"3-peat"... do people not understand that an 8-peat is the bar?

[CavaliersFTW]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/cover/news/2000/04/14/deford_russell/cover.jpg

People act like "3-peat" is some sort of gold standard for achieving absolute greatness. F*ck No. Bill Russell 8-peated. Bill Russell is to achievement what Wilt Chamberlain is to sheer individual ability and dominance. Russell accomplished things so far out of reach people fail to comprehend the magnitude of his accomplishements and his involvement within them. HE set the bar for championships, not Jordan not Kobe not anyone else. He's alone at the top and no one is close. Until somebody comes along and wins at least 5 MVP's, 8-peats and wins 11 rings (at least 8 of which he'd be the unanimous finals MVP) Bill Russell is THE gold standard for 'ships' equating to greatness.

[Mr. Incredible]

Ok.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

OP is literally stuck in the 60's.

[Mr Exlax]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/cover/news/2000/04/14/deford_russell/cover.jpg

People act like "3-peat" is some sort of gold standard for achieving absolute greatness. F*ck No. Bill Russell 8-peated. Bill Russell is to achievement what Wilt Chamberlain is to sheer individual ability and dominance. Russell accomplished things so far out of reach people fail to comprehend the magnitude of his accomplishements and his involvement within them. HE set the bar for championships, not Jordan not Kobe not anyone else. He's alone at the top and no one is close. Until somebody comes along and wins at least 5 MVP's, 8-peats and wins 11 rings (at least 8 of which he'd be the unanimous finals MVP) Bill Russell is THE gold standard for 'ships' equating to greatness.

His team and organization did it. Not him by himself. Be for real my man.

[guy]

Completely different era with less teams and less moving parts. Its not nearly as realistic. Not to mention, the reason why its the "standard" now, is because its alot more doable and teams actually get close to doing it. If a team had just won its 6th straight championship, of course there would be alot of discussion over if that team can make it to 8. Teams just don't get close to doing it, so its not really discussed.

[tmacattack33]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/cover/news/2000/04/14/deford_russell/cover.jpg

People act like "3-peat" is some sort of gold standard for achieving absolute greatness. F*ck No. Bill Russell 8-peated. Bill Russell is to achievement what Wilt Chamberlain is to sheer individual ability and dominance. Russell accomplished things so far out of reach people fail to comprehend the magnitude of his accomplishements and his involvement within them. HE set the bar for championships, not Jordan not Kobe not anyone else. He's alone at the top and no one is close. Until somebody comes along and wins at least 5 MVP's, 8-peats and wins 11 rings (at least 8 of which he'd be the unanimous finals MVP) Bill Russell is THE gold standard for 'ships' equating to greatness.

You don't know what you're talking about.

There were only 9 teams back then. That makes it much (if you want to put a number to it, it'd be 30/9 = 3.33 times as much) easier to win a championship back then.

Also, the league was not fully racially integrated back then.

[CavaliersFTW]

Completely different era with less teams and less moving parts. Its not nearly as realistic. Not to mention, the reason why its the "standard" now, is because its alot more doable and teams actually get close to doing it. If a team had just won its 6th straight championship, of course there would be alot of discussion over if that team can make it to 8. Teams just don't get close to doing it, so its not really discussed.
What he did then was no less insane than if it were to be done now. The difference? When MJ came along with all the hype and Nike deals people tried to discredit Russell and that's when all the 'era' nonsense and excuses came along so as to justify LOWERING the bar to MJ's level of team success.

The bar is and has been 8-peat and 11 rings ever since Bill Russell. Not 3-peat and 6.

[Young X]

That's damn near impossible in this day & age. Unrealistic.

[fpliii]

:applause:

[Doranku]

8-peat, one ring for each team in the league at the time. :oldlol:

[NumberSix]

Sick life

[Dragonyeuw]

It's quite literally impossible to win 8 in a row today. Less teams, travel, first round byes, a high concentration of HOF talent on the Celtics roster which would be impossible to replicate today, it's quite literally an apples to oranges comparison. 3 in a row is about the best a team can hope for nowadays, until injuries, trades,free agent moves changes the landscape of the league. If Lebron had showed up against Dallas in 2011, the Heat would have their 3-peat already and be in position to win a 4th straight this year, though I do think a team like Indiana is nipping at their heels, and Chicago depending on the return of Rose to MVP form.

To be honest a team winning 8 in a row sounds awful, the 90's Bulls came the closest to that and the two years Houston won was a refreshing change of pace IMO.

[TylerOO]

OP is literally stuck in the 60's.

This. I feel bad for him

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

But seriously, in Russell's day, nearly everyone made the playoffs and he frequently won rings facing HORRIBLE teams (even in the finals, winning only 2 and sometimes 3 rounds...)

[guy]

What he did then was no less insane than if it were to be done now. The difference? When MJ came along with all the hype and Nike deals people tried to discredit Russell and that's when all the 'era' nonsense and excuses came along so as to justify LOWERING the bar to MJ's level of team success.

The bar is and has been 8-peat and 11 rings ever since Bill Russell. Not 3-peat and 6.

No its not. More teams = harder to do. Just like it was harder for Russell to 8-peat in an 8-14 team league then it would be in a 2-5 team league, its harder for someone to do 8-peat in a 27-30 team league then it is in an 8-14 team league. Its basic math.

