I think at the same time there were a lot of holes in his game that don't get any mention and were glossed over because he could let Havlicek and Jones and others carry the offensive load.
:oldlol: Russell was the skinniest center in the league almost every season that he played, yet you assume he was "probably stronger than most guys in the league at that time" :oldlol:

Was he stronger than Bellamy? Pettit? Lovellete? Embry? Wilt? Thurmond? Reed? I have a hard time thinking of centers who were skinnier than Russell, where as I can rattle off many that were documented as being heavier, and had a reputation for being stronger just off the top of my head. "Strength" wasn't even one of Bill Russell's gifts. Please stop commenting on this subject, your only embarrassing yourself.

[FreezingTsmoove]

:oldlol: Russell was the skinniest center in the league almost every season that he played, yet you assume he was "probably stronger than most guys in the league at that time" :oldlol:

Was he stronger than Bellamy? Pettit? Lovellete? Embry? Wilt? Thurmond? Reed? I have a hard time thinking of centers who were skinnier than Russell, where as I can rattle off many that were documented as being heavier, and had a reputation for being stronger just off the top of my head. "Strength" wasn't one of Bill Russell's gifts. Please stop commenting on this subject, your only embarrassing yourself.
Go ham bro :bowdown:

[Soundwave]

:oldlol: Russell was the skinniest center in the league almost every season that he played, yet you assume he was "probably stronger than most guys in the league at that time" :oldlol:

Was he stronger than Bellamy? Pettit? Lovellete? Embry? Wilt? Thurmond? Reed? I have a hard time thinking of centers who were skinnier than Russell, where as I can rattle off many that were stronger just off the top of my head. Please stop commenting on this subject, your only embarrassing yourself.

There simply weren't very many players in the league 6-10 or taller back then period.

I mean you can get mad at me for saying that, but that doesn't change it from being the truth. There were like maybe 10 players 6-10 or taller in the entire league in many of the seasons he played, and 2-3 of them were on the Celtics (himself included) often times.

[Ne 1]

11 rings and 5 MVPs speaks for itself. Assigning an arbitrary criteria that the top players must be an offensive threat is just naive. I guess this shows the prevailing stat hog mentality and double standards of today's fans. Magic averaged less than 20 PPG, is he worthy to be put in the top 10? John Stockton only averaged 13 PPG is he worthy to be included in the top 30? People put way too much stock on an individuals scoring stats to determine their greatness, especially when such scoring stats (and stats in general) don't tell a complete picture of the player's contributions.

[Ne 1]

Also its true that Russell had a poor FG% but you have to take into consideration the entire league back then had a poor FG%. Why was this?

1. A high tempo offense. For example the average team in '65 (FGA's: 7987) shot about 1400 more shots than a team in '05 (FGA's: 6588)

2. There were less fouls calls. In '65 the average team had 2076 PF's per season. In '05, 1856 personal fouls were called. You have to keep in mind that 1400 more shots were attempted, yet only 200 less fouls called. The result? A lowering of the FG%.

In short, its tougher to score when the defender can hack you around without getting called for a foul.

Now that we got that out of the way, lets clear some things about Russell's lack of offensive skills.

Russell was an amazing rebounder averaging 22 rpg (16+ rpg when adjusted to today's pace and still higher than Rodman's average. He was a good ball handler for a big man, since he often runs the ball after rebounding to get a clear pass down court and start the fast break, and of course a great defender. He was also a great passer; he consistently ranked in the top 10 in assists and that is beyond what you would expect from a center. Not most guards could do that. His scoring was solid at 15ppg on 13 FGA's. Not exactly mind blowing numbers but then everyone on the 60's Celtics didn't have a mind blowing PPG.


Celtics had a structured offense where all 5 guys on the floor would have the opportunity to score. The leading scorer on the Celtics only averaged 22 points and there were 5-6 other guys scoring in double-digits. Bill or anyone else on the Celtics didn't need not to fully exert themselves on offense since the scoring was distributed. Russell had the same shooting percentage as the top two scorers (Jones and Havlicek) on the team. Understand that Red wanted Russell to stay focused more on his rebounding and outlet passing instead of his shooting.

Also back in college, when his coach wasn't pigeonholing him on a defensive and rebounding role, Bill was scoring 20ppg on 52 FG%.


Conclusion: The Reason for Russell's low PPG in the NBA was Russell was given very few opportunities to score (13 FGA)

Reason for Russell's low FG% in the NBA: The physical style of play of his era and the subsequent neglect of his offensive game to focus more on his defensive and rebounding role for the team.

[Soundwave]

11 rings and 5 MVPs speaks for itself. Assigning an arbitrary criteria that the top players must be an offensive threat is just naive. I guess this shows the prevailing stat hog mentality and double standards of today's fans. Magic averaged less than 20 PPG, is he worthy to be put in the top 10? John Stockton only averaged 13 PPG is he worthy to be included in the top 30? People put way too much stock on an individuals scoring stats to determine their greatness, especially when such scoring stats (and stats in general) don't tell a complete picture of the player's contributions.

I think you have to at least be in the top freaking 20 for point scored, otherwise an argument can be made that he relied on other guys to carry the load offensively and focused primarily on defense.

That or he had a fairly mediocre offensive game considering how prolific the Celtics of that day were at scoring.

[Soundwave]

Also its true that Russell had a poor FG% but you have to take into consideration the entire league back then had a poor FG%. Why was this?

1. A high tempo offense. For example the average team in '65 (FGA's: 7987) shot about 1400 more shots than a team in '05 (FGA's: 6588)

2. There were less fouls calls. In '65 the average team had 2076 PF's per season. In '05, 1856 personal fouls were called. You have to keep in mind that 1400 more shots were attempted, yet only 200 less fouls called. The result? A lowering of the FG%.

In short, its tougher to score when the defender can hack you around without getting called for a foul.

Now that we got that out of the way, lets clear some things about Russell's lack of offensive skills.

Russell was an amazing rebounder averaging 22 rpg (16+ rpg when adjusted to today's pace and still higher than Rodman's average. He was a good ball handler for a big man, since he often runs the ball after rebounding to get a clear pass down court and start the fast break, and of course a great defender. He was also a great passer; he consistently ranked in the top 10 in assists and that is beyond what you would expect from a center. Not most guards could do that. His scoring was solid at 15ppg on 13 FGA's. Not exactly mind blowing numbers but then everyone on the 60's Celtics didn't have a mind blowing PPG.


Celtics had a structured offense where all 5 guys on the floor would have the opportunity to score. The leading scorer on the Celtics only averaged 22 points and there were 5-6 other guys scoring in double-digits. Bill or anyone else on the Celtics didn't need not to fully exert themselves on offense since the scoring was distributed. Russell had the same shooting percentage as the top two scorers (Jones and Havlicek) on the team. Understand that Red wanted Russell to stay focused more on his rebounding and outlet passing instead of his shooting.

Also back in college, when his coach wasn't pigeonholing him on a defensive and rebounding role, Bill was scoring 20ppg on 52 FG%.


Conclusion: The Reason for Russell's low PPG in the NBA was Russell was given very few opportunities to score (13 FGA)

Reason for Russell's low FG% in the NBA: The physical style of play of his era and the subsequent neglect of his offensive game to focus more on his defensive and rebounding role for the team.

I just don't agree the NBA was more "physical" back then. It was a smaller league with fewer big players to contend with.

The higher rate of shot attempts and the fact that he was grabbing so many boards should've given him some easy gimmes around the basket.

I just don't think he was really a great offensive player period (note I said "great"). Wilt and Kareem are on a completely different level and were still decent defensively.

[CavaliersFTW]

There simply weren't very many players in the league 6-10 or taller back then period.

I mean you can get mad at me for saying that, but that doesn't change it from being the truth. There were like maybe 10 players 6-10 or taller in the entire league in many of the seasons he played, and 2-3 of them were on the Celtics (himself included) often times.
There are no less legitimate "6-10" players per team back then than there are now. Need me to give you player measurements? Need to take a quick look at Russell's primary competition again? Here I'll show him to you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU43dTuMuig

That's him making Shaq look average. Bill "only" faced that guy 142 times...

[KG215]

So basically the OP looked at Russell's BBR page, came to the conclusion he was overrated because of his PPG and FG%, and decided to start a thread.

[Soundwave]

There are no less legitimate "6-10" players per team back then than there are now. Need me to give you player measurements? Need to take a quick look at Russell's primary competition again? Here I'll show him to you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU43dTuMuig

That's him making Shaq look average. Bill "only" faced that guy 142 times...

I don't think anyone disagrees Wilt was a physical monster. Unfortunately for him he played on a lot of bad teams for much of his career and he was only one guy.

And I don't think anyone would honestly disagree the fact is there weren't as many big, strong players (such as Wilt) in the league at that time. Russell was bigger and more athletic than maybe 2-3 guys in the entire 9-10 team league.

[Soundwave]

So basically the OP looked at Russell's BBR page, came to the conclusion he was overrated because of his PPG and FG%, and decided to start a thread.

Which would be more research than most people here do on Russell.

I think a lot of people on the board would be under the impression that Russell wasn't as good as Wilt offensively, but wasn't far off either (he was very far off actually), or that he was the no.1 or no.2 option on the Celtics (he wasn't) for starters.

[CavaliersFTW]

I don't think anyone disagrees Wilt was a physical monster. Unfortunately for him he played on a lot of bad teams for much of his career.

And I don't think anyone would honestly disagree the fact is there weren't as many big, strong players (such as Wilt) in the league as that time. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that.



https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-8LjXn0YCsEk/UQydqoP2QbI/AAAAAAAAEUw/WaH1MKKYzpA/s800/Bellamy%2520Posterizes%2520Bill%2520Russell.gif
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/--3oPwC10q_M/UQyi5dbDtCI/AAAAAAAAEWI/eeBwdhn2jxA/s800/Willis%2520Torching%2520Bill%2520Russell.gif
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-IlubSSwQ0yY/UPzbjLxgbzI/AAAAAAAAEA8/Lz0OunkNBbQ/s800/Nate%2520Thurmond1.jpg
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Ngd4MTumVrg/T1SAXlGdftI/AAAAAAAADMo/ZU_VwH_tIyE/s800/wilt04_lg.jpg

You keep p*ssing and moaning about "8-12 team league" so I KNOW your aware that means he's playing these guys 3 times more often than he would any of the mostly soft Euro-style stretch-centers in the league today am I right? :confusedshrug:

[teddytwelvetoes]

Absolute rubbish. Russell has to be in your top 3-5. 11 chips in 13 years, 5 MVPs, two NCAA titles, and Olympic gold. 10-0 in game sevens. He was a goddamn player-coach for two of those titles. He was the most crucial piece of that Celtics machine. His defense was critical to the offense, as it provided instant fast breaks (for instance his habit of aiming blocks towards teammates) and sometimes took it coast to coast himself. Wilt averaged 50/25 in 48.5 minutes in the same season The Big O averaged a triple-double, and neither won MVP - Bill took it.

[DatAsh]

Havlicek and Jones were the Celtics 1-2 scorers and would often average over 25 ppg each, giving Boston the best offense in the league most years.



:facepalm

See my reply in the other thread.

[Nashty]

And I'm not saying he didn't have an impact.

