Was Bill Russell basically Ben Wallace?

[iamgine]

Supporting evidence:

- Like Ben, Bill Russell was the 5th-7th leading scorer in his team when adjusted for minutes.

- Like Ben, Bill Russell was known for his defense


What are some of the things Bill did that was considerably better (or worse) than Ben Wallace? I don't mean the "throwing up before games" stuff. More of what he did on the court.

[LAZERUSS]

No. Not even close. He was a much better offensive player and passer.

[LBJMVP]

bill was not better offensively... everyones scoring numbers in the past are vastly overrated due to pace

russell wasn't very good offensively.

[LAZERUSS]

bill was not better offensively... everyones scoring numbers in the past are vastly overrated due to pace

russell wasn't very good offensively.

Even adjusting for pace, Russell was clearly a better offensive player than Wallace. But you don't need the numbers to prove it. Just watch video footage of a younger Russell, and compare that to a Wallace who couldn't hit the rim from five feet.

And Russell was a much better passer, too, which is seldom brought up in these "offensive" discussions.

[KOBE143]

No :facepalm

Bill Russell was basically Poor Mans Joel Anthony..

[LAZERUSS]

No :facepalm

Bill Russell was basically Poor Mans Joel Anthony..

So you have watched a prime Russell then, right? A Russell who had seasons of 18+ ppg, and post-seasons of 20+ ppg. A Russell who had title-clinching games of 30-38 and 30-40. A Russell who led his team in scoring in the '66 Finals, at 23.6 ppg. A Russell who had an 18 ppg, 27 rpg, and get this... a .702 FG%... in the '65 Finals.

Yep...Joel Anthony-type numbers.

:facepalm

[BoutPractice]

No
/endthread

[KOBE143]

So you have watched a prime Russell then, right? A Russell who had seasons of 18+ ppg, and post-seasons of 20+ ppg. A Russell who had title-clinching games of 30-38 and 30-40. A Russell who led his team in scoring in the '66 Finals, at 23.6 ppg. A Russell who had an 18 ppg, 27 rpg, and get this... a .702 FG%... in the '65 Finals.

Yep...Joel Anthony-type numbers.

:facepalm
WEAK Era

Joel Anthony would average 50ppg in that era.. Wilt and Russell would be lucky to be a 3rd string center today.. FACT..

[WillC]

Bill Russell was a defensive pioneer, the first player to truly intimidate his opponents with unprecedented shot-blocking ability, an exceptional help-defender, arguably the greatest leader in basketball history, a master psychologist, talented passer, incredible team player and extremely versatile for his position. Although he wasn't a great scorer, much of the Celtics offense went through Russell, who played the high-post beautifully.

How many of those things can be said about Ben Wallace?

So, in conclusion, no, Bill Russell was not 'basically Ben Wallace'.

[HylianNightmare]

...this can't be a serious thread

[NumberSix]

No, he was basically Joakim Noah.

[Electric Slide]

No he was basically Bill Russell

[BoutPractice]

Since this thread is apparently still going for some reason, I present to you: Ben Wallace!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF22xiRxHv8

[sundizz]

Well, for their respective careers that they had Bill Russell was much better than his peers than Ben Wallace was to his peers.

The real question is, how would Ben Wallace do in that era?

Probably score very little, but be an absolute beast on the defensive end. Him versus Russell would of been an odd, but likely entertaining game of physical prowess very rarely seen at that time.

4x defensive player of the year as a walk. He's one of the few crop of the modern era that I think would do just fine in the 60's and adapt his game any way necessary and be an absolute force.

[CelticPride13]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/103360/angry-at-computer-o.gif

[MP.Trey]

Since this thread is apparently still going for some reason, I present to you: Ben Wallace!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF22xiRxHv8
Great video. Really shows Russell's importance and versatility on offense. Look at those cuts. :bowdown:

[LAZERUSS]

WEAK Era

Joel Anthony would average 50ppg in that era.. Wilt and Russell would be lucky to be a 3rd string center today.. FACT..

So a Joel Anthony who AVERAGED 3.5 ppg and 3.7 rpg...in COLLEGE...would average 50 ppg in the 60's?

Hell, he couldn't even make the starting five in his college days...and you think Wilt and Russell would be third string centers today?