[sundizz]

I see the troll is out today :sleeping

Yep, winning an intramural league with 10 teams while being stacked is definitely comparable to winning in a league with 30 teams. Simple math, 30/10 = 3x. So hmmm 8/3 = the equivalent of winning 2.66 championships. Let's be cereal...that should be rounded down to 2 since he played on such a stacked team.

Seriously though, Wilt + Russell vs. Mountain Lion + Chimpanzee = Who takes it?

[guy]

But seriously, in Russell's day, nearly everyone made the playoffs and he frequently won rings facing HORRIBLE teams (even in the finals, winning only 2 and sometimes 3 rounds ...)

Not to mention this.

[SamuraiSWISH]

It's quite literally impossible to win 8 in a row today. Less teams, travel, first round byes, a high concentration of HOF talent on the Celtics roster which would be impossible to replicate today, it's quite literally an apples to oranges comparison. 3 in a row is about the best a team can hope for nowadays, until injuries, trades,free agent moves changes the landscape of the league. If Lebron had showed up against Dallas in 2011, the Heat would have their 3-peat already and be in position to win a 4th straight this year, though I do think a team like Indiana is nipping at their heels, and Chicago depending on the return of Rose to MVP form.
Perfectly stated. 8 rings is absurd in the modern era, near impossible. The context to winning rings in that amount in Russell's pre modern era was much easier.


To be honest a team winning 8 in a row sounds awful, the 90's Bulls came the closest to that and the two years Houston won was a refreshing change of pace IMO.
The 90's Bulls I think could've won 4 in a row in '94 if Jordan didn't bounce. If he was there in '95, even not being out of shape or rusty as he was that season, I still see them losing in '95 w/o Ho Grant to Houston ... but taking that loss in '95 as motivation to win the next 3 rings, which they did in reality with the loss to the Magic that same season.

What are your thoughts on that fun little hypothetical 90's Bulls possible scenario?

That would've been 7 rings in 9 years. The closest anyone could probably get in the modern era.

[CavaliersFTW]

That's damn near impossible in any day & age. Unrealistic.
Fixed. Thus, Bill Russell is the greatest winner in the history of the sport. You guys are making this way more complicated than it is. He set the bar, there is no excuse for why the bar should ever be lowered, none.

[fpliii]

Fixed. Thus, Bill Russell is the greatest winner in the history of the sport. You guys are making this way more complicated than it is. He set the bar, there is no excuse for why the bar should ever be lowered, none.

I agree with this. I guess a few posters (not yourself) have opened the floodgates for this degree of vitriol, but the trolling against anybody pre-Jordan topic is insane on here. It's probably not worth posting on this board about those subjects, since the same tired, blanket, predictable responses are inevitable.

[CavaliersFTW]

One guy offers you 11 million dollars, 8 million up front in cash. Another guy offers you only 6 million dollars with 3 million up front in cash, but tries to tell you that his 6 million is somehow greater than the other dudes 11 million. Do you people buy his spiel and lower your standards to accept the 6 million?

11 > 6

8 > 3

The amount of tantrums people are having right now is unbelievable. You guys can't possibly be this upset about a simple reality check. The bar is 8-peat and 11 rings, I don't even understand why people are so upset the truth must really sting I guess.

[Psileas]

30's-40's pro-leagues before the NBA: Less teams than today, no 8-peat, no-one even close.
Late 40's-early/mid 50's NBA: Less teams than today, no 8-peat, no-one even close.
70's NBA: Less teams than today, no 8-peat, no-one even close.
80's NBA: Less teams than today, no 8-peat, no-one even close.

Free agency is the most basic factor against 8-peating, not the number of teams. Because it's the number of serious contenders what matters, not the number of participants.
However, 8 is so significantly more than 3 that I still consider it more impressive, regardless of the circumstance I mentioned.

[HurricaneKid]

One guy offers you 11 million dollars, 8 million up front in cash. Another guy offers you only 6 million dollars with 3 million up front in cash, but tries to tell you that his 6 million is somehow greater than the other dudes 11 million. Do you people buy his spiel and lower your standards to accept the 6 million?

11 > 6

8 > 3

The amount of tantrums people are having right now is unbelievable. You guys can't possibly be this upset about a simple reality check. The bar is 8-peat and 11 rings, I don't even understand why people are so upset the truth must really sting I guess.

Not ONLY were there only 8 teams when Bill won his first title, there were only two rounds of playoffs (vs FOUR today). The Celtics beat the 35-37 Nationals their first series and the 33-39 Minneapolis squad in the NBA Finals. I mean c'mon. The won a title and didn't play a .500 team in the playoffs.

[CavaliersFTW]

I agree with this. I guess a few posters (not yourself) have opened the floodgates for this degree of vitriol, but the trolling against anybody pre-Jordan topic is insane on here. It's probably not worth posting on this board about those subjects, since the same tired, blanket, predictable responses are inevitable.
People can't hide from the truth forever, this stuff needs to be said.

Greatest winner of all time - Russell period, end of discussion. The guy set the standard for winning, from NCAA to the Olympics to the NBA. The number of rings / titles / medals he has proves it.

Most dominant force of all time - Wilt period end of discussion, the guy set the standard for total individual dominance. The record book, stats and individual accolades prove it.

Greatest backcourt player of all time that blended both of these things together (but never actually reached the bar of either) is IMO MJ.

Greatest player of all time that blended both of these things together (but again, never actually reached the bar of either) is IMO Kareem.