He was obviously the best rebounder in the league and one of the few guys actually 6-10 and probably was stronger than most guys in the league at that time.

But I think at the same time there were a lot of holes in his game that don't get any mention and were glossed over because he could let Havlicek and Jones and others carry the offensive load.

We're talking about a Celtics team that some seasons averaged a whopping 110 ppg+, lol, yet he couldn't get more than 18/5 assists or shoot better than 50%?

And yet Havlicek and Jones and others could not win without Russell. Celtics won because of Russell's leadership, defense, rebounding and passing. I don't care if he averages 50 points per game if that don't get me wins.

[Kblaze8855]

He was the no.3 option offensively on his team (fact).

He never shot over 50% from the field in his career (fact). Not even close actually.

He never average over 19 ppg in any season and was often outside of the top 15 in NBA scoring (fact).

The guy the Celtics traded for him led the Celtics in scoring, led the NBa in field goal percentage twice, and put up over 20ppg. And the rookie who went out with him also went on to score over 25 a game down the line. And shot better than Russell.

99.9% of basketball fans dont even know who they are. And thats reasonable...because none of that shit matters.

And the moment they traded them for Bill Russell they went from a team with 3 all NBA players that never made the finals to winning 11 rings.

Bill Russell isnt numbers. hes living breathing victory.

All that shit about the help he had is a joke to me. They never won before he got there and missed the playoffs the season he left. The college team he won 55 in a row and 2 national titles with...never won before he got there and have not won since.

Russell is the reason anyone these days even knows the names of most of his help.

Oh and some of the people you praise for helping him with their offense...thought he was more important to their offense than their defense(John Havlicek for one).

But there is no number for outlet passing and since they had different assist rules he only averaged 4-5 instead of 7-8 to stand out as a center so....we will just pretend he actually wasnt a big factor on both ends.

Even if his teammates say otherwise.

[teddytwelvetoes]

You put Wilt on that Celtics team and they struggle to win half as many chips. Russ made his teammates better, for reasons I outlined and more.

[TonyMontana]

Russell made an impact and was the best player on the Celtics. Noone is disputing that.

But he IS overrated. He was pretty much Ben Wallace, but on a team with like 5+ other HOFers and in an 8 team league. Now Ben Wallace has a huge impact on the game, but Bill Russell isn't enough of a two-way player for me to put him among guys like Shaq/Duncan/Hakeem that dominated on both ends of the floor.

Heres their stats adjusted for pace.

Bill Russell 1961-62:

9.3 ppg, 11.7 rpg, 2.2 apg in Wallace's 86.8 poss. per game. & 36.5 mpg.

11.4 ppg, 14.1 rpg, 2.8 apg in 100 poss. per game. & 40 mpg.

18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 4.5 apg in his normal ~140 poss. per game. & 45.2 mpg.

Ben Wallace 2002-03:

6.9 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 1.4 apg, 1.7 spg, 3.5 bpg in his normal 86.8 poss. per game. & 36.5 mpg.

8.8 ppg, 19.5 rpg, 1.8 apg, 2.2 spg, 4.5 bpg in ~100 poss. per game. & 40 mpg.

13.9 ppg, 31.1 rpg, 2.8 apg, 3.4 spg, 7.1 bpg in Russell's 140 poss. per game. & 45.2 mpg.

Ben was actually the better rebounder, but looks like Russell has a slight edge offensively. Is this edge large enough to make Russell a top 5 player ever while people put Ben Wallace top 100? :lol

[teddytwelvetoes]

Russell made an impact and was the best player on the Celtics. Noone is disputing that.

But he IS overrated. He was pretty much Ben Wallace, but on a team with like 5+ other HOFers and in an 8 team league. Now Ben Wallace has a huge impact on the game, but Bill Russell isn't enough of a two-way player for me to put him among guys like Shaq/Duncan/Hakeem that dominated on both ends of the floor.

Heres their stats adjusted for pace.

Bill Russell 1961-62:

9.3 ppg, 11.7 rpg, 2.2 apg in Wallace's 86.8 poss. per game. & 36.5 mpg.

11.4 ppg, 14.1 rpg, 2.8 apg in 100 poss. per game. & 40 mpg.

18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 4.5 apg in his normal ~140 poss. per game. & 45.2 mpg.

Ben Wallace 2002-03:

6.9 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 1.4 apg, 1.7 spg, 3.5 bpg in his normal 86.8 poss. per game. & 36.5 mpg.

8.8 ppg, 19.5 rpg, 1.8 apg, 2.2 spg, 4.5 bpg in ~100 poss. per game. & 40 mpg.

13.9 ppg, 31.1 rpg, 2.8 apg, 3.4 spg, 7.1 bpg in Russell's 140 poss. per game. & 45.2 mpg.

Ben was actually the better rebounder, but looks like Russell has a slight edge offensively. Is this edge large enough to make Russell a top 5 player ever while people put Ben Wallace top 100? :lolIf Ben Wallace, with those stats, was the best player on a team that won 11 chips in 13 years while taking home 5 MVPs after winning back-to-back chips in college and Olympic gold then we could make this comparison. Leave the numbers talk to Wilt stans :pimp:

[KG215]

Russell made an impact and was the best player on the Celtics. Noone is disputing that.

But he IS overrated. He was pretty much Ben Wallace
Sometimes I think you just post stupid shit on purpose to see what kind of reaction you can get.

[TonyMontana]

If Ben Wallace, with those stats, was the best player on a team that won 11 chips in 13 years while taking home 5 MVPs after winning back-to-back chips in college and Olympic gold then we could make this comparison. Leave the numbers talk to Wilt stans :pimp:

Championships is a team award, not an individual one. It has as much to do with who is on your team and the talent of the competition as it does to your own ability. Russell did it in an 8 team league where he had 5+ HOFers on his team.

Tell me what Russell does on the court that makes him uncomparable to a guy like Wallaces. Better passer and a SLIGHTLY better scorer. Thats it, and even then Wallace has the edge on the boards. You probably never even seen Russell play and just look at his media awards list.

[Psileas]

Russell made an impact and was the best player on the Celtics. Noone is disputing that.

But he IS overrated. He was pretty much Ben Wallace, but on a team with like 5+ other HOFers and in an 8 team league. Now Ben Wallace has a huge impact on the game, but Bill Russell isn't enough of a two-way player for me to put him among guys like Shaq/Duncan/Hakeem that dominated on both ends of the floor.

Heres their stats adjusted for pace.

Bill Russell 1961-62:

9.3 ppg, 11.7 rpg, 2.2 apg in Wallace's 86.8 poss. per game. & 36.5 mpg.

11.4 ppg, 14.1 rpg, 2.8 apg in 100 poss. per game. & 40 mpg.

18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 4.5 apg in his normal ~140 poss. per game. & 45.2 mpg.

Ben Wallace 2002-03:

6.9 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 1.4 apg, 1.7 spg, 3.5 bpg in his normal 86.8 poss. per game. & 36.5 mpg.

8.8 ppg, 19.5 rpg, 1.8 apg, 2.2 spg, 4.5 bpg in ~100 poss. per game. & 40 mpg.

13.9 ppg, 31.1 rpg, 2.8 apg, 3.4 spg, 7.1 bpg in Russell's 140 poss. per game. & 45.2 mpg.

Ben was actually the better rebounder, but looks like Russell has a slight edge offensively. Is this edge large enough to make Russell a top 5 player ever while people put Ben Wallace top 100? :lol

I had addressed very similar points in an older thread, but there's no search engine here, so, I'll just ask you this: Add the similarly adjusted numbers of Wallace's Pistons and their opponents, then do the same with the Celtics, then we'll compare who had the better impact for his team statistically. You may also add Wallace's best teammates' adjusted numbers, too, and see how they compare to the numbers of Russell's best teammates' numbers.
And even so, the figures still won't make any justice for Russell, since you didn't account for fatigue due to increased playing time for Wallace, you didn't account for increased fouls, you didn't account for reduced scoring efficiency (which is already lower than Russell's), you didn't account for assists counting differently, you didn't account for a lot.

Most importantly, moving away from stats, let's not forget that Wallace didn't even reach to the Finals, he didn't even win more than a single title and his stats for the most part of his career weren't even close to the ones you posted in a prime/peak season.
After all, if rankings were based solely on stats, why bring up Wallace? Isn't Wilt enough? And isn't a fact that a lot still rank Russell over Wilt?

[Psileas]

Oh, and, btw, your Wallace adjusted numbers are all wrong for one more reason, you had him play 36.5 mpg, while his correct number was 39.4.

[Straight_Ballin]

How are certain NBA awards given?


VOTED

Majority wins!

What is the opinion that Jordan is GOAT?

Majority!

No one gives 2 shits about a small minority opinion that Russel is GOAT.:lol

Deal with it and move on already.

To deny Jordan as GOAT is to diminish the very base of NBA awards.

[CavaliersFTW]

Russell made an impact and was the best player on the Celtics. Noone is disputing that.

But he IS overrated. He was pretty much Ben Wallace, but on a team with like 5+ other HOFers and in an 8 team league. Now Ben Wallace has a huge impact on the game, but Bill Russell isn't enough of a two-way player for me to put him among guys like Shaq/Duncan/Hakeem that dominated on both ends of the floor.

Heres their stats adjusted for pace.

Bill Russell 1961-62:

9.3 ppg, 11.7 rpg, 2.2 apg in Wallace's 86.8 poss. per game. & 36.5 mpg.

11.4 ppg, 14.1 rpg, 2.8 apg in 100 poss. per game. & 40 mpg.

18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 4.5 apg in his normal ~140 poss. per game. & 45.2 mpg.

Ben Wallace 2002-03:

6.9 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 1.4 apg, 1.7 spg, 3.5 bpg in his normal 86.8 poss. per game. & 36.5 mpg.

8.8 ppg, 19.5 rpg, 1.8 apg, 2.2 spg, 4.5 bpg in ~100 poss. per game. & 40 mpg.

13.9 ppg, 31.1 rpg, 2.8 apg, 3.4 spg, 7.1 bpg in Russell's 140 poss. per game. & 45.2 mpg.

Ben was actually the better rebounder, but looks like Russell has a slight edge offensively. Is this edge large enough to make Russell a top 5 player ever while people put Ben Wallace top 100? :lol
Ben Wallace? Adjusted(Completely MADE UP) Stats?

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/3547570/stephen-a-smith-laughing-o.gif

Ben Wallace has NEVER been analogous to Bill Russell. Not even close. The fact that you think so means your nothing but a bball reference stats warrior. The fact that you even attempted to make "adjusted" stats means you also shouldn't even be discussing this topic because not only do you have no grasp of what Bill Russell did on the court but u further your ignorance by attempting to MAKE UP your own imaginary data :facepalm

http://youtu.be/SF22xiRxHv8
Nothing to see here just another Ben Wallace folks, playing all 5 positions and able to run the floor and complete every play that was written for his teams HOF guards and forwards :rolleyes:

[teddytwelvetoes]

Championships is a team award, not an individual one. It has as much to do with who is on your team and the talent of the competition as it does to your own ability. Russell did it in an 8 team league where he had 5+ HOFers on his team.