:facepalm

[KOBE143]

So a Joel Anthony who AVERAGED 3.5 ppg and 3.7 rpg...in COLLEGE...would average 50 ppg in the 60's?

Hell, he couldn't even make the starting five in his college days...and you think Wilt and Russell would be third string centers today?

:facepalm
You know what weak era is?

Weak Era = 50s, 60s

Any scrub today would be superstars in that era..

[IGOTGAME]

Ben Wallace wasn't close to the defender that Russell was. I think Ben was vastly overrated as a defender.

[Harison]

Sure, and Magic was like Rondo, just worse!

[tpols]

This forum sucks in the offseason:(

[LAZERUSS]

You know what weak era is?

Weak Era = 50s, 60s

Any scrub today would be superstars in that era..

Yep... a 39 year old KAJ, who played in the NBA in the 60's, and who averaged 33 ppg on .630 shooting against Hakeem in their 5 h2h's in the '86 season, which included games of 43 and 46 points, but in his prime in the 70's, played some 40 h2h games against little known Nate Thurmond, and his high game was only 34 points...and on a career FG% of around .440 against Nate. Hell, in Kareem's greatest statistical season, in 71-72, Thurmond not only held KAJ to .405 shooting in their playoff series, he outscored and outshot him.

But, we know that Hakeem wouldn't be capable of playing in today's NBA, either, nor would a Shaq, whom Hakeem gave all he could handle in the '95 Finals.

Obviously the 6-8 Joel Anthony would have just murdered a mid-90's Shaq h2h, right?

[Kblaze8855]

Russell was the leading scorer on some of his title runs(off the top I know he led them the year he scored 22 a game). You can try to alter basketball into being played in 36 minute bursts...in what actually happened...he led them in scoring many many many many nights and many big playoff games. Per 36 in the playoffs in 1967 Wilt was his teams 8th leading scorer. All that means is he had the stamina to play every second. Which I will not use against him. You see...it helped his team win. Which is what I believe...they were after.

In addition to that...he was near the top of the league in assists. He peaked at 4th. 4th in the league in assists. As a center. While also being a top 2 rebounder, best defender, and ok to good scorer depending on the year in question. Know how many times Ben Wallace had at least 6 assists in his entire career?

4.

Ben has about 1400 assists in nearly 1100 games. Bill had over 4000 in 963. And while the era gave him more possessions....it wasnt nearly that many more. And as I said...he was near the top of the league so he was beating out nearly everyone playing at the same pace. And had they recorded assists then as we do now...hes probably got a hell of a lot more. Back then if your man dribbled after the pass its not as assist. Today scorekeepers just do whatever the hell they want. Nick Van Exel was flat out gifted 23 assists one night and the Grizzlies scorekeeper admitted it. Bill may well have been getting 8-10 assists a game as we would record them.


Added to that Bill was leading breaks all the time....was perhaps the best outlet passer in history(On a short list with Walton, Unseld, Bird, Wilt, and a couple others in contention). And he helped design the Celtic offenses before and and during the time he was coach. You can see him drawing up plays in games.

He was having 30/40 elimination games, winning finals games with putback dunks, passing his ass off out of the high post and off offensive rebounds....and he did it in the spare time afforded him while also being the most important defensive player in sports history.

Ben Wallace was a great defender and rebounder.

Bill Russell was a great basketball player.

[The Choken One]

This forum sucks in the offseason:(
This forum always sucks.

EDIT: That video though... weak as fhcking defense. Guy just ran straight by people every time. That chit wouldn't happen in today's game. Clearly better than Ben Wallace, but his offensive numbers would greatly decrease imo. Just an opinion though.

[GrapeApe]

Yep... a 39 year old KAJ, who played in the NBA in the 60's, and who averaged 33 ppg on .630 shooting against Hakeem in their 5 h2h's in the '86 season, which included games of 43 and 46 points, but in his prime in the 70's, played some 40 h2h games against little known Nate Thurmond, and his high game was only 34 points...and on a career FG% of around .440 against Nate. Hell, in Kareem's greatest statistical season, in 71-72, Thurmond not only held KAJ to .405 shooting in their playoff series, he outscored and outshot him.

But, we know that Hakeem wouldn't be capable of playing in today's NBA, either, nor would a Shaq, whom Hakeem gave all he could handle in the '95 Finals.