It's pretty easy to recognize this if you ask me. There have been many other greats that blended dominance and victory too. But nobody was more victorious than Russell, and nobody was more dominant than Wilt. Just something in between. Is that really so difficult to acknoweledge? I didn't think it was but I guess a lot of people are having trouble with this.

[Psileas]

Not ONLY were there only 8 teams when Bill won his first title, there were only two rounds of playoffs (vs FOUR today). The Celtics beat the 35-37 Nationals their first series and the 33-39 Minneapolis squad in the NBA Finals. I mean c'mon. The won a title and didn't play a .500 team in the playoffs.

It's not the Celtics' mistake that the Lakers managed to beat the .681 Hawks in the Western Finals.
The '87 Lakers are generally considered among the GOAT teams and they only faced marginal .500 teams in the whole Western playoffs.

[Young X]

Where do you rank George Mikan? I'm curious.

[CavaliersFTW]

Where do you rank George Mikan? I'm curious.
I don't make long lists for rankings. I acknowledge what he's done though:

*First truly dominant/unstoppable big man of all time
*Statistically one of the most dominant Lakers/players of all time
*5x champion (7x if you count the BLL) so one of the winningest anchors in NBA history
*A 50 greatest player
*An MVP
*won a 'greatest athlete of the first half of century' award
*etc etc etc

He's no doubt an all-time great player. Lists are nothing but opinions, formed through bias (no matter how many awards players attain somehow their favorite players awards and abilities somehow mean more). If someone tried to tell me he was the GOAT, or top 5, or top 10 or w/e I wouldn't even care. Heck if someone tried to tell me Connie Hawkins was the GOAT or top 5 or 10 I wouldn't even care. Lists are made with opinions and formed off a slew of personalized criteria (anything form ability to achivement to simple entertainment value).

Stating that Bill Russell is the winningest player in basketball history is NOT in opinion though, it is a numerical fact. Just like stating Wilt statistically was the most dominant player in NBA history is NOT an opinion it is a numerical fact. To try and suggest players who accomplished less in those fields were somehow achieving 'more' is to lower your standard and replace the void with excuses.

[guy]

One guy offers you 11 million dollars, 8 million up front in cash. Another guy offers you only 6 million dollars with 3 million up front in cash, but tries to tell you that his 6 million is somehow greater than the other dudes 11 million. Do you people buy his spiel and lower your standards to accept the 6 million?

11 > 6

8 > 3

The amount of tantrums people are having right now is unbelievable. You guys can't possibly be this upset about a simple reality check. The bar is 8-peat and 11 rings, I don't even understand why people are so upset the truth must really sting I guess.

Seriously, what the hell kinda comparison is this?

[CavaliersFTW]

Seriously, what the hell kinda comparison is this?
One so simple a child could understand it, also one that apparently makes you mad.

[get these NETS]

don't know when the story was written

but it seems like the timing is to damage control the story about Russell and pistol(not pete) at the airport

and that's no disrespect for what stands and stood for

but don't like him getting a pass when the very next athlete who gets caught doing something similar will be slapped with the thug label

the Lakers repeating(riley's guarantee) when they did was a big deal because there were dominant teams in the league and champion hadn't repeated since the Russell Celtics

greater balance of talent and team parity since aba/nba merger really....as was mentioned..free agency...more rounds in playoffs



no more nfl dynasties either for some of the same reasons

[cos88]

at one point op was a cool poster, now he is just a cool ******* just like freddy mercury.

how many teams were back there and how stacked were the celtics?

[branslowski]

One guy offers you 11 million dollars, 8 million up front in cash. Another guy offers you only 6 million dollars with 3 million up front in cash, but tries to tell you that his 6 million is somehow greater than the other dudes 11 million. Do you people buy his spiel and lower your standards to accept the 6 million?

11 > 6

8 > 3

The amount of tantrums people are having right now is unbelievable. You guys can't possibly be this upset about a simple reality check. The bar is 8-peat and 11 rings, I don't even understand why people are so upset the truth must really sting I guess.

Ur analogies suck. Leave that to me, the King of analogies.

[HurricaneKid]

It's not the Celtics' mistake that the Lakers managed to beat the .681 Hawks in the Western Finals.
The '87 Lakers are generally considered among the GOAT teams and they only faced marginal .500 teams in the whole Western playoffs.

The 87 Lakers beat the 2nd best team in the NBA in the Finals and played 11 games against .500+ teams.

The Celtics didn't play a single playoff game against a .500 team on the way to their Championship.

[3peated]

can someone explain to op what "the bar" means, this kid is a retard

[Psileas]

The 87 Lakers beat the 2nd best team in the NBA in the Finals and played 11 games against .500+ teams.

The Celtics didn't play a single playoff game against a .500 team on the way to their Championship.

They still played the team that beat the team with the 2ns best record in the league.
And give me a break with the "11 games against .500+ teams". Make that ".515+ teams" and suddenly the games become 6. The Warriors barely broke .500, this doesn't suddenly make them highly regarded competition. That's in a 4-round postseason, in what most call the Golden Era of the NBA.

[TheReal Kendall]

I get that everyone is saying there's more teams but honestly there's only a handful of teams today that even have a chance in making the Finals.

The rest are fodder.

Op kinda have a point but you can look at this both ways.

Yeah the pool of talent is better and back then it wasn't but they still competed so you can't DISCREDIT the 8-peat.

It's not really trolling cause it's somewhat true.

Bill's Cs set the bar at 8 in a row. Doesn't matter what era.