Tell me what Russell does on the court that makes him uncomparable to a guy like Wallaces. Better passer and a SLIGHTLY better scorer. Thats it, and even then Wallace has the edge on the boards. You probably never even seen Russell play and just look at his media awards list.Who here has watched Russ play live? :confusedshrug:

I'm basing my opinion upon what I've read from players, coaches, and other NBA/media people. I've done enough research to be able to laugh at the "Wilt played with bums and Russell played with gods" myth. Wilt had help. Wilt wouldn't have won 11 chips if he had Russ's help.

[NumberSix]

Bill Russell was the original Joakim Noah.

[KG215]

It's always great to see Tony Montana's "shock value" posts completely blow-up in his face.

[chazzy]

I don't think Ben Wallace could score 15ppg on a 200 possession team

[LBJMVP]

he is obviously a little overrated... he played on the most stacked team of all time and it really isn't even close.

five hall of famers? you gotta be kidding.

he definitely isnt goat, but he is top 10.

the man is probly avering like 8/15 in todays game with amazing defense. and probly wins like 3-5 rings. no mvps

the last center to win mvp (duncan is PF) was shaq and he had to average 29/13/3

[poido123]

Bill Russell was the original Joakim Noah.

:roll:

Obvious trolling. Try harder Numbersix

Bill Russell was an alltime great along with Wilt. They played in an era quite different to ours. To compare how they would fare to players today is inaccurate and misleading, when you consider that they absolutely dominated the era they were in.

Kareem, Wilt, Jordan, and Russell are in the tier 1 of all time greats.

Second tier is Magic, Bird, Shaq

Thrid tier Kobe, Hakeem, Duncan, Lebron

[TheTenth]

RPG adjusted to 36 minutes all time - CAREER - (having the same base RPG)
14.43 Dennis Rodman
13.65 Kevin Love
13.17 Bill Russell
12.81 Wilt Chamberlain
12.80 Dwight Howard
12.14 Bill Walton
12.11 Moses Malone
11.95 Maurice Stokes
11.59 Wes Unseld
11.32 Tim Duncan

Note that Kevin Love/Kevin Love/Tim Duncan are still active and Bill Walton and Mauric Stokes aren't qualifiers (not enough rebounds.)

[greymatter]

:oldlol: Russell was the skinniest center in the league almost every season that he played, yet you assume he was "probably stronger than most guys in the league at that time" :oldlol:

Was he stronger than Bellamy? Pettit? Lovellete? Embry? Wilt? Thurmond? Reed? I have a hard time thinking of centers who were skinnier than Russell, where as I can rattle off many that were documented as being heavier, and had a reputation for being stronger just off the top of my head. "Strength" wasn't even one of Bill Russell's gifts. Please stop commenting on this subject, your only embarrassing yourself.

Russell never cracked 220 at nearly 6'10". You're talking to the same imbecile that insists that Jordan could clearly have taken a team with Larry Hughes and Ilgauskas as his 2nd/3rd best players to the Finals.

[CavaliersFTW]

Russell never cracked 220 at nearly 6'10". You're talking to the same imbecile that insists that Jordan could clearly have taken a team with Larry Hughes and Ilgauskas as his 2nd/3rd best players to the Finals.
Maybe his first season he didn't, but Russell did crack 220 and pretty early on too, he was 222-230 in his prime and as he got older weighed as much as 240 but most people aren't aware of his actual weights or his competitions actual playing weights because bball reference only lists their draft/NCAA info. Guys like Walt Bellamy were playing against Russell at 265, Wayne Embry 280, Wilt Chamberlain 290... these guys dwarfed Russell even at Russell's bulkiest

[TonyMontana]

I had addressed very similar points in an older thread, but there's no search engine here, so, I'll just ask you this: Add the similarly adjusted numbers of Wallace's Pistons and their opponents, then do the same with the Celtics, then we'll compare who had the better impact for his team statistically. You may also add Wallace's best teammates' adjusted numbers, too, and see how they compare to the numbers of Russell's best teammates' numbers.
And even so, the figures still won't make any justice for Russell, since you didn't account for fatigue due to increased playing time for Wallace, you didn't account for increased fouls, you didn't account for reduced scoring efficiency (which is already lower than Russell's), you didn't account for assists counting differently, you didn't account for a lot.

Most importantly, moving away from stats, let's not forget that Wallace didn't even reach to the Finals, he didn't even win more than a single title and his stats for the most part of his career weren't even close to the ones you posted in a prime/peak season.
After all, if rankings were based solely on stats, why bring up Wallace? Isn't Wilt enough? And isn't a fact that a lot still rank Russell over Wilt?

You can win a title with Ben Wallace as your best player too.

Difference is that there is more than 8 teams and Ben Wallace never had half of the HOFers in the league on his team.

"Fatigue" is all about the era. 60s players are skinnier and built more like cross country kids while modern era players are built more like sprinters.

I'll take the sprinter look over the cross country endurance athlete look any ****ing day.


Oh, and, btw, your Wallace adjusted numbers are all wrong for one more reason, you had him play 36.5 mpg, while his correct number was 39.4.

Yeah just saw that the MPG used was from the year before. Still won't make a big difference. Point is that Ben Wallace put up similar production to Russell and Russell didn't do anything much better than Wallace.


Ben Wallace? Adjusted(Completely MADE UP) Stats?

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/3547570/stephen-a-smith-laughing-o.gif

Ben Wallace has NEVER been analogous to Bill Russell. Not even close. The fact that you think so means your nothing but a bball reference stats warrior. The fact that you even attempted to make "adjusted" stats means you also shouldn't even be discussing this topic because not only do you have no grasp of what Bill Russell did on the court but u further your ignorance by attempting to MAKE UP your own imaginary data :facepalm

http://youtu.be/SF22xiRxHv8
Nothing to see here just another Ben Wallace folks, playing all 5 positions and able to run the floor and complete every play that was written for his teams HOF guards and forwards :rolleyes:

So you think Russell plays all 5 positions just because of a minute long video?

:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

Thats like me showing you a video of Shaq dribbling the ball full court and finishing and saying he can play point guard. Russell can't even dribble the ball without staring at the ground. :oldlol:

[CavaliersFTW]

You can win a title with Ben Wallace as your best player too.

Difference is that there is more than 8 teams and Ben Wallace never had half of the HOFers in the league on his team.

"Fatigue" is all about the era. 60s players are skinnier and built more like cross country kids while modern era players are built more like sprinters.

I'll take the sprinter look over the cross country endurance athlete look any ****ing day.



Yeah just saw that the MPG used was from the year before. Still won't make a big difference. Point is that Ben Wallace put up similar production to Russell and Russell didn't do anything much better than Wallace.



So you think Russell plays all 5 positions just because of a minute long video?

:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

Thats like me showing you a video of Shaq dribbling the ball full court and finishing and saying he can play point guard. Russell can't even dribble the ball without staring at the ground. :oldlol:
:facepalm I don't think you understand you poor thing... I literally put that montage together just now... those clips and that interview with Russell are clips off the top of my head that are examples of him running the floor and being his teams guard/forward on offense... In other words, Russell did that routinely, like multiple times a game. It wasn't some flukey thing like the odd clip of Shaq getting a full head of steam with no defenders willing to chase him. Russell even explicitly states that he learned every single offensive play ran for all 5 positions, so that he could perform them and understand them if teammates were having problems running them in a game. Got any interviews, or quotes that describe this being true for Shaq? Or any other center?

[LBJMVP]

:facepalm I don't think you understand you poor thing... I literally put that montage together just now... those clips and that interview with Russell are clips off the top of my head that are examples of him running the floor and being his teams guard/forward on offense... In other words, Russell did that routinely, like multiple times a game. It wasn't some flukey thing like the odd clip of Shaq getting a full head of steam with no defenders willing to chase him. Russell even explicitly states that he learned every single offensive play ran for all 5 positions, so that he could perform them and understand them if teammates were having problems running them in a game. Got any interviews, or quotes that describe this being true for Shaq? Or any other center?


how is that a video of him running all 5 positions?

he is just a center that can run the court against not very impressive defense.

[TheTenth]

Adjusted for pace stats PER36 Minutes: (For career)

Bill Russell:
13.17 RPG
3.72 APG
11.30 PPG
.484 FG%

Ben Wallace:
11.89 RPG
1.75 APG
7.41 PPG
.490 FG%

Russell is a much better passer, rebounder, and scorer than Wallace. Get out...

[TonyMontana]

Adjusted for pace stats PER36 Minutes: (For career)

Bill Russell:
13.17 RPG
3.72 APG
11.30 PPG
.484 FG%

Ben Wallace:
11.89 RPG
1.75 APG
7.41 PPG
.490 FG%

Russell is a much better passer, rebounder, and scorer than Wallace. Get out...

Thats because Wallace had a short peak as a dominant player. Your including all of his shitty years. 2001-2004 Ben Wallace is just as good as any Russell.


:facepalm I don't think you understand you poor thing... I literally put that montage together just now... those clips and that interview with Russell are clips off the top of my head that are examples of him running the floor and being his teams guard/forward on offense... In other words, Russell did that routinely, like multiple times a game. It wasn't some flukey thing like the odd clip of Shaq getting a full head of steam with no defenders willing to chase him. Russell even explicitly states that he learned every single offensive play ran for all 5 positions, so that he could perform them and understand them if teammates were having problems running them in a game. Got any interviews, or quotes that describe this being true for Shaq? Or any other center?

I don't wack off to interviews from guys who are just there to prop up and support their teammate/oppenent from their era.

I judge players by what I'm watching.

And what I see in your clips is shitty defense that is allowing a 6'10 guy that can't dribble without staring at the ball to run down the court on them.

[CavaliersFTW]

Adjusted for pace stats PER36 Minutes: (For career)

Bill Russell:
13.17 RPG
3.72 APG
11.30 PPG
.484 FG%

Ben Wallace:
11.89 RPG
1.75 APG
7.41 PPG
.490 FG%

Russell is a much better passer, rebounder, and scorer than Wallace. Get out...
Keep in mind "adjusting" anyone's numbers results in nothing but a 100% fictitious number... Anyone who tries to pass off an adjusted stat as a real number for comparison is trolling you.

If someone increases their # of shots their efficiency tends to go down. If a team decreases their # of possessions, the relative number of touches their superstar receives goes up and for role players goes down. And depending on who it is, if the total number of available rebounds goes down, the relative number of rebounds for the teams dominant rebounder in the middle would likely go up. If someone decreases their minutes, their potency on the floor generally goes up. etc etc. Stats aren't linear based on minutes or possessions or pace, anyone who thinks they are doesn't understand the game or has an agenda and is trying to skew the stats to fit their agenda. And again, "adjusted" stats aren't real.

[TheTenth]

Thats because Wallace had a short peak as a dominant player. Your including all of his shitty years. 2001-2004 Ben Wallace is just as good as any Russell.

(All Per 36)
Top 5 Russell RPG:
14.64 - 1957
14.17 - 1958
14.15 - 1964
13.66 - 1963
13.66 - 1965
Top 5 Wallace RPG:
13.74 - 2003
13.39 - 2001
12.49 - 2002
11.99 - 2005
11.74 - 2000

[TheTenth]

Keep in mind "adjusting" anyone's numbers results in nothing but a 100% fictitious number... Anyone who tries to pass off an adjusted stat as a real number for comparison is trolling you.