Obviously the 6-8 Joel Anthony would have just murdered a mid-90's Shaq h2h, right?

:applause:

[KOBE143]

Yep... a 39 year old KAJ, who played in the NBA in the 60's, and who averaged 33 ppg on .630 shooting against Hakeem in their 5 h2h's in the '86 season, which included games of 43 and 46 points, but in his prime in the 70's, played some 40 h2h games against little known Nate Thurmond, and his high game was only 34 points...and on a career FG% of around .440 against Nate. Hell, in Kareem's greatest statistical season, in 71-72, Thurmond not only held KAJ to .405 shooting in their playoff series, he outscored and outshot him.

But, we know that Hakeem wouldn't be capable of playing in today's NBA, either, nor would a Shaq, whom Hakeem gave all he could handle in the '95 Finals.

Obviously the 6-8 Joel Anthony would have just murdered a mid-90's Shaq h2h, right?
Your post doesnt makes sense..

KAJ played in the 70s and 80s not in the weak 60s era.. :facepalm

I will repeat it again, weak era was only in the 60s, 50s below.. 70s and up were not weak.. Aside from Thurmond, all players you mentioned didnt even played in the 50s and 60s.. In short they have nothing to do or relevance to 50s, 60s weak era..

[ShaqAttack3234]

Nah, he was definitely a better offensive player. Russell didn't seem to be a skilled scorer, but a legitimate 6'9"-6'10" center in Russell's era with great athleticism could get his fair share of points as a finisher. When you watch old Celtics footage, you'll notice quite a bit of the Russell/Cousy screen/roll Although Russell's value as an offensive player didn't seem to primarily come from his scoring. He was known to play a significant role with his passing as well as setting screens.

Russell was also Boston's second leading scorer during the 1962 season and third leading scorer during the 1961, 1963 and 1965 seasons. He was Boston's leading scorer during the 1962 playoffs, second leading scorer during the 1960 and '61 playoffs and third leading scorer during the 1963, '65 and '66 playoffs.

But defensively, Russell also made a greater impact than Wallace, and likely a greater impact than any player would be capable of making at the defensive end in today's era. Russell was known to have pretty much invented the role of defensive anchor.

[MisterAmazing]

WEAK Era

Joel Anthony would average 50ppg in that era.. Wilt and Russell would be lucky to be a 3rd string center today.. FACT..

you're a fvcking idiot...FACT :facepalm

[LAZERUSS]

Your post doesnt makes sense..

KAJ played in the 70s and 80s not in the weak 60s era.. :facepalm

I will repeat it again, weak era was only in the 60s, 50s below.. 70s and up were not weak.. Aside from Thurmond, all players you mentioned didnt even played in the 50s and 60s.. In short they have nothing to do or relevance to 50s, 60s weak era..

Kareem DID play in the NBA in the 60's. In fact his first h2h with Chamberlain came in 1969, and Wilt mopped the floor with him.

And in his last h2h with a 26 year old Hakeem, in 1989, and at age 41, KAJ scored 21 points, on 8-15 shooting, and outrebounded Hakeem, 13-11 (and Hakeem would go on to lead the NBA in rebounding that year BTW.)

[CelticPride13]

This forum always sucks.

EDIT: That video though... weak as fhcking defense. Guy just ran straight by people every time. That chit wouldn't happen in today's game. Clearly better than Ben Wallace, but his offensive numbers would greatly decrease imo. Just an opinion though.
Is that you in your avy?

[fpliii]

Kareem DID play in the NBA in the 60's. In fact his first h2h with Chamberlain came in 1969, and Wilt mopped the floor with him.

And in his last h2h with a 26 year old Hakeem, and at age 41, KAJ scored 21 points, on 8-15 shooting, and outrebounded Hakeem, 13-11 (and Hakeem would go on to lead the NBA in rebounding that year BTW.)

You realize who you're arguing with, right? The guy is either a troll or a LeBron fan's alt.

[LAZERUSS]

You realize who you're arguing with, right? The guy is either a troll or a LeBron fan's alt.

I know. Still, he is not the only basketball fan that actually believes that Wilt and Russell, in their primes, would be scrubs in the current NBA.