They won 8 rings in a row. You can't discredit their wins.

They did it and now they're in the history books forever

[It's A VC3!!!]

Stating that Bill Russell is the winningest player in basketball history is NOT in opinion though, it is a numerical fact.


You're right. However, that fact gets discredited by the entire human race because it was a completely different era back then and people don't wish to compare numbers/rings/teams from five decades ago to current time. It doesn't make any sense doing so. Can we acknowledge the greatness of winning eight championships? Yes, but let's not act like the road to winning those eight rings is anything close to what it is today, in terms of difficulty.

Put Bill in today's era and if you say he still wins eight rings, don't ever speak again...

[HurricaneKid]

They still played the team that beat the team with the 2ns best record in the league.
And give me a break with the "11 games against .500+ teams". Make that ".515+ teams" and suddenly the games become 6. The Warriors barely broke .500, this doesn't suddenly make them highly regarded competition. That's in a 4-round postseason, in what most call the Golden Era of the NBA.

Who cares? They had to beat the Celtics in the Finals. The Celtics were definitively one of the two best teams in the league. The 59 Celtics won an NBA Championship without beating a .500 team. Suggesting that its even close to a comparable path is insane.

[Nash]

OP is literally stuck in the 60's.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Owl]

30's-40's pro-leagues before the NBA: Less teams than today, no 8-peat, no-one even close.
Late 40's-early/mid 50's NBA: Less teams than today, no 8-peat, no-one even close.
70's NBA: Less teams than today, no 8-peat, no-one even close.
80's NBA: Less teams than today, no 8-peat, no-one even close.

Free agency is the most basic factor against 8-peating, not the number of teams. Because it's the number of serious contenders what matters, not the number of participants.
However, 8 is so significantly more than 3 that I still consider it more impressive, regardless of the circumstance I mentioned.
Why is 6 in 8, and if this is a Russell debate, 6 of 6 with a full stength MJ "not even close" to 8 in 8. Mikan was the best player on 7 champs in 8 years and had, iirc, a broken wrist (though naturally still played) when Rochester bested the Lakers.

Nor was Boston's average margin of victory as great as some modern teams. I'm not sure that means that they weren't as good, but nor am a certain that Boston's 8 in 8 happens to make them a better team than other dynasties, it's just in larger leagues it's easier to get greater MoV, in smaller leagues it was easier to maintain a dynasty.

Anyway not sure what the purpose of the thread is, there is no "bar" for titles. Teams just want to win one. And teams 7 years apart are going to have substantially different rosters.

[#number6ix#]

Op still has a black and white tv

[CavaliersFTW]

Op still has a black and white tv
:oldlol: this one actually made me laugh

[Psileas]

Who cares? They had to beat the Celtics in the Finals. The Celtics were definitively one of the two best teams in the league. The 59 Celtics won an NBA Championship without beating a .500 team. Suggesting that its even close to a comparable path is insane.

The only thing that pushes the Lakers' schedule tougnness ahead is beating the Celtics. And it took them 4 rounds to face a really competitive team. So, since most championship teams faced really competitive teams earlier, should we count this against the '87 Lakers and their era? This wasn't after all originally an effort to compare the paths of the '59 Celtics to the '87 Lakers. This is a reminder that it's very possible to have an easy schedule even in a more modern, 4-round league, as long as the contenders are scarce.


Why is 6 in 8, and if this is a Russell debate, 6 of 6 with a full stength MJ "not even close" to 8 in 8. Mikan was the best player on 7 champs in 8 years and had, iirc, a broken wrist (though naturally still played) when Rochester bested the Lakers.

This is a streak debate, and it concerns teams. "6 of 6" never happened. "6 in 8", "7 in 8" and anything less than 100% success isn't a streak. Btw, if you want to go by more individual criteria, Russell went 11 in 12 (with a streak of 10) when healthy.



Nor was Boston's average margin of victory as great as some modern teams. I'm not sure that means that they weren't as good, but nor am a certain that Boston's 8 in 8 happens to make them a better team than other dynasties, it's just in larger leagues it's easier to get greater MoV, in smaller leagues it was easier to maintain a dynasty.

Correct, the Celtics weren't winning by blowing their opponents year in and year out. They weren't setting 70-win seasons. They had to play multiple do-or-die games, they had to fight to create their dynasty. There were seasons when they didn't have absolute HCA. In 1969, they won the title without a single HCA. It wasn't all "facing horrible teams", far from that, this could sporadically happen at any era.

[#number6ix#]

In all seriousness nobody's gonna touch 8 in a row...

[Dr.J4ever]

A larger league, free agency, worldwide talent pool make it harder to win 8 in a row today. You have to treat this like the nfl and pass intereference pre 1979 and post 1979.

[TheCorporation]

http://i44.tinypic.com/2rp8i6t.jpg

[talkingconch]

8 teams

[LAZERUSS]

Gotta love the 8-9 team debates...

How about the 66-67 Lakers?

Archie Clark, who averaged 10.5 ppg, and would be a 20 ppg scorer the very next season.

Gail Goodrich, who averaged 12.4 ppg, and would go on to have a HOF career.

Walt Hazzard, who averaged 9.3 ppg, and who would average 24.0 ppg the very next year.

That's THREE solid guards.


Then there was PF Rudy LaRusso, who averaged 12.8 ppg (yes, in only 45 games), and who would average 22 ppg the very next season in a full season.