If someone increases their # of shots their efficiency tends to go down. If a team decreases their # of possessions, the relative number of touches their superstar receives goes up and for role players goes down. And depending on who it is, if the total number of available rebounds goes down, the relative number of rebounds for the teams dominant rebounder in the middle would likely go up. If someone decreases their minutes, their potency on the floor generally goes up. etc etc. Stats aren't linear based on minutes or possessions or pace, anyone who thinks they are doesn't understand the game or has an agenda and is trying to skew the stats to fit their agenda. And again, "adjusted" stats aren't real.
Easiest way to make a comparison though...

[TonyMontana]

(All Per 36)
Top 5 Russell RPG:
14.64 - 1957
14.17 - 1958
14.15 - 1964
13.66 - 1963
13.66 - 1965
Top 5 Wallace RPG:
13.74 - 2003
13.39 - 2001
12.49 - 2002
11.99 - 2005
11.74 - 2000

Per 36?

You do realize Russells Celtics had around 140 possessions per game while Ben Wallaces Pistons averaged 86.8 possessions per game.

:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

[TheTenth]

Per 36?

You do realize Russells Celtics had around 140 possessions per game while Ben Wallaces Pistons averaged 86.8 possessions per game.

:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:
:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:
I converted it to league average!!!!!!!!11!!!eleven!!!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHA!

[CavaliersFTW]

Easiest way to make a comparison though...
Yes but just understand your comparing made up numbers - fictional numbers that relied on too many assumptions to trust as accurate... "adjusted" numbers are linear, but the real-world variables that go into a players numbers in basketball are non-linear.

[TonyMontana]

:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:
I converted it to league average!!!!!!!!11!!!eleven!!!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHA!

Huh?

So instead of using Big Bens TEAMS pace, we're going to use league average?

Pathetic what people will go to in order to suit their agenda. :oldlol:

[CavaliersFTW]

Huh?

So instead of using Big Bens TEAMS pace, we're going to use league average?

Pathetic what people will go to in order to suit their agenda. :oldlol:
I see what your all about now, shock value trolling... I should have known better when I saw the April 2013 join date :oldlol:

Carry on buffoon, nobody takes you seriously though

[TheTenth]

Huh?

So instead of using Big Bens TEAMS pace, we're going to use league average?

Pathetic what people will go to in order to suit their agenda. :oldlol:
Both Ben Wallace and Bill Russell are shown what their stats would look like in the same pace: it's not suiting anyone's agenda. I could care less if Ben Wallace is a better rebounder than Russell, maybe you should remove your bias.


Yes but just understand your comparing made up numbers - fictional numbers that relied on too many assumptions to trust as accurate... "adjusted" numbers are linear, but the real-world variables that go into a players numbers in basketball are non-linear.
It gives a decent portrait of what they would look like and accurately represents the dominance a player holds to their time period. It's not a perfect translation of what anyone's statistics would look like but it provides a good basis to work with.

[fpliii]

Both Ben Wallace and Bill Russell are shown what their stats would look like in the same pace: it's not suiting anyone's agenda. I could care less if Ben Wallace is a better rebounder than Russell, maybe you should remove your bias.


It gives a decent portrait of what they would look like and accurately represents the dominance a player holds to their time period. It's not a perfect translation of what anyone's statistics would look like but it provides a good basis to work with.

IMO the best way to look at it is TRB% + MPG + team pace all alongside one another, but it's not the simplest way. Just my opinion though.

[TheTenth]

IMO the best way to look at it is TRB% + MPG + team pace all alongside one another, but it's not the simplest way. Just my opinion though.
I completely agree with that statement. Also teammates need to be considered; ie: stealing rebounds from teammates results in a low TRB% for the teammates. It's not just stat padding that results in this, when a high volume rebounder joins a team, usually the other best rebounders lose a little bit of their TRB%.

[fpliii]

I completely agree with that statement. Also teammates need to be considered; ie: stealing rebounds from teammates results in a low TRB% for the teammates. It's not just stat padding that results in this, when a high volume rebounder joins a team, usually the other best rebounders lose a little bit of their TRB%.

Good point. One alternate way of thinking of rebounds is as a purely team action (since it's hard to isolate interdependency in boxing out, gang rebounding, etc.). There was a thread on the topic on the APBRmetrics board a few months back I believe. That being said, I'm not concerned with the exact numbers, and use whatever data there is available to try and paint a picture of how good a given guy's filling his role.

[tpols]

Sometimes I think you just post stupid shit on purpose to see what kind of reaction you can get.
Um definition of trolling.. you haven't figured it out yet?

[Dr.J4ever]

Both Ben Wallace and Bill Russell are shown what their stats would look like in the same pace: it's not suiting anyone's agenda. I could care less if Ben Wallace is a better rebounder than Russell, maybe you should remove your bias.


It gives a decent portrait of what they would look like and accurately represents the dominance a player holds to their time period. It's not a perfect translation of what anyone's statistics would look like but it provides a good basis to work with.

Fascinating discussion. What is the truth between using "adjusted stats for pace of game" vs. just using actual stats? I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

No doubt using "adjusted" gives a fairer and more accurate representation of NBA stats from 50 years ago. However, I'm sure people here have not seen even 1 whole game of the Celtics of the 60's play in real time. Until you see Bill Russel in an actual game, there's really no way to fully account for his impact with the Celtics.

Was Russel overrated? Possibly, but there's no doubt everyone who SAW him play or played against him speak about him in reverence.

[TheTenth]

Good point. One alternate way of thinking of rebounds is as a purely team action (since it's hard to isolate interdependency in boxing out, gang rebounding, etc.). There was a thread on the topic on the APBRmetrics board a few months back I believe. That being said, I'm not concerned with the exact numbers, and use whatever data there is available to try and paint a picture of how good a given guy's filling his role.
Do you have a link? They seem to have very intelligent discussions over there, but I haven't join since it seems their activity is fairly low.

[TonyMontana]

Both Ben Wallace and Bill Russell are shown what their stats would look like in the same pace: it's not suiting anyone's agenda. I could care less is Ben Wallace is a better rebounder than Russell, maybe you should remove your bias.


Yeah your way doesn't make any ****ing sense at all. These are each of their paces for Bills era, Bens era, and for an imaginary era with the same MPG and possessions.


Bill Russell 1961-62:

10.2 ppg, 12.8 rpg, 2.4 apg in Wallace's 86.8 poss. per game. & 39.4 mpg.

11.4 ppg, 14.1 rpg, 2.8 apg in 100 poss. per game. & 40 mpg.

18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 4.5 apg in his normal ~140 poss. per game. & 45.2 mpg.

Ben Wallace 2002-03:

6.9 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 1.4 apg, 1.7 spg, 3.5 bpg in his normal 86.8 poss. per game. & 39.4 mpg.

8.8 ppg, 19.5 rpg, 1.8 apg, 2.2 spg, 4.5 bpg in ~100 poss. per game. & 40 mpg.

13.9 ppg, 31.1 rpg, 2.8 apg, 3.4 spg, 7.1 bpg in Russell's 140 poss. per game. & 45.2 mpg.

Ben Wallace is the better rebounder, not sure how your getting your calculations buddy.


I see what your all about now, shock value trolling... I should have known better when I saw the April 2013 join date :oldlol:

Carry on buffoon, nobody takes you seriously though

Good, now get out of the grownups way so we can discuss things you have no knowledge about. :D

[fpliii]

Do you have a link? They seem to have very intelligent discussions over there, but I haven't join since it seems their activity is fairly low.

I think this is it:

http://www.apbr.org/metrics/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8223

though on the old board (before they lost all the old posts), there were a few intermittent discussions on it.

The conversation is limited at times (partially since a fair portion of the posters are angling for front office jobs, and as such don't want to share all of their research/analysis), but very valuable nonetheless. The RGM (I think links to there are banned on here?) Player Comparisons (more traffic) and Statistical Analysis (not so much traffic) boards are good too.

[TheTenth]

Fascinating discussion. What is the truth between using "adjusted stats for pace of game" vs. just using actual stats? I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

No doubt using "adjusted" gives a fairer and more accurate representation of NBA stats from 50 years ago. However, I'm sure people here have not seen even 1 whole game of the Celtics of the 60's play in real time. Until you see Bill Russel in an actual game, there's really no way to fully account for his impact with the Celtics.

Was Russel overrated? Possibly, but there's no doubt everyone who SAW him play or played against him speak about him in reverence.
Well all statistics need a point of reference in dealing with them. Statistics are not totally based on internal factors, for example in my research I found that star players generally had better FG%'s when a playmaking point player joined their team (After Cousy, the Celtics HoFers generally shot worse, Pippen upped Jordan's FG%, etc.)

For me, as I said earlier, I use adjusted stats as a blueprint of what those stats would look like at a different pace but I recognize there is a margin of error.

[TheTenth]

Yeah your way doesn't make any ****ing sense at all. These are each of their paces for Bills era, Bens era, and for an imaginary era with the same MPG and possessions.


Ben Wallace is the better rebounder, not sure how your getting your calculations buddy.
You don't account for Team Rebounds being added to pre-1969 seasons. Russell's RPG numbers are thus under-inflated in adjusted statistics. Also, I'm removing the team effect in my calculations. Sure Russell's teams played at a higher pace than their league average and Wallace's played at a lower pace than their league average, but that's the way the received those stats. Playing at a different pace (relative to league average) means shifting the whole gameplan, or needing to derive new statistics.

Also, please stop using ad hominem attacks. That's one of my pet peeves. I generally have patience for this stuff, but since I am taking my time out of the way to adjust these statistics to you, I expect a general courtesy to both myself and the other posters in this thread.

[TheTenth]

I think this is it:

http://www.apbr.org/metrics/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8223

though on the old board (before they lost all the old posts), there were a few intermittent discussions on it.

The conversation is limited at times (partially since a fair portion of the posters are angling for front office jobs, and as such don't want to share all of their research/analysis), but very valuable nonetheless. The RGM (I think links to there are banned on here?) Player Comparisons (more traffic) and Statistical Analysis (not so much traffic) boards are good too.
Thank you very much!

[ThaRegul8r]

I've always found it curious that some people will actually take the time out of their day to create a thread about a player(s) they think is overrated. I've never in my life started a discussion about anything I didn't think much of. It's just odd that people would waste time this way.

[Dr.J4ever]

Well all statistics need a point of reference in dealing with them. Statistics are not totally based on internal factors, for example in my research I found that star players generally had better FG%'s when a playmaking point player joined their team (After Cousy, the Celtics HoFers generally shot worse, Pippen upped Jordan's FG%, etc.)

For me, as I said earlier, I use adjusted stats as a blueprint of what those stats would look like at a different pace but I recognize there is a margin of error.

Yeah, I think you need to use adjusted stats to give a deeper meaning to NBA stats. For example, for years I wondered why Julius Erving's stats in the ABA were so much more dominant than his NBA numbers. I mean, Doc's stats in the ABA showed him to be a dominant rebounder(1 season Doc averaged 15rpg), but other than the fact Doc was REALLY a better rebounder in the ABA, was Doc's stats inflated by the ABA's faster pace?

I haven't looked at the numbers, and maybe I don't have the time, but I suspect this. Doc's my hero, but truth is truth.