[WillC]

I know. Still, he is not the only basketball fan that actually believes that Wilt and Russell, in their primes, would be scrubs in the current NBA.

I comfort myself in the knowledge that all the pre-pubescent boys on this forum will grow up one day and learn to respect players like Chamberlain and Russell.

[secund2nun]

Ben is a better bball player. Bill feasted on a league full of unathletic undersized white scrubs.

[KG215]

WEAK Era

Joel Anthony would average 50ppg in that era.. Wilt and Russell would be lucky to be a 3rd string center today.. FACT..
Seriously, why do you even post? You're an obvious puppet account, and your trolling isn't even a little bit clever or intelligent. You literally just think of the stupidest things possible, start pounding keys, and click post.

[millwad]

So you have watched a prime Russell then, right? A Russell who had seasons of 18+ ppg, and post-seasons of 20+ ppg. A Russell who had title-clinching games of 30-38 and 30-40. A Russell who led his team in scoring in the '66 Finals, at 23.6 ppg. A Russell who had an 18 ppg, 27 rpg, and get this... a .702 FG%... in the '65 Finals.

Yep...Joel Anthony-type numbers.

:facepalm


Why the hell are you always cherry picking stats that you prefer to mention?
You're such a clown.

In reality, Russell averaged 15.1 points per game on 44% shooting and if you adjust that to modern era pace and playing time it's everything but impressive.

Russell's per 36 minute average was 12.8 points per game while playing in an era with much higher pace. In terms of being a scorer he was mediocre at best. With that said, he was still a better offensive player compared to Wallace.

But I must say this, you're so full of nonsense. Your attempts to cherry pick are so lame.

[Owl]

Supporting evidence:

- Like Ben, Bill Russell was the 5th-7th leading scorer in his team when adjusted for minutes.

- Like Ben, Bill Russell was known for his defense


What are some of the things Bill did that was considerably better (or worse) than Ben Wallace? I don't mean the "throwing up before games" stuff. More of what he did on the court.
No. And I have Russell lower than most on GOAT lists.

Russell was about 15% better free throw shooter. Shoot free throws is thing number 1.

Wallace was never amongst the league leaders in fg% (albeit Russell slid down that list to become an inefficient scorer for a center as his career went on). So score efficiently is thing no 2.

Whilst Russell's raw offensive numbers are boosted by pace and high minutes Russell was certainly never the offensive liability than Wallace was. Russell was also a skilled passer and somewhat of a hub in the later Celtics teams

[bdreason]

Never seen Wallace do this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6oE1AAIg-E

[iamgine]

[QUOTE=Owl]No. And I have Russell lower than most on GOAT lists.

Russell was about 15% better free throw shooter. Shoot free throws is thing number 1.

Wallace was never amongst the league leaders in fg% (albeit Russell slid down that list to become an inefficient scorer for a center as his career went on). So score efficiently is thing no 2.

Whilst Russell's raw offensive numbers are boosted by pace and high minutes Russell was certainly never the offensive liability than Wallace was. Russell was also a skilled passer and somewhat of a hub in the later Celtics teams

[WillC]

Good points

#1 I would agree with the FT%. Ben was atrocious while Russell was "only" bad.

#2 Well Bill's FG% was way worse than Ben but considering the era he played in, I can call that a draw. Considering the puny # of shots they took it's pretty much not that relevant.

#3 & #4 Passing perhaps Russell was good at but scoring? He was always the 5th-7th best scoring in his team.

#5 Rebounding I'd have to flat out disagree. Ben Wallace's rebounding was as good as anyone and it shows in his rebound rate.

#6 With 4 DPOY I'd think he'd be one of the game's greatest defender ever along with Mutombo, Pippen, Rodman, Bobby Jones, etc.

Bill Russell would have won an estimated 11 Defensive Player of the Year awards if the award existed back then.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=190992

[iamgine]

Bill Russell would have won an estimated 11 Defensive Player of the Year awards if the award existed back then.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=190992
Maybe, maybe not.

[KG215]

Maybe, maybe not.
Even if 11 seems absurdly high (which it's really not in this case), the low end of that estimate would be around 7 or 8 DPOY's if the award existed at that time. Bill Russell, for all intents and purposes, is the best defensive player in NBA history. Ben Wallace was a great defensive player, but Russell was a tier above him.