At center they had journeyman Darrall Imhoff, who averaged 11 ppg and 13 rpg.

Oh, and they also had TWO seven-footers, Henry Finkel, and Mel Counts. Counts was versatile enough that he could play both center and PF.


That's a pretty solid roster right there, and it doesn't include role players like Tom Hawkins, who was a good defensive player, or Jim "Bad News" Barnes, who was a rugged PF throughout the 60's.


Oh wait...

I forgot about Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, who played most of the schedule. West was in his prime, and put up a 29 ppg season (with 6 rpg, and 7 apg.) And Baylor was near his prime, and hung a 27 ppg, 13 rpg season. The two would have been considered the "Lebron and Wade" of their era.


Surely this team won 60 games right, especially in the "weak" 60's, right?


Well, not quite. They went 36-45. Can you imagine the Heat with Lebron, Wade, and Ray Allen, going 36-45?


Then take a look at the other teams in the league. The Knicks had a loaded roster that included Willis Reed and Walt Bellamy, as well as Dick Van Arsdale, Dick Barnett, and Cazzie Russell. Oh, and they could also only go 36-45.

Or the stacked Royals roster, which had near prime seasons from Oscar and Jerry Lucas, as well as players like Odie Smith, Jon McGlocklin, Flynn Robinson, Happy Hairston, Connie Dierking, and a young Butter Bean Love. And that went 39-42.

And how about the St. Louis Hawks? Just look up these players, and their careers: Lou Hudson, Richie Guerin, Bill Bridges, Zelmo Beaty, Joe Caldwell, Paul Silas, and Lenny Wilkins. And, ... 39-42.

The Warriors? They had a peak Rick Barry (35.6 ppg), and a peak Nate Thurmond (2nd in the MVP balloting), with his 19 ppg and 21 rpg. As well as Jeff Mullins (13 ppg), 6-10 Clyde Lee (7.4 rpg in 17 mpg), paul Neumann (14 ppg), Tom Meschery (11 ppg), and Al Attles. This team was so loaded that they went 44-37, and made it to the Finals.


Oh, and Russell's 60-21 Celtics, with a HOF-laden roster that could go 10 players deep, went 60-21, and didn't even make it to the Finals.


But, yes, that was a "weak" league.

[kNicKz]

Sick life

:roll:

[LAZERUSS]

Russell's teams won 60+ games, THREE times, in his career, with a high of 62-18. They played in TEN game seven's, and won SEVEN of those by FOUR points, or less (including a couple of OT game seven's.)

As loaded as his rosters were, they weren't running away with titles. They were an eyelash away from "only" winning 3-4 rings.

[LAZERUSS]

And this RIDICULOUS, "more teams/tougher road" argument. How many teams in the 2012-2013 season had LEGITIMATE title hopes? Out of THIRTY teams, maybe 4-5.

BTW, Russell won rings in leagues that had 8-9-10-12, and 14 teams.

[LAZERUSS]

http://www.thesportsfanjournal.com/columns/starting-lineups-bill-russell-provide-evidence-supports-jordan-retirement-conspiracy/


After some back and forth on the difficulties of winning a championship in a 12-team league, Russell schooled Jordan on why his Bulls would have had no chance:

“’You [Jordan] did a great job of penetrating and you dished off to Paxson, and he hit this open shot. Won the game. Well if there were 12 teams in the league he couldn’t have made that shot.’ He said, ‘Why not?’ I said, ‘Cause he’d be up in the stands.’”

[secund2nun]

There were like 8 teams back then and the league was full of unathletic white scrubs although I do believe that Miami could continue the dynasty for a long time.

[D-Wade316]

Bill Russell is the true GOAT. It's not even a debate for me actually.

[eliteballer]

Not only were there less than 10 teams the Celtic's had to win ONE round to get to the Finals...

[NumberSix]

Bill Russell is the true GOAT. It's not even a debate for me actually.
There's literally no argument whatsoever for Bill Russell as the best player of all time.

[LAZERUSS]

Not only were there less than 10 teams the Celtic's had to win ONE round to get to the Finals...

Yeah...let's ignore his 68-69 team, which went 48-34, and without HCA in any series, beating a 55-27 Sixers team, 4-1; a 54-28 Knicks team, 4-2; and a 55-27 Lakers team, 4-3 (winning a game seven, on the road, by two points.)

[fpliii]

There's literally no argument whatsoever for Bill Russell as the best player of all time.
SMH

[Flash31]

There's literally no argument whatsoever for Bill Russell as the best player of all time.


11 Rings in 14 years
2ND ALL TIME in RBS
Won a ring as a player/coach
Multiple ALL D First Teams,
THE GOAT Defender
one of GOAT Cs and Players
Most Finals Mvps(if they kept track of them all)

Clearly an argument there

And clearly being Ranked as an arguable GOAT by NBA stars,players,rational fans,majority of fans who know who he is
is clearly an Argument

Russell compared to Kobe,LeBron,Shaq,Duncan and all the current players people want to claim as goat
DONT Even Come Close to Russell
hell the arguable mde c Shaq said there are 3 c above him and could be considered goat(Wilt,Kareem,Russell)

Clearly youre not more knowledgeable than major nba stars about other nba stars and the majority

Wilt,Russell,Kareem,Jordan
any of those 4 could be considered GOAT and the Case could be made
and the majority of nba stars,players,fans would agree

some might even say Magic,Bird

but those 4 are the MT Rushmore of GOAT

[Kurosawa0]

I love Bill Russell, but anyone that looks back at 8 titles in a row or averaging 50 a game like Wilt did and doesn't notice that was a weaker game is kidding themselves. Players and teams don't match those achievements today not because basketball now is weaker (how anyone could remotely believe that is amazing), but because the game has evolved into something that is a much, much higher level.