[fpliii]

Yeah, I think you need to use adjusted stats to give a deeper meaning to NBA stats. For example, for years I wondered why Julius Erving's stats in the ABA were so much more dominant than his NBA numbers. I mean, Doc's stats in the ABA showed him to be a dominant rebounder(1 season Doc averaged 15rpg), but other than the fact Doc was REALLY a better rebounder in the ABA, was Doc's stats inflated by the ABA's faster pace?

I haven't looked at the numbers, and maybe I don't have the time, but I suspect this. Doc's my hero, but truth is truth.

Erving in particular is interesting. From what I've read in articles from back then, it comes down to three things:

[Legends66NBA7]

I've always found it curious that some people will actually take the time out of their day to create a thread about a player(s) they think is overrated. I've never in my life started a discussion about anything I didn't think much of. It's just odd that people would waste time this way.

This thread was made due to a dispute in another thread (see "Bill Russell never missed the playoffs" thread). This has been happening all day, apparently.

I guess it's a sign of summer/bordem.

[Dr.J4ever]

[QUOTE=fpliii]Erving in particular is interesting. From what I've read in articles from back then, it comes down to three things:

[fpliii]

Yes, all of the things you mentioned were factors, and I agree the ABA was as good as or better than the NBA the last 3 years before the merger, but, in relevance to this thread, was the ABA's pace a factor in Doc's "elevated" stats?

Maybe. The paces for J's teams:

VIR 72 - 110.4
VIR 73 - 110.3
NYA 74 - 105.0
NYA 75 - 103.4
NYA 76 - 105.9
PHI 77 - 108.3
PHI 78 - 108.4
PHI 79 - 106.7
PHI 80 - 103.0
PHI 81 - 103.4
PHI 82 - 100.6
PHI 83 - 102.7
PHI 84 - 99.6
PHI 85 - 100.8
PHI 86 - 100.5
PHI 87 - 97.3

Aside from his first two seasons with the Squires (in which he posted some monster rebounding numbers, including the only 20-20 playoffs in the ABA's existence in 72), his team's played at a similar pace. It seems his PPG went down due to fewer attempts (dropoff of 6 in his first NBA season) and his APG went down due to handling the ball less. His rebounds might've been affected by pace, but I think having a stronger frontcourt (reducing his need to rebound) as well as the injuries/paint being clogged (due to lack of use of the 3) played a much bigger part IMO.

[dyna]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=173M7ApCNKw

[NumberSix]

:roll:

Obvious trolling. Try harder Numbersix

Bill Russell was an alltime great along with Wilt. They played in an era quite different to ours. To compare how they would fare to players today is inaccurate and misleading, when you consider that they absolutely dominated the era they were in.

Kareem, Wilt, Jordan, and Russell are in the tier 1 of all time greats.

Second tier is Magic, Bird, Shaq

Thrid tier Kobe, Hakeem, Duncan, Lebron
Why is Jordan in the same tier as Wilt, Kareem and Russell? Shouldn't he be in the tier below?

[AirFederer]

Not saying Russell wasn`t great but obvisoly pace and posessions per game must mean a lot for his stats.

ButRuss was so much more than stats. 11 rings... :bowdown:

But I`ll still have Mike as the GOAT :pimp:

[BoutPractice]

It's not just about stats. Check his resume, see what people are saying about him, then watch him for a few full games (contrary to Wilt, there is footage available that illustrates his ability very well), and you'll understand why he's so highly regarded. He's not winning by blind luck, he's clearly the main reason behind the win.

[TheTenth]

Yes, all of the things you mentioned were factors, and I agree the ABA was as good as or better than the NBA the last 3 years before the merger, but, in relevance to this thread, was the ABA's pace a factor in Doc's "elevated" stats?
I haven't adjusted his, but it could be a case of diluted talent rendering higher statistics. This happened for the BAA/NBL players who put up greater statistics before the merging of the leagues.

But looking at the ABA stats (quick eye test, forgive me if I am a little off), there were about 5-10 more PPG in league average along with 4-10 more RPG. I think this can explain some of the drop also.

[Psileas]

Yeah your way doesn't make any ****ing sense at all. These are each of their paces for Bills era, Bens era, and for an imaginary era with the same MPG and possessions.


Bill Russell 1961-62:

10.2 ppg, 12.8 rpg, 2.4 apg in Wallace's 86.8 poss. per game. & 39.4 mpg.

11.4 ppg, 14.1 rpg, 2.8 apg in 100 poss. per game. & 40 mpg.

18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 4.5 apg in his normal ~140 poss. per game. & 45.2 mpg.

Ben Wallace 2002-03:

6.9 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 1.4 apg, 1.7 spg, 3.5 bpg in his normal 86.8 poss. per game. & 39.4 mpg.

8.8 ppg, 19.5 rpg, 1.8 apg, 2.2 spg, 4.5 bpg in ~100 poss. per game. & 40 mpg.

13.9 ppg, 31.1 rpg, 2.8 apg, 3.4 spg, 7.1 bpg in Russell's 140 poss. per game. & 45.2 mpg.

Ben Wallace is the better rebounder, not sure how your getting your calculations buddy.



Good, now get out of the grownups way so we can discuss things you have no knowledge about. :D

LOL, he's a bigger troll than I initially thought. I pointed out his mpg figures and he only changed the 36.5 figure to 39.4, while keeping the made-up "adjusted" numbers of Wallace the same. :facepalm

[Flash31]

:wtf:
RPG adjusted to 36 minutes all time - CAREER - (having the same base RPG)
14.43 Dennis Rodman
13.65 Kevin Love
13.17 Bill Russell
12.81 Wilt Chamberlain
12.80 Dwight Howard
12.14 Bill Walton
12.11 Moses Malone
11.95 Maurice Stokes
11.59 Wes Unseld
11.32 Tim Duncan

Note that Kevin Love/Kevin Love/Tim Duncan are still active and Bill Walton and Mauric Stokes aren't qualifiers (not enough rebounds.)


ilt at only 12 rbs,russell at 13

stop just stop posting

and you cant just adjuste their minute bc most of hese stars either played LESS than 36 min or like Wilt over 40 min
in a whole different pace or style

Thatll be like adjusting Brook Lopezs rb to the pace in the 60s and saying hes a good rebounds when facts,live playand gae footage shows otherwise.


So you basically make up completely false stats to discredit wilt and russell,

I can do that too drop Kobes fg% to the 60s bc adjusted for pace and defense and no 3s and style
it would be in the 30s,same with LeBron,Durant

I could drop CP3s assits and Rondos due to how they track assists now compaed to then,

I could drop Durants ppg and Kobes due to less fta and 3s and fg%.
And then on top of that I can drop their stats even more to adjust to 36 min.

Wilt rarely,if ever played 36 min,fr his Career he avg over 40 min per game,

You cant just adjust or lower based on 36 and all bc somebody played more min,
thatll be like saying Dwight Howard could avg 18 rbs per game if e played 48 min per game when he cant so he doesnt.

I mean you take off 3s,Kobes not top 5 in scoring,make assist tracked like they were then Rondo only avg maybe 5 assists per game if that.

You take out the zone and d 3seconds and narrow it
and everybodies shots at the rim go down and their fg% decreases.


The game today HEAVIL FAVORS the O player and is Hard on D and pain players.



Rodman got more rebounds than anybody else bc thats all he did,rebound,play d
aND HE WAS ONE OF THE GOAT AT IT.

Dwight Howard avg 13 bc hes the best c in the league and most athletic,ET HE CANT PLAY THE MIN of Wilt,

so you cant just drop down their numbers bc and adjust them how you see fit to fit your cleary biased agenda

[SpecialQue]

Holy shit I found OP on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuZeU-SjgJQ

[LAZERUSS]

For those that honestly believe that Russell played in a "weak" era, or that the players of the 60's were trash, here are some interesting facts...

Who gave Russell and Chamberlain fits in the early 60's? None other than the 6-9 white center, Clyde Lovelette. For instance, in his 60-61 season, Lovellette averaged 24.3 ppg against Wilt, and 20.1 ppg against Russell. Granted, Chamberlain heavily outscored him, but he certainly wasn't a "stiff." And keep in mind that these h2h's were usually 9-10 games per season.

In Wilt' 65-66 season, Chamberlain just destroyed Bellamy, Thurmond, and Russell in their seasonal h2h's (as well as easily outplaying Russell in the playoffs.) In a total of 33 h2h's (including the playoffs) with those three players, Wilt outscored them in 29 of those games, and by huge margins. He had games in which he outscored Bellamy, 50-26; Thurmond, 45-13; and Russell, 46-18.

However, who was Chamberlain's toughest opposng center in that 65-66 season? None other than the 6-9 Zelmo Beaty. In their seasonal h2hs, Wilt outscored Bellamy, per game, 29 ppg to 27 ppg. Of course, Beaty went on to be a two-time NBA all-star, and a three-time ABA all-star. Think about that...Beaty was a two-time NBA all-star, in leagues that featured Russell, Thurrmond, Bellamy, Reed, and Wilt.

One uneducated poster scoffed at the likes of 6-9 Connie Dierking, and the 7-0 Tom Boerwinkle. Yet, in Willis Reed's MVP season, Dierking outscored him in the majority of their h2h's, and even outscored Alcindor (KAJ) badly in their first meeting.

Boerwinkle? Take a look at his career rebounding rates, both in the regular season, and playoffs. He even had playoff games of 37 rebounds, and outplayed Alcindor in one game in which his Bulls ended the Bucks 20 game winning streak.

And yet a prime Chamberlain routinely dumped 40-50- and even 60 point games on Dierking, and an old Wilt just slaughtered Boerwinkle on the glass n their playoff h2h's.

Russell dramatically reduced his shooting and scoring late in his career. But, how about his playoff performance against Reed and his favored Knicks in his very last post-season? In a year in which he averaged 9.9 ppg, he raised his scoring against Reed to 16.3 ppg in the playoffs, including a high game of 25, in a surprising upset of NY.

Kareem, himself, actually was a player of the 60's. He came into the NBA in the 69-70 season. And, he played in the Wilt-era, for four seasons. Of course, in almost any fan poll here on ISH, KAJ will be somewhere in the top-5, and as high as #1.

Which brings me to Nate Thurmond. An old Thurmond went h2h with a young, and then prime, KAJ in some 40 h2h games, as a starter. He often outplayed Kareem, and how about this? In those 40+ games, KAJ had a total of seven 30+ point games against Nate (and seven below 20 BTW.) This from a Kareem who was routinely averaging 30-35 ppg against the entire NBA in those years. Not only that, but overall, Kareem shot about .440 against Nate in those 40+ games,and seldom even shot over 50% against him. In fact, he had many games of under 40% against him. In his three playoff serie against Thurmond, a prime, high-scoring KAJ, averaged 24 ppg, on get this... a .439 FG%...combined. His high FG% against him was only .486. And he shot as poorly as .405 (in a series in which Thurmond outscored and outshot him.) Oh, and Kareem's high game against Thurmond, in those 40+ h2h games? 34 points.

And yet a 39 year old KAJ, who could barely get off the floor, would pour in games of 40, 43, and 46 against Hakeem, and 40 in another against Ewing. In fact, in his first ten straight games against Hakeem, he averaged 32 ppg, on get this... .633 shooting! In his career 23 h2h's with Hakeem, at ages 38-41, he outshot Hakeem by a .610 to .512 margin. And in those 23 h2h's, he shot over 50% in 20 of them, including one game of 70% (on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.)