[Toizumi]

Troll thread? Ben Wallace was a great team leader/motivator and considered the best defender/rebounder in the league for a few years. Eventhough the number might not show it, Russell was considered on of the leagues best offensive players, who could create his own buckets from time to time and was a great passer. He was miles ahead when it comes to offense. There's enough footage/stories on this. Russell didn't win all those MVP's just by playing defense. His low fg% makes his offense underrated.

[iamgine]

Even if 11 seems absurdly high (which it's really not in this case), the low end of that estimate would be around 7 or 8 DPOY's if the award existed at that time. Bill Russell, for all intents and purposes, is the best defensive player in NBA history. Ben Wallace was a great defensive player, but Russell was a tier above him.
Not sure about that. I heard this Wilt guy was also quite good too. Anyways I don't see how Russell was a "tier" above Ben Wallace (which would actually put him a "tier" above everyone else too)

[Toizumi]

Not sure about that. I heard this Wilt guy was also quite good too. Anyways I don't see how Russell was a "tier" above Ben Wallace (which would actually put him a "tier" above everyone else too)

Russell was arguably the best player of his time and won a bunch of MVP's and championships. I like Big Ben and the comparison makes sense in terms of their defensive impact, but that's about it.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Not sure about that. I heard this Wilt guy was also quite good too. Anyways I don't see how Russell was a "tier" above Ben Wallace (which would actually put him a "tier" above everyone else too)

Comparing every player to their own era exclusively, Russell probably was essentially a tier above everyone else as far as defensive impact. When you consider that he arguably impacted the game more in his era than anyone else did in theirs(with some of the evidence to support this being the 11 rings) and then consider that while being a good offensive player, he wasn't a top 10 offensive player all-time, it says a lot about his defensive impact.

Wallace was obviously a great defensive player himself. Definitely one of the greatest of his era, but I can't see an argument being made for Wallace making the impact Russell did at either end.

[iamgine]

Comparing every player to their own era exclusively, Russell probably was essentially a tier above everyone else as far as defensive impact. When you consider that he arguably impacted the game more in his era than anyone else did in theirs(with some of the evidence to support this being the 11 rings) and then consider that while being a good offensive player, he wasn't a top 10 offensive player all-time, it says a lot about his defensive impact.

Wallace was obviously a great defensive player himself. Definitely one of the greatest of his era, but I can't see an argument being made for Wallace making the impact Russell did at either end.
I don't think rings are evidence because good teammates matter. Though if you say compare to era exclusively, are you then saying his era was weaker?

Offensively, the fact was on any given time on the court 4-6 of his teammates outscored him. The fact is his FG% was quite low for such a low FGA. Did he do a lot of bailout shots or what?

[The-Legend-24]

Nigguhs in this thread are really acting as if Russell was a great defender. .:oldlol: Who the fvck was there to defend back then? Bunch of white unathletic scrubs? :roll: FOH, dude is no better than the Mcgee's of today.

[Dr.J4ever]

No. Not even close. He was a much better offensive player and passer.
What was Russels ft percentage?

[jlip]

:facepalm @ the fact that this thread even exists.

[cos88]

maybe this will change some minds here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9agA_3eb-g8

[ShaqAttack3234]

I don't think rings are evidence because good teammates matter. Though if you say compare to era exclusively, are you then saying his era was weaker?

Rings are obviously evidence because that's what you play the game for. It's true that you need good teammates to win them, but most great players have good teams at various points in their career, but none of the other all-time greats have 11 rings, and really, nobody else in the top 10 discussion is even close.

As far as eras, well, I'd said compared to his own era because that's the easiest way to compare Russell, and because for this comparison, I want to avoid the Russell in a time machine from 1963 transported to 2013 comparisons.

Though I do think the 60's were weaker as far as the average player's athleticism and skill level, though the difference was more significant with perimeter players.


Offensively, the fact was on any given time on the court 4-6 of his teammates outscored him. The fact is his FG% was quite low for such a low FGA. Did he do a lot of bailout shots or what?

Russell did lead the Celtics in scoring in the postseason during a championship run and was their 2nd or 3rd leading scorer in a number of seasons. Ben Wallace was never anywhere near his team's top 3 scorers.