Go back and watch some of those games. Defense and offense is a gazillion times more complicated in today's NBA.

To believe that era was the same or better than today's level of basketball is to believe that players with less training, conditioning, medical advances, innovations in the game etc. were completely outdoing players like Kobe, LeBron, MJ, Duncan, Shaq etc.

It's just ridiculous.

[LAZERUSS]

I love Bill Russell, but anyone that looks back at 8 titles in a row or averaging 50 a game like Wilt did and doesn't notice that was a weaker game is kidding themselves. Players and teams don't match those achievements today not because basketball now is weaker (how anyone could remotely believe that is amazing), but because the game has evolved into something that is a much, much higher level.

Go back and watch some of those games. Defense and offense is a gazillion times more complicated in today's NBA.

To believe that era was the same or better than today's level of basketball is to believe that players with less training, conditioning, medical advances, innovations in the game etc. were completely outdoing players like Kobe, LeBron, MJ, Duncan, Shaq etc.

It's just ridiculous.

I agree.

And does anyone really believe that Shaq's "three-peat" teams would have a prayer in TODAY's NBA? Or MJ's 90's Bulls teams even making it to the playoffs in TODAY's NBA? Or Magic's 80's Lakers even having a winning record in TODAY's NBA?

The game is so much more advanced today than "back in the day."

Hell, a prime Shaq, a prime MJ, and a prime Magic would be lucky to make a team today.

[Flash31]

Russell's teams won 60+ games, THREE times, in his career, with a high of 62-18. They played in TEN game seven's, and won SEVEN of those by FOUR points, or less (including a couple of OT game seven's.)

As loaded as his rosters were, they weren't running away with titles. They were an eyelash away from "only" winning 3-4 rings.

well you see there was this other guy thats deemed the GOAT and is in consensus with Russell,Kareem,Jordan as the Goat
and that guy happened to outplay Russel most times and was a juggernaut

Wilt,Thurmond,Baylor,West,Frazier,Reed
these werent exactly cream puffs


Most of the players playing today wouldnt even sniff a 60s reserve spot,
There just werent many open spots and there werent exactly 10 teams to Beat up on like there are now
(Kings,Suns,Pelicans,Bobcats,Timberwolves,Magic,Ca vs,Det now Bos,
GS now LAL,Wizards)

And I would say having to only win 2 or 3 games could cause upsets,
one minor injury,one bad game and youre on the ropes facing elimination,a chance for an upset was higher and the mistakes were more costly
and then with only having 2 to 3 rounds an underdog could have a hot streak easier and one or tow bad games,one mishap,untimely injury you get a 2011 Dal Mavs,or 8th seed Knicks making it to Finals or an enexpected 07 cavs,ais 76ers

[Flash31]

I love Bill Russell, but anyone that looks back at 8 titles in a row or averaging 50 a game like Wilt did and doesn't notice that was a weaker game is kidding themselves. Players and teams don't match those achievements today not because basketball now is weaker (how anyone could remotely believe that is amazing), but because the game has evolved into something that is a much, much higher level.

Go back and watch some of those games. Defense and offense is a gazillion times more complicated in today's NBA.

To believe that era was the same or better than today's level of basketball is to believe that players with less training, conditioning, medical advances, innovations in the game etc. were completely outdoing players like Kobe, LeBron, MJ, Duncan, Shaq etc.

It's just ridiculous.


I know right
those goats players and teams would struggle to crack todays roster

Look how athletic McGee and DJ and Blake are to
Russell,Thurmond,Kareem
and they arent even close to stars

MJS 72-10 bULLS WOULD BE THE D Rose Bulls at best but more than likely just another fringe playoff team at best
Rodman would get abused

Right??

[LAZERUSS]

I love Bill Russell, but anyone that looks back at 8 titles in a row or averaging 50 a game like Wilt did and doesn't notice that was a weaker game is kidding themselves. Players and teams don't match those achievements today not because basketball now is weaker (how anyone could remotely believe that is amazing), but because the game has evolved into something that is a much, much higher level.

Go back and watch some of those games. Defense and offense is a gazillion times more complicated in today's NBA.

To believe that era was the same or better than today's level of basketball is to believe that players with less training, conditioning, medical advances, innovations in the game etc. were completely outdoing players like Kobe, LeBron, MJ, Duncan, Shaq etc.

It's just ridiculous.

The NBA shot .756 from the FT line in 58-59.

Last year the NBA shot .753 from the line.

[Kurosawa0]

I agree.

And does anyone really believe that Shaq's "three-peat" teams would have a prayer in TODAY's NBA? Or MJ's 90's Bulls teams even making it to the playoffs in TODAY's NBA? Or Magic's 80's Lakers even having a winning record in TODAY's NBA?

The game is so much more advanced today than "back in the day."

Hell, a prime Shaq, a prime MJ, and a prime Magic would be lucky to make a team today.

Uh, trying reading the whole post next time. I reference Shaq and MJ in "today's NBA" aka modern basketball. :facepalm

[LAZERUSS]

Uh, trying reading the whole post next time. I reference Shaq and MJ in "today's NBA" aka modern basketball. :facepalm

Ok, I'll play...