Bob Lanier was one of the premier centers of the 70's. He was a full 6-11 (and would measure over 7-0 in today's NBA), and at a peak, about 265 lbs. And yet an old Thurmond just buried him in their h2h's. He even had a 42 point game against him. Furthermore, Lanier had two outstanding seasons in 71-72, and 72-73, and yet, a Chamberlain, in the last two seasons of his career, and in years in which he hardly shot the ball, battled Lanier in 11 straight games. In his 71-72 season, and in five h2h's with Lanier, Wilt averaged 29 ppg on, get this... .750 shooting. And overall, in those 11 h2h games, Chamberlain averaged 20 ppg on a staggering .836 FG%! (And yes, Lanier had some big games against an old Wilt, too.)

Continued...

[Dr.J4ever]

For those that honestly believe that Russell played in a "weak" era, or that the players of the 60's were trash, here are some interesting facts...

Who gave Russell and Chamberlain fits in the early 60's? None other than the 6-9 white center, Clyde Lovelette. For instance, in his 60-61 season, Lovellette averaged 24.3 ppg against Wilt, and 20.1 ppg against Russell. Granted, Chamberlain heavily outscored him, but he certainly wasn't a "stiff." And keep in mind that these h2h's were usually 9-10 games per season.

In Wilt' 65-66 season, Chamberlain just destroyed Bellamy, Thurmond, and Russell in their seasonal h2h's (as well as easily outplaying Russell in the playoffs.) In a total of 33 h2h's (including the playoffs) with those three players, Wilt outscored them in 29 of those games, and by huge margins. He had games in which he outscored Bellamy, 50-26; Thurmond, 45-13; and Russell, 46-18.

However, who was Chamberlain's toughest opposng center in that 65-66 season? None other than the 6-9 Zelmo Beaty. In their seasonal h2hs, Wilt outscored Bellamy, per game, 29 ppg to 27 ppg. Of course, Beaty went on to be a two-time NBA all-star, and a three-time ABA all-star. Think about that...Beaty was a two-time NBA all-star, in leagues that featured Russell, Thurrmond, Bellamy, Reed, and Wilt.

One uneducated poster scoffed at the likes of 6-9 Connie Dierking, and the 7-0 Tom Boerwinkle. Yet, in Willis Reed's MVP season, Dierking outscored him in the majority of their h2h's, and even outscored Alcindor (KAJ) badly in their first meeting.

Boerwinkle? Take a look at his career rebounding rates, both in the regular season, and playoffs. He even had playoff games of 37 rebounds, and outplayed Alcindor in one game in which his Bulls ended the Bucks 20 game winning streak.

And yet a prime Chamberlain routinely dumped 40-50- and even 60 point games on Dierking, and an old Wilt just slaughtered Boerwinkle on the glass n their playoff h2h's.

Russell dramatically reduced his shooting and scoring late in his career. But, how about his playoff performance against Reed and his favored Knicks in his very last post-season? In a year in which he averaged 9.9 ppg, he raised his scoring against Reed to 16.3 ppg in the playoffs, including a high game of 25, in a surprising upset of NY.

Kareem, himself, actually was a player of the 60's. He came into the NBA in the 69-70 season. And, he played in the Wilt-era, for four seasons. Of course, in almost any fan poll here on ISH, KAJ will be somewhere in the top-5, and as high as #1.

Which brings me to Nate Thurmond. An old Thurmond went h2h with a young, and then prime, KAJ in some 40 h2h games, as a starter. He often outplayed Kareem, and how about this? In those 40+ games, KAJ had a total of seven 30+ point games against Nate (and seven below 20 BTW.) This from a Kareem who was routinely averaging 30-35 ppg against the entire NBA in those years. Not only that, but overall, Kareem shot about .440 against Nate in those 40+ games,and seldom even shot over 50% against him. In fact, he had many games of under 40% against him. In his three playoff serie against Thurmond, a prime, high-scoring KAJ, averaged 24 ppg, on get this... a .439 FG%...combined. His high FG% against him was only .486. And he shot as poorly as .405 (in a series in which Thurmond outscored and outshot him.) Oh, and Kareem's high game against Thurmond, in those 40+ h2h games? 34 points.

And yet a 39 year old KAJ, who could barely get off the floor, would pour in games of 40, 43, and 46 against Hakeem, and 40 in another against Ewing. In fact, in his first ten straight games against Hakeem, he averaged 32 ppg, on get this... .633 shooting! In his career 23 h2h's with Hakeem, at ages 38-41, he outshot Hakeem by a .610 to .512 margin. And in those 23 h2h's, he shot over 50% in 20 of them, including one game of 70% (on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.)

Bob Lanier was one of the premier centers of the 70's. He was a full 6-11 (and would measure over 7-0 in today's NBA), and at a peak, about 265 lbs. And yet an old Thurmond just buried him in their h2h's. He even had a 42 point game against him. Furthermore, Lanier had two outstanding seasons in 71-72, and 72-73, and yet, a Chamberlain, in the last two seasons of his career, and in years in which he hardly shot the ball, battled Lanier in 11 straight games. In his 71-72 season, and in five h2h's with Lanier, Wilt averaged 29 ppg on, get this... .750 shooting. And overall, in those 11 h2h games, Chamberlain averaged 20 ppg on a staggering .836 FG%! (And yes, Lanier had some big games against an old Wilt, too.)

Continued...

Lazerus, your bridge comparisons are very enlightening, but you forgot one thing. KAJ wasn't prime in those early years. In fact, if you watch game film of his Bucks days, you can tell he hasn't mastered the Skyhook quite the way he mastered it during the the late 70's and 80's when it became a really devastating shot. Instead, KAJ relied more on his young athleticism those early years, and the Skyhook later in his career as his athleticism waned.

And so far no one has said Russel was not great or one of the greats, it's just that you have to adjust his stats to a more modern understanding. This was the NBA 50 YEARS AGO! Game pace and number of shots taken/game in that era seems to me a fair way to adjust those stats.

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

Once again, keep in mind that Russell and Chamberlain played against their peers in 8-12 games per season in the 60's (not counting the playoffs.) And once again, in leagues between 8-14 teams. Which meant that they were facing the likes of Lovellette, Bellamy, Beaty, Reed, and Thurmond, as well as against themselves, in about half of their games, or more in some seasons.

And before some goofball scoffs at the supposed "weak" defenses of the 60's, the NBA shot from .395 to .446 in the decade of the 60's. And how do explain, almost player-for-player, dramatically shooting better by the end of the decade, and even better into the 70's? Take a look at the footage of a Jerry West in the early 60's, and again in the late 60's, and into the 70's. Same form, same shot...and yet...seasons of .445 and even .419 early in the decade.

Or how about John Havlicek, who played eight seasons in the 60's, and eight seasons in the 70's, and shot a higher FG% in every season of the 70's, than he did in his best season in the 60's. He even had a season in the 60's, in which he shot .399 from the field.

Or Elgin Baylor with a low season of .401 early in the 60's, and a season of .486 in the 69-70 season. Or Darrell Imhoff with seasons of .394, .386, and even .314 early in the 60's, and by the end of the decade, as high as .540. Or Johnny Green shooting as badly as .430 and .436 (15.9 ppg that season), and by the early 70's, averaging 16.7 ppg on a league-leading .587 FG%.

Even Wilt shot .461 in his rookie season (albeit, the only time in his career in which he failed to shoot .506, or higher.)

So, for those that jump all over Russell because of his so-called "inefficiency", he was routinely outshooting the league in that regard. In the 59-60 season, Russell shot .467, in a league that shot .395 overall.

And, Russell had seasons of 19 ppg, and several post-seasons in the 20+ range. He had post-season series in which he led his team in scoring (in the 65-66 Finals, he averaged 23.6 ppg.) And the "inefficient" Russell also shot .702 from the field in the '65 Finals, and on 18 ppg, while grabbing 25 rpg. He had Finals games of 30-38, and a game seven of 30-40. He even had two straight playoff games against Wilt of 30-30.

And while FG%'s were much lower in the early 60's, how come FT shooting was a relative constant since the 50's? In the 58-59 season, the NBA shot .756 from the line. In Wilt's last season, 72-73, it was at .758. The very next season it jumped to .771. How about this past season, in 2012-2013? .753, or lower than what it was before Wilt joined the NBA.

So, clearly there were forces at play which limited efficiency in the 60's, and given Thurmond's suffocating numbers in a 40 game span against Kareem, at least some of it had to be attributable to defenses, and defenders.

Continued...

[ThaRegul8r]

so far no one has said Russel was not great or one of the greats, it's just that you have to adjust his stats to a more modern understanding. This was the NBA 50 YEARS AGO! Game pace and number of shots taken/game in that era seems to me a fair way to adjust those stats.

I've posted on several occasions that Russell was among the top of the list for career TRB%, which is independent of pace. No one commented on it or remembers it because the facts don't suit the agenda.

I've posted on several occasions that Russell was among the top of the list for career postseason TRB% (top three with Wilt and Dwight Howard, but Howard's career is still ongoing, meaning he hasn't hit his decline yet, so we don't know yet where he'll end up). No one commented on it or remembers it because the facts don't suit the agenda.

I've posted on several occasions that his '64 postseason would be in the Top 10 postseasons for TRB%, and none of the players ahead of him blocked as many shots as he did, which takes him out of rebound position. No one commented on it or remembers it because the facts don't suit the agenda.

So forgive me if I laugh at "fairness" being mentioned. No one gives a damn about "being fair," they only care about diminishing any rivals, contemporary or historical, to their favorite players, because apparently they have nothing better to do.

[Linspired]

For those that honestly believe that Russell played in a "weak" era, or that the players of the 60's were trash, here are some interesting facts...

Who gave Russell and Chamberlain fits in the early 60's? None other than the 6-9 white center, Clyde Lovelette. For instance, in his 60-61 season, Lovellette averaged 24.3 ppg against Wilt, and 20.1 ppg against Russell. Granted, Chamberlain heavily outscored him, but he certainly wasn't a "stiff." And keep in mind that these h2h's were usually 9-10 games per season.

In Wilt' 65-66 season, Chamberlain just destroyed Bellamy, Thurmond, and Russell in their seasonal h2h's (as well as easily outplaying Russell in the playoffs.) In a total of 33 h2h's (including the playoffs) with those three players, Wilt outscored them in 29 of those games, and by huge margins. He had games in which he outscored Bellamy, 50-26; Thurmond, 45-13; and Russell, 46-18.

However, who was Chamberlain's toughest opposng center in that 65-66 season? None other than the 6-9 Zelmo Beaty. In their seasonal h2hs, Wilt outscored Bellamy, per game, 29 ppg to 27 ppg. Of course, Beaty went on to be a two-time NBA all-star, and a three-time ABA all-star. Think about that...Beaty was a two-time NBA all-star, in leagues that featured Russell, Thurrmond, Bellamy, Reed, and Wilt.