Here are some of the finals Russell had

1962 Finals- 22.9 ppg, 27 rpg, 5.7 apg, 54.3 FG%, 74.2 FT%
1963 Finals- 20 ppg, 26 rpg, 5.3 ppg, 46.7 FG%, 69.2 FT%
1965 Finals- 17.8 ppg, 25 rpg, 5.8 apg, 70.2 FG%, 57.5 FT%
1966 Finals- 23.6 ppg, 24.3 rpg, 3 apg, 53.8 FG%, 74.0 FT%

And while Russell's FG% is low in general, it wasn't for his era when he was top 5 in FG% during his first 4 seasons.

[iamgine]

Rings are obviously evidence because that's what you play the game for. It's true that you need good teammates to win them, but most great players have good teams at various points in their career, but none of the other all-time greats have 11 rings, and really, nobody else in the top 10 discussion is even close.

As far as eras, well, I'd said compared to his own era because that's the easiest way to compare Russell, and because for this comparison, I want to avoid the Russell in a time machine from 1963 transported to 2013 comparisons.

Though I do think the 60's were weaker as far as the average player's athleticism and skill level, though the difference was more significant with perimeter players.



Russell did lead the Celtics in scoring in the postseason during a championship run and was their 2nd or 3rd leading scorer in a number of seasons. Ben Wallace was never anywhere near his team's top 3 scorers.

Here are some of the finals Russell had

1962 Finals- 22.9 ppg, 27 rpg, 5.7 apg, 54.3 FG%, 74.2 FT%
1963 Finals- 20 ppg, 26 rpg, 5.3 ppg, 46.7 FG%, 69.2 FT%
1965 Finals- 17.8 ppg, 25 rpg, 5.8 apg, 70.2 FG%, 57.5 FT%
1966 Finals- 23.6 ppg, 24.3 rpg, 3 apg, 53.8 FG%, 74.0 FT%

And while Russell's FG% is low in general, it wasn't for his era when he was top 5 in FG% during his first 4 seasons.
Well a consistently great team and coach can certainly win a lot of championships. I have heard both sides of "Bill's teammates are so good they are HOFs" and "Bill was so good he made his teammates HOFs". Was his team stacked like Magic and Larry's teams (relative to the competition of course)?

Even when he lead his team in scoring, he was 5th-7th when minutes are put into place.

Regarding FG%, what happened after those 4 years? Clearly he couldn't be declining in his 20s. He was taking a very low # of shot and having a low FG% as well. Could it be that his first 4 years were an era of really bad FG% that even his terrible FG% looked good in comparison?

[Orlando Magic]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-SkvvkWJr4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-SkvvkWJr4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-SkvvkWJr4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-SkvvkWJr4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-SkvvkWJr4


This clip is very important and should dispel any notion suggested by this thread.

[WillC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-SkvvkWJr4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-SkvvkWJr4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-SkvvkWJr4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-SkvvkWJr4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-SkvvkWJr4


This clip is very important and should dispel any notion suggested by this thread.

A good reminder of Ben Wallace's strengths and weaknesses, thanks for sharing.

[Soundwave]

I hate to say it, but I just don't think basketball in the 1960s and prior was really all that good in terms of overall quality of competition.

There were like 10 teams total and every team averaged liked 110 ppg, lol.

The fact too is IMO with race relations and segregation in the US, it really hampered and probably crushed the dreams of a lot guys who could've played. I mean the stories of the racism Bill Russel endured is mind blowing, how many guys honestly just would've said "f*ck this". It's not like being a basketball player was necessarily a glamor job growing up in the 50s/60s.

There just wasn't the development system in place either.

By the 70s and the formation of the ABA and the evolution of college basketball and development of talent, IMO that's where basketball really took shape into the modern sport we see today.

I think Wilt and Russ would still be All-Star caliber players at least in the 70s/80s in their primes, but I do also think some of their accomplished are inflated due to the era they played in.

I don't think Ben Wallace would be better or equal to Bill Russell period, but I think if he played in the 1960s, he probably would put up some monster rebounding and shot blocking numbers at the very least.

[ThaRegul8r]

:facepalm @ the fact that this thread even exists.

It's InsideHoops. And it isn't as if this is an original sentiment.