Give me the EXACT season in which the NBA became "modern."

[Kurosawa0]

The NBA shot .756 from the FT line in 58-59.

Last year the NBA shot .753 from the line.

So how come no one has come close to grabbing Wilt's 55 rebounds? I just guess guys like Dennis Rodman are slacking.

Wilt averaged 50 points in a season. I guess centers like Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan etc. are just really much less skilled offensively.

Bill Russell said he blocked about 15 shots a game! Today, no one can manage a third of that!

Seriously, you're basically saying that it wasn't the era, just that all of the great players in the 1960's were superhuman and remarkably much, much better than any players in modern basketball. Even though they were in worse shape, played in worse conditions, had harder travel, much less advanced medicine and didn't have 50 more years of basketball evolution. Hmm...

[pauk]

Well, not everybody gets to play in a era where there is only 8-teams and 2 rounds in the playoffs... becomes extra one sided outcomes when one team is best, especially those Celtics who arguably had the best / most stacked team in NBA history...

I kindof agree with Kurosawa aswell, unfortunately it is an actuality we cant stray away from forever, doesnt mean it was a horrible era, but.... different... very different...

[LAZERUSS]

So how come no one has come close to grabbing Wilt's 55 rebounds? I just guess guys like Dennis Rodman are slacking.

Wilt averaged 50 points in a season. I guess centers like Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan etc. are just really much less skilled offensively.

Bill Russell said he blocked about 15 shots a game! Today, no one can manage a third of that!

Seriously, you're basically saying that it wasn't the era, just that all of the great players in the 1960's were superhuman and remarkably much, much better than any players in modern basketball. Even though they were in worse shape, played in worse conditions, had harder travel, much less advanced medicine and didn't have 50 more years of basketball evolution. Hmm...

Hmmm...how can a 6-8 Kevin Love run away with a rebounding title (and in only 36 mpg)? Or a 6-7 Ben Wallace win TWO rebounding titles?

How can a 37 year old Steve Nash win an apg title, and in only 33 mpg?

And with that knowledge, you don't believe that Jerry Lucas, or Pete Maravich, or Dr. J, or Gus Johnson, or Nate Thurmond, or Oscar, or Kareem would be capable of being great players in today's NBA?

And speaking of Thurmond, how do explain a PRIME Kareem goin H2H with Nate in 50 career games, and his high game was only 34 points (and only SEVEN of 30+), and yet a 39 year old Kareem was putting up games of 43 and 46 on Hakeem (and averaging 33 ppg on .621 shooting in TEN STRAIGHT games against Hakeem?)

[Kurosawa0]

Hmmm...how can a 6-8 Kevin Love run away with a rebounding title (and in only 36 mpg)? Or a 6-7 Ben Wallace win TWO rebounding titles?

How can a 37 year old Steve Nash win an apg title, and in only 33 mpg?

And with that knowledge, you don't believe that Jerry Lucas, or Pete Maravich, or Dr. J, or Gus Johnson, or Nate Thurmond, or Oscar, or Kareem would be capable of being great players in today's NBA?

Of course the past greats could play in today's league, but they wouldn't remotely put up the same numbers or win titles like that.

Kevin Love got headlines for grabbing 30 rebounds. 25 away from Wilt's record.

You talk about minutes played. Wilt averaged over 48 minutes a game in a season. That's a fricking joke. Anyone that gets around 40 now is completely exhausted by the end of the year. Once again, superhuman.

Going back to the 8 titles in a row. In 1998 the Bulls were on fumes with that third title. The Kobe-Gasol Lakers completely ran out of gas in 2011. This Heat team might do the same this year. So, by saying that the 1960's wasn't any different than today, the Celtics had miraculous superhuman abilities to overcome fatigue and go on a run no team has really approached in modern basketball. Guys like Cousy, Russel, Havlichek... man, LeBron James has nothing on them in terms of being a freak of nature.

[Kurosawa0]

I kindof agree with Kurosawa aswell, unfortunately it is an actuality we cant stray away from forever, doesnt mean it was a horrible era, but.... different... very different...

To me it's almost a different sport. It's like I don't think you can really compare basketball before the shot clock to what came after it. I would say about the time of the NBA/ABA merger was when basketball started resembling the sport we have today.

[LAZERUSS]

So how come no one has come close to grabbing Wilt's 55 rebounds? I just guess guys like Dennis Rodman are slacking.

Wilt averaged 50 points in a season. I guess centers like Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan etc. are just really much less skilled offensively.

Bill Russell said he blocked about 15 shots a game! Today, no one can manage a third of that!

Seriously, you're basically saying that it wasn't the era, just that all of the great players in the 1960's were superhuman and remarkably much, much better than any players in modern basketball. Even though they were in worse shape, played in worse conditions, had harder travel, much less advanced medicine and didn't have 50 more years of basketball evolution. Hmm...

Chamberlain outrebounded Russell in that game by a 55-19 margin. Even in today's NBA that translates to about a 37-12 margin.

Russell never came close to averaging 15 bpg. BUT, Wilt, in his LAST season, and at age 36, averaged 5.42 bpg. Some 12 years later Mark Eaton set the "official" record of 5.56 bpg.

And how do explain a Chamberlain, at age 32, having TWO 60+ point games within a few days of each other. And that was just the year before Kareem joined the NBA. BTW, Kareem's NBA career high game was 55 points. Or that Wilt, in KAJ's rookie season, and at age 33, was leading the NBA in scoring at 32.2 ppg (on a .579 FG%) when he shredded his knee.