One uneducated poster scoffed at the likes of 6-9 Connie Dierking, and the 7-0 Tom Boerwinkle. Yet, in Willis Reed's MVP season, Dierking outscored him in the majority of their h2h's, and even outscored Alcindor (KAJ) badly in their first meeting.

Boerwinkle? Take a look at his career rebounding rates, both in the regular season, and playoffs. He even had playoff games of 37 rebounds, and outplayed Alcindor in one game in which his Bulls ended the Bucks 20 game winning streak.

And yet a prime Chamberlain routinely dumped 40-50- and even 60 point games on Dierking, and an old Wilt just slaughtered Boerwinkle on the glass n their playoff h2h's.

Russell dramatically reduced his shooting and scoring late in his career. But, how about his playoff performance against Reed and his favored Knicks in his very last post-season? In a year in which he averaged 9.9 ppg, he raised his scoring against Reed to 16.3 ppg in the playoffs, including a high game of 25, in a surprising upset of NY.

Kareem, himself, actually was a player of the 60's. He came into the NBA in the 69-70 season. And, he played in the Wilt-era, for four seasons. Of course, in almost any fan poll here on ISH, KAJ will be somewhere in the top-5, and as high as #1.

Which brings me to Nate Thurmond. An old Thurmond went h2h with a young, and then prime, KAJ in some 40 h2h games, as a starter. He often outplayed Kareem, and how about this? In those 40+ games, KAJ had a total of seven 30+ point games against Nate (and seven below 20 BTW.) This from a Kareem who was routinely averaging 30-35 ppg against the entire NBA in those years. Not only that, but overall, Kareem shot about .440 against Nate in those 40+ games,and seldom even shot over 50% against him. In fact, he had many games of under 40% against him. In his three playoff serie against Thurmond, a prime, high-scoring KAJ, averaged 24 ppg, on get this... a .439 FG%...combined. His high FG% against him was only .486. And he shot as poorly as .405 (in a series in which Thurmond outscored and outshot him.) Oh, and Kareem's high game against Thurmond, in those 40+ h2h games? 34 points.

And yet a 39 year old KAJ, who could barely get off the floor, would pour in games of 40, 43, and 46 against Hakeem, and 40 in another against Ewing. In fact, in his first ten straight games against Hakeem, he averaged 32 ppg, on get this... .633 shooting! In his career 23 h2h's with Hakeem, at ages 38-41, he outshot Hakeem by a .610 to .512 margin. And in those 23 h2h's, he shot over 50% in 20 of them, including one game of 70% (on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.)

Bob Lanier was one of the premier centers of the 70's. He was a full 6-11 (and would measure over 7-0 in today's NBA), and at a peak, about 265 lbs. And yet an old Thurmond just buried him in their h2h's. He even had a 42 point game against him. Furthermore, Lanier had two outstanding seasons in 71-72, and 72-73, and yet, a Chamberlain, in the last two seasons of his career, and in years in which he hardly shot the ball, battled Lanier in 11 straight games. In his 71-72 season, and in five h2h's with Lanier, Wilt averaged 29 ppg on, get this... .750 shooting. And overall, in those 11 h2h games, Chamberlain averaged 20 ppg on a staggering .836 FG%! (And yes, Lanier had some big games against an old Wilt, too.)

Continued...


Offensively, I'll take 80's kaj over young & athletic not yet prime kaj any time any day. 80's kaj was brilliant. He knew how control his pace. Was as seasoned as anyone. And when he had to step up, he stepped like a true warrior. And he perfected his skyhook in 80's.

[LAZERUSS]

Yeah your way doesn't make any ****ing sense at all. These are each of their paces for Bills era, Bens era, and for an imaginary era with the same MPG and possessions.


Bill Russell 1961-62:

10.2 ppg, 12.8 rpg, 2.4 apg in Wallace's 86.8 poss. per game. & 39.4 mpg.

11.4 ppg, 14.1 rpg, 2.8 apg in 100 poss. per game. & 40 mpg.

18.9 ppg, 23.6 rpg, 4.5 apg in his normal ~140 poss. per game. & 45.2 mpg.

Ben Wallace 2002-03:

6.9 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 1.4 apg, 1.7 spg, 3.5 bpg in his normal 86.8 poss. per game. & 39.4 mpg.

8.8 ppg, 19.5 rpg, 1.8 apg, 2.2 spg, 4.5 bpg in ~100 poss. per game. & 40 mpg.

13.9 ppg, 31.1 rpg, 2.8 apg, 3.4 spg, 7.1 bpg in Russell's 140 poss. per game. & 45.2 mpg.

Ben Wallace is the better rebounder, not sure how your getting your calculations buddy.



Good, now get out of the grownups way so we can discuss things you have no knowledge about. :D

Am I the only one here who questions the "140 possessions per game" of the 60's. Oh, and BTW, by the 68-69 season, these "possessions" had declined considerably. And how come the NBA had post-seasons of as low as 105.8 ppg in the mid-60's?

The reality was, throw out the "team rebounds", which were included thru the 67-68 season, and have not been added since, and the league rebounding numbers were in the low 60's in the early in 60's, and in the 50's after that. By Wilt's last season, in 72-73, it was at 50.6 rpg. In Chamberlain's LAST post-season, covering 17 games, he averaged 22.5 rpg, in a post-season NBA that averaged 50.6 rpg. This from a 36 year old Wilt. BTW, that next best post-season since? 17.3 rpg, by KAJ in the 11 playoff games in the 76-77 post-season.

So, the above "adjusted" numbers are WAY OFF. Wilt's best seasons translate to 18 rpg in today's NBA. And, was mentioned by other's, the anti-Wilt clan never give Chamberlain credit for playing 48 mpg over the course of several seasons. Do they honestly believe that Rodman, Howard, and other's could continue to rebound at the same efficiency that they were in 32-36 mpg, as they would in 48?

And Chamberlain had a known playoff series, against Russell no less, in which he grabbed 24.4% of the available rebounds (Russell was at 18.8% BTW.) And just how many more rebounds would Wilt have averaged had he not been blocking 10 shots per game, or just exclusively concentrating on rebounding, instead of expending energy scoring 40 ppg at the other end of the floor?

[fpliii]

I've posted on several occasions that Russell was among the top of the list for career TRB%, which is independent of pace. No one commented on it or remembers it because the facts don't suit the agenda.

I've posted on several occasions that Russell was among the top of the list for career postseason TRB% (top three with Wilt and Dwight Howard, but Howard's career is still ongoing, meaning he hasn't hit his decline yet, so we don't know yet where he'll end up). No one commented on it or remembers it because the facts don't suit the agenda.

I've posted on several occasions that his '64 postseason would be in the Top 10 postseasons for TRB%, and none of the players ahead of him blocked as many shots as he did, which takes him out of rebound position. No one commented on it or remembers it because the facts don't suit the agenda.

So forgive me if I laugh at "fairness" being mentioned. No one gives a damn about "being fair," they only care about diminishing any rivals, contemporary or historical, to their favorite players, because apparently they have nothing better to do.

I'm actually just finishing up my own postseason calculations (have to finish up 69 and 70; I've had my regular season file "complete" for a while, but I'm yet undecided as to how to handle guys who were traded midseason, for whom we don't have complete numbers), so I should be done tonight. I'll send you over mine later tonight, I'm curious to see how ours compare.

I haven't calculated career postseason TRB% (not sure how, weighted average by minutes I guess?), but so far I've gotten:

57 - 22.58
58 - 22.00
59 - 20.62
60 - 20.14
61 - 22.25
62 - 19.67
63 - 19.95
64 - 23.60
65 - 19.96
66 - 22.02
67 - 22.17
68 - 20.56

Let me know if we're far off.

[Psileas]

Lazerus, your bridge comparisons are very enlightening, but you forgot one thing. KAJ wasn't prime in those early years. In fact, if you watch game film of his Bucks days, you can tell he hasn't mastered the Skyhook quite the way he mastered it during the the late 70's and 80's when it became a really devastating shot. Instead, KAJ relied more on his young athleticism those early years, and the Skyhook later in his career as his athleticism waned.

I don't remember many skyhooks more perfect than the one he hit against Boston to win Game 6 of the 1974 Finals, just one season after Wilt retired.

[Psileas]

I'm actually just finishing up my own postseason calculations (have to finish up 69 and 70; I've had my regular season file "complete" for a while, but I'm yet undecided as to how to handle guys who were traded midseason, for whom we don't have complete numbers), so I should be done tonight. I'll send you over mine later tonight, I'm curious to see how ours compare.

I haven't calculated career postseason TRB% (not sure how, weighted average by minutes I guess?), but so far I've gotten:

57 - 22.58
58 - 22.00
59 - 20.62
60 - 20.14
61 - 22.25
62 - 19.67
63 - 19.95
64 - 23.60
65 - 19.96
66 - 22.02
67 - 22.17
68 - 20.56

Let me know if we're far off.

Have you estimated Wilt's as well?
(I think Wilt had a bit lower regular season %'s and a bit bigger variance in postseason).

[ThaRegul8r]

I'm actually just finishing up my own postseason calculations (have to finish up 69 and 70; I've had my regular season file "complete" for a while, but I'm yet undecided as to how to handle guys who were traded midseason, for whom we don't have complete numbers), so I should be done tonight. I'll send you over mine later tonight, I'm curious to see how ours compare.

I haven't calculated career postseason TRB% (not sure how, weighted average by minutes I guess?), but so far I've gotten:

57 - 22.58
58 - 22.00
59 - 20.62
60 - 20.14
61 - 22.25
62 - 19.67
63 - 19.95
64 - 23.60
65 - 19.96
66 - 22.02
67 - 22.17
68 - 20.56

Let me know if we're far off.

I can tell you without looking it up that Russell's '63-64 postseason TRB% is 23.3%, as that's the year I used for Russell for his team in my all-time team project. 0.3 is an acceptable margin of error though. I can send you the exact team numbers for the Celtics and their opponents so you can do the calculation yourself to verify it, as I know I have it around somewhere (at least, I think I had them on another location outside my computer that crashed). His '64-65 postseason rebound rate was 21.0%, as that was the other season I was debating with myself with for Russell. That's exact as well, not estimated.

[ThaRegul8r]

I don't remember many skyhooks more perfect than the one he hit against Boston to win Game 6 of the 1974 Finals, just one season after Wilt retired.

:applause:

I was actually just thinking about that a couple of days ago.

[fpliii]

Have you estimated Wilt's as well? Regular seasons?

Yeah. I used the method on the RGM Statistical Analysis board. For the postseason it's tricky, so I used a weighted average of playoff opponents.

I don't want to share the spreadsheets yet since they're not complete (postseason should be done tonight, but I'm going to have to figure out some stuff for the regular season one...as I said above, there aren't complete numbers for players who were traded midseason for some of the earlier seasons, so I need to work around that somehow), but I'll share Wilt's (also missing AST%, BBR starts in 64-65).