Frankly, it's a waste of time even engaging with people like this. People already have their minds made up and won't change them, so it's pointless to even try. No one can ever "convince" anyone of anything. It's a lost cause. People will believe what they want to believe.

[WillC]

It's InsideHoops. And it isn't as if this is an original sentiment.

Frankly, it's a waste of time even engaging with people like this. People already have their minds made up and won't change them, so it's pointless to even try. No one can ever "convince" anyone of anything. It's a lost cause. People will believe what they want to believe.

I actually disagree.

Many of the people who start threads like this are children who don't understand the game and/or don't respect the pioneers of the game.

As they get older - and learn to show more respect and understand the game - they will come to their senses.

Either that or they're ****ing idiots.

[iamgine]

I actually disagree.

Many of the people who start threads like this are children who don't understand the game and/or don't respect the pioneers of the game.

As they get older - and learn to show more respect and understand the game - they will come to their senses.

Either that or they're ****ing idiots.
Ben Wallace is great. There's really no shame in being compared to him regardless of agree or disagree.

[HomieWeMajor]

Bill Russell would do whatever needed to win. He's didn't try to statpad like Wilt. Wilt tried overcompensate for his lil dipper by stat padding on the court. If Bill Russell was needed by his team to score I'm confident he could put up 20+ on good fg%.

[asdf1990]

Ben Wallace would be the goat if he played in that weak era with the most stacked team at that time

[ThaRegul8r]

It's InsideHoops. And it isn't as if this is an original sentiment.

Frankly, it's a waste of time even engaging with people like this. People already have their minds made up and won't change them, so it's pointless to even try. No one can ever "convince" anyone of anything. It's a lost cause. People will believe what they want to believe.

I actually disagree.

Many of the people who start threads like this are children who don't understand the game and/or don't respect the pioneers of the game.

As they get older - and learn to show more respect and understand the game - they will come to their senses.

Either that or they're ****ing idiots.

With all due respect, I've been discussing basketball on the internet since it first came to be what people know it as now, and I've been on every major basketball board in some form or other during that time, as well as some which no longer exist. I naively endeavored to increase people's historical knowledge about basketball since NBA fans knew less than baseball fans knew about MLB history and football fans knew about NFL history. And they're no more knowledgeable as a whole now than they were then. There are a handful of knowledgeable people that can be found on a given board now as there were when I first started posting on the internet. The majority don't give a damn, say anyone who played before they started watching basketball played in a "weak era," and make it their life's mission to diminish, discredit, and detract from anyone who is a contemporary or historical rival to whatever player(s) they stan for, or anyone who isn't covered by their agenda. In all this time, nothing's changed. And as Albert Einstein said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I realize now that it was hubristic of me. Which is why I no longer post on here as I once did, and leave it to people like CavsFTW, as I don't care anymore. People will think what they want to think and believe what they want to believe, regardless what anyone else says. Frankly, I've begun to think that I'm too old to be posting on sports message boards anymore, and should just leave it to the kids. And on ISH especially, the trolls run this board, and that's what the owner of the board wants. So long as it gets traffic, the quality doesn't matter.

Posters getting older doesn't mean they'll start appreciating the past greats they don't now, it'll just mean that they'll be on the other side, as they'll be defending the players they stan for now against the posters who will say they played in a "weak era." As I've said on numerous occasions before, "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."

[WillC]

Excellent post, ThaRegul8r.

However, you're overlooking something very important.


Posters getting older doesn't mean they'll start appreciating the past greats they don't now, it'll just mean that they'll be on the other side, as they'll be defending the players they stan for now against the posters who will say they played in a "weak era." As I've said on numerous occasions before, "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."

When the above scenario inevitably happens (i.e. in 20 years time when kids who haven't even been born yet try to discredit the achievements of LeBron James and Kobe Bryant), the current ISH teenagers will be aged about 35 and will be furious at the mistreatment of Kobe and LeBron.

They will fiercely defend Kobe and LeBron against the trolls of the future.

And, when that happens, the Kobe and LeBron fans will begin to realise that they too were once disrespectful of older players (Jordan, Wilt, Russell, whoever), and will see the error of their ways.

As Larry Bird once said, "All I know is that people tend to forget how great the older great players were. It'll happen that way with me, too."