Or that Chamberlain in his LAST TWO seasons, and in a span of 11 straight games, averaged 24 ppg on .784 shooting against the 6-11 Bob Lanier...in year's in which he hardly shot the ball.

Or that a Wilt, in his LAST post-season, covering 17 games, averaged 22.5 rpg, in a post-season NBA that averaged 50.6 rpg per team. And that the next best post-season since, was Kareem's 76-77 mark of 17.3 rpg, which was achieved in 11 playoff games.

[Kurosawa0]

Chamberlain outrebounded Russell in that game by a 55-19 margin. Even in today's NBA that translates to about a 37-12 margin.

Russell never came close to averaging 15 bpg. BUT, Wilt, in his LAST season, and at age 36, averaged 5.42 bpg. Some 12 years later Mark Eaton set the "official" record of 5.56 bpg.

And how do explain a Chamberlain, at age 32, having TWO 60+ point games within a few days of each other. And that was just the year before Kareem joined the NBA. BTW, Kareem's NBA career high game was 55 points. Or that Wilt, in KAJ's rookie season, and at age 33, was leading the NBA in scoring at 32.2 ppg (on a .579 FG%) when he shredded his knee.

Or that Chamberlain in his LAST TWO seasons, and in a span of 11 straight games, averaged 24 ppg on .784 shooting against the 6-11 Bob Lanier...in year's in which he hardly shot the ball.

Or that a Wilt, in his LAST post-season, covering 17 games, averaged 22.5 rpg, in a post-season NBA that averaged 50.6 rpg per team. And that the next best post-season since, was Kareem's 76-77 mark of 17.3 rpg, which was achieved in 11 playoff games.

Thanks for completely making my point for me. Look at all of those superhuman accomplishments! Man, I really hate that we have athletes now that are better conditioned, have analytics to make their game plans smarter, modern medicine and travel... ugh. If only we had the superhumans from the 1960's!

There's a reason most of what you posted doesn't really happen anymore. Do you really believe guys like LeBron, Kobe, MJ etc. are just so much worse at basketball than those guys? Really?

Seriously, I understand being nostalgic but come on.

[LAZERUSS]

Thanks for completely making my point for me. Look at all of those superhuman accomplishments! Man, I really hate that we have athletes now that are better conditioned, have analytics to make their game plans smarter, modern medicine and travel... ugh. If only we had the superhumans from the 1960's!

There's a reason most of what you posted doesn't really happen anymore. Do you really believe guys like LeBron, Kobe, MJ etc. are just so much worse at basketball than those guys? Really?

Seriously, I understand being nostalgic by come on.

That was NOT your original point. Your original point was...


Go back and watch some of those games. Defense and offense is a gazillion times more complicated in today's NBA.

Hmmm...and yet a PRIME Kareem, in 50 career H2H's with an aging Thurmond, had a HIGH game of 34 points, and only SEVEN of 30+ (and he shot about .440 in those 50 games against Nate)...and yet a 39 year old KAJ had games of 40 against Ewing, and 43 and 46 against Hakeem. Or that a 38-39 year old KAJ, in a span of TEN STRAIGHT games, averaged 32 ppg on .621 shooting against Hakeem.

Evidently the players of the 60's were more than holding their own.

[Kurosawa0]

That was NOT your original point. Your original point was...



Hmmm...and yet a PRIME Kareem, in 50 career H2H's with an aging Thurmond, had a HIGH game of 34 points, and only SEVEN of 30+ (and he shot about .440 in those 50 games against Nate)...and yet a 39 year old KAJ had games of 40 against Ewing, and 43 and 46 against Hakeem. Or that a 38-39 year old KAJ, in a span of TEN STRAIGHT games, averaged 32 ppg on .621 shooting against Hakeem.

Evidently the players of the 60's were more than holding their own.

Really? Go back and watch the 1960's Celtics and compare it to something like what the Spurs run or the 1960's defense to Miami's schemes. It's like I said, it's almost a different sport. If you took some of those guys and put them in the same process that players go through now some would make the league, some wouldn't.

I don't know how anyone could watch someone like Tony Parker navigating multiple pick and rolls on the same possession and then watch Bob Cousy and think they were remotely playing on the same level though.

[LAZERUSS]

Really? Go back and watch the 1960's Celtics and compare it to something like what the Spurs run or the 1960's defense to Miami's schemes. It's like I said, it's almost a different sport. If you took some of those guys and put them in the same process that players go through now some would make the league, some wouldn't.

I don't know how anyone could watch someone like Tony Parker navigating multiple pick and rolls on the same possession and then watch Bob Cousy and think they were remotely on the same level though.

Just watch footage of Pete Maravich, who was playing college ball in the 60's, and who would lead the NBA in scoring after the merger at 31.1 ppg. Do you think he would struggle in today's NBA?

You seem to believe that the players of the 60's wouldn't be able to adapt to the modern game, and yet I have given you examples of a 39 year old Kareem just wiping the floor with a Hakeem who would give Shaq all he could handle in the mid-90's.

As for Wilt...how come it was ONLY Chamberlain putting up those monster numbers, even into his LAST season (72-73)? Or that Kareem played FOUR years IN the "Wilt-era" and never came close to ANY of Chamberlain's records? How about this...IN the 14 years in which Chamberlain