Regular Season:

20.28 / 7.65
20.44 / 5.97
19.67 / 8.30
20.58 / 12.14
19.43 / 18.72
19.38 (SFW) & 20.83 (PHI)
20.42
21.28
20.11
20.35
20.70

Playoffs:

19.74
18.24
21.78
---
21.39
24.32
24.45
23.49
21.29
69 and 70 aren't finished yet

I've posted Russell's before:


57 - 21.92
58 - 21.32
59 - 19.05
60 - 19.01
61 - 18.64
62 - 18.92
63 - 19.07
64 - 20.85
65 - 20.51
66 - 20.57
67 - 20.74
68 - 19.78
69 - 18.59

[fpliii]

I can tell you without looking it up that Russell's '63-64 postseason TRB% is 23.3%, as that's the year I used for Russell for his team in my all-time team project. 0.3 is an acceptable margin of error though. I can send you the exact team numbers for the Celtics and their opponents so you can do the calculation yourself to verify it, as I know I have it around somewhere (at least, I think I had them on another location outside my computer that crashed). His '64-65 postseason rebound rate was 21.0%, as that was the other season I was debating with myself with for Russell. That's exact as well, not estimated.

Thanks. I probably could use the complete numbers from the Globe PDF's, though I opted for estimates for uniformity. I trust your calculations, so no need to send it over (unless you have new individual Russell data not in the gamelogs, in which case it would be greatly appreciated).

EDIT - The 1965 difference is somewhat alarming though, hopefully my process isn't too off.

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

Kareem was playing in the NBA in the 60's. Pistol Pete was scoring 44 ppg in college in the 60's, and then 31 ppg in the NBA in the mid-70's. Lanier was playing college basketball in the 60's, and scoring 25 ppg in the NBA in the early 70's. Dr. J was playing college basketball in the 60's.

Rick Barry was leading the NBA in scoring at 35.6 ppg in the mid-60's, and averaging 30.6 ppg in the NBA a decade later.

Havlicek played eight seasons in the 60's, and then exploded with seasons of 27.5 ppg and 28.9 ppg in the 70's.

A passed-his-prime Walt Bellamy was still averaging 19 ppg and on .545 shooting in the 70's. In fact, he had games in which he was outscoring a peak KAJ.

Elvin Hayes led the league in scoring in his rookie season, in 68-69, at 28.4 ppg. He would hit a high of 28.7 ppg in the early 70's, and even into the 80's he was still scoring 23.0 ppg. He led the league in rebounding in 69-70 (when Chamberlain missed almost the entire season), at 16.9 rpg. He was still getting 13.3 rpg in the late 70's.

Wes Unseld averaged 18.2 rpg in his rookie season in 68-69. In the early 80's, in league's with less available rebounds, he was still among the leaders at 13.3 rpg.

A young McAdoo blew away the league, including a prime KAJ, in scoring in the mid-70's. He was running away with scoring titles (BTW, he had a season of 34.5 ppg, in a league that averaged 102.6 ppg.) And, he was routinely outscoring KAJ in their h2h's in that span, too, including one game of 41 points.

Continued...

[Dr.J4ever]

I don't remember many skyhooks more perfect than the one he hit against Boston to win Game 6 of the 1974 Finals, just one season after Wilt retired.

KAJ had a great Skyhook all through his NBA career, but he really mastered it in the late 70's and 80's. Take it from me, my Sixers were victimized on 2 occasions in '80 and '82 when it seemed all KAJ's important shots ended up in Skyhooks. When I watched KAJ's Bucks clips on You Tube, he was playing a little different offensively. Even shooting some regular jump shots in the lane.

Finally, those of you guys who believe in the "bridge" argument, and I actually find it convincing, but not comprehensive because many players mentioned entering the NBA were rookies, and were not at their prime.

[ThaRegul8r]

I used the method on the RGM Statistical Analysis board. For the postseason it's tricky, so I used a weighted average of playoff opponents.

I used that method for the postseason just to see, and, to use it again as an example, for Russell in '64, the estimate put it at 23.7, while the actual is 23.3, so it came quite close, and has an acceptable margin of error. The estimate for opponents' rebounds was off by 22 (their opponents grabbed 22 more than the estimate put them at).

[fpliii]

I used that method for the postseason just to see, and, to use it again as an example, for Russell in '64, the estimate put it at 23.7, while the actual is 23.3, so it came quite close, and has an acceptable margin of error. The estimate for opponents' rebounds was off by 22 (their opponents grabbed 22 more than the estimate put them at).

That's not bad. I wonder if weighting instead by minutes (rather than # games) would improve the estimate? Though OT's are infrequent enough, that maybe it's not going to do all that much.

[LAZERUSS]

IMHO, Kareem's peak came early in his career. He was unquestionably much quicker, could jump higher, and got his sky-hook off much quicker, as well. As the year's went by his athleticm diminished (although he was still very good in that regard as late as the late 70's.) His defense is often overlooked in his early year's, as well. He anchored the Bucks teams that were #1 in FG% against, from '71 thru '74.

His scoring numbers against the better centers, sans Thurmond, were staggering the early 70's, as well (and his FG% against an old Wilt was about 100 points lower than his career FG%... .464 a compared to .559.) He was hanging 35+ against Reed, 40+ against Cowens, and even a season of 40 against Wilt.

But, by the mid-70's, the better centers caught up to him. Lanier and Gilmore were matching him in their h2's (Gilmore may hve outshot KAJ by a considerable margin BTW) Cowens even outplayed him in a game seven of the Finals. McAdoo was routinely outscoring him in their mid-70's h2h's.

And then... the "Kareem-Killer" came along. By the late 70's, Moses Malone was outplaying KAJ, and by the early to mid-80's, he was manhandling him. Overall, in their 40 career h2h's, Moses was easily the more dominant player.

Still, an old Kareem, who could barely get off the floor (6.2 rpg), and at ages 38-39, was just annhiliating Hakeem and Ewing. BTW, even an old Gilmore was the best big man on the floor against Hakeem in their first ten straight h2h's...he averaged 24 ppg on an eye-popping .677 FG% against the Rockets (either Hakeem, or Sampson, or both.)

So, the best centers of the 70's were dominating the centers of the 80's, some of whom were considered among the elite centers of the 90's.

[LAZERUSS]

I have heard the argument that the "modern" NBA was formed in the 79-80 season. That is when Bird and Magic came on the scene. And a few years later, MJ exploded on the scene.

However, the problem with that theory is this...

The first four MVPs in the decade of the 80's, all played in the 70's. The first five scoring champions of the 80's, all played in the 70's. Including Swen Nater's 79-80 season, in which he led the league at 15.0 rpg (and in only 35 mpg, in a league that averaged 46 rpg), the first six rebounding champions in the 80's, all played in the 70's. The first five FG% leaders in the 80's...all played in the 70's.

Dr. J, Moses, Kareem, Gilmore, Gervin, and Dantley...as good, or better in the decade of the 80's, as they had been in the 70's. Gilmore's efficiency's in the 80's were miles ahead of a prime Artis in the 70's, as was an old KAJ's.

Once again, an old Gilmore and an old KAJ were among the best centers of the 80's, at least to the mid-80's (KAJ won a FMVP at age 37 in '85), and Moses was light years ahead of all the centers in the league thru the first half of the decade of the 80's.

Clearly, if there are those that believe that a prime Kareem could still play today, and even dominate, then the 6-10 Moses surely would, as well. In fact, given what we know, players like Thurmond, Cowens, Lanier, Gilmore, and Chamberlain would all be capable of playing, or even dominating, in today's NBA.

Continued...

[CavaliersFTW]

KAJ had a great Skyhook all through his NBA career, but he really mastered it in the late 70's and 80's. Take it from me, my Sixers were victimized on 2 occasions in '80 and '82 when it seemed all KAJ's important shots ended up in Skyhooks. When I watched KAJ's Bucks clips on You Tube, he was playing a little different offensively. Even shooting some regular jump shots in the lane.

Finally, those of you guys who believe in the "bridge" argument, and I actually find it convincing, but not comprehensive because many players mentioned entering the NBA were rookies, and were not at their prime.
Nah, he was no less effective with it in his early career. Sh*t... he was no less effective with it at UCLA, or even HS... he "mastered" it early. The skyhook he used in the late 60's even before he hit the NBA was no different than the skyhook everyone saw him use his final few seasons in the NBA.

[TheTenth]

:wtf:


ilt at only 12 rbs,russell at 13

stop just stop posting

and you cant just adjuste their minute bc most of hese stars either played LESS than 36 min or like Wilt over 40 min
in a whole different pace or style

Thatll be like adjusting Brook Lopezs rb to the pace in the 60s and saying hes a good rebounds when facts,live playand gae footage shows otherwise.


So you basically make up completely false stats to discredit wilt and russell,

I can do that too drop Kobes fg% to the 60s bc adjusted for pace and defense and no 3s and style
it would be in the 30s,same with LeBron,Durant

I could drop CP3s assits and Rondos due to how they track assists now compaed to then,

I could drop Durants ppg and Kobes due to less fta and 3s and fg%.
And then on top of that I can drop their stats even more to adjust to 36 min.

Wilt rarely,if ever played 36 min,fr his Career he avg over 40 min per game,

You cant just adjust or lower based on 36 and all bc somebody played more min,
thatll be like saying Dwight Howard could avg 18 rbs per game if e played 48 min per game when he cant so he doesnt.

I mean you take off 3s,Kobes not top 5 in scoring,make assist tracked like they were then Rondo only avg maybe 5 assists per game if that.

You take out the zone and d 3seconds and narrow it
and everybodies shots at the rim go down and their fg% decreases.


The game today HEAVIL FAVORS the O player and is Hard on D and pain players.



Rodman got more rebounds than anybody else bc thats all he did,rebound,play d
aND HE WAS ONE OF THE GOAT AT IT.

Dwight Howard avg 13 bc hes the best c in the league and most athletic,ET HE CANT PLAY THE MIN of Wilt,

so you cant just drop down their numbers bc and adjust them how you see fit to fit your cleary biased agenda
I don't really understand much of your post (not being mean, I just don't.) I've stated on here that I believe Wilt Chamberlain is the best of all time (based on my own preference). Yet I diminish him? Ok...

[FillJackson]

This thread sounds like when Russell first entered the league and NBA writers thought the Celtics were winning mainly because of Cousy.

Russell was so good that Auerbach had to study him to find out how good he was, because Russell was doing subtle things that Auerbach had never seen before and definitely weren't showing up in the boxscore. He decided he wouldn't try to instruct Russell what to do because whatever he was doing was obviously working. His first season Auerbach pulled Russell aside and said, "You know you're the best player in this league right?" Russell said, "I know." That's when Auerbach confessed he didn't know why Russell was as successful as he was, but he was going to let him keep doing what he was doing.

Auerbach then undertook a campaign to educate the sportswriters that scoring wasn't the entire game and schooled them as to what Russell was doing that nobody else in the league was doing. Also how do you measure the impact that Russell made off the court? He supposedly was one of the best teammates ever and gave all the HOF Celtics (who wouldn't be there without him) confidence that they were never going to lose as long as they played alongside Russell and were amazingly loyal to Russell (Imagine the loyalty could have inspired Jordan, if he wasn't a being a dick off the court. Anyone think Jordan would have won two titles as a player-coach?)

[miggyme1]

To be honest every great player is overrated. For example jordan isnt winning 6 rings without pippen. Lebron isnt winning two without wade. Duncan isnt winning four without parker and ginobili. Kobe doesnt win his first three without shaq. Playing with great players makes u look so much better even when you're great. Just wish ai couldve played with a great player and dont say melo was cuz at the time ai went to denver melo was a shot jacking pro like ai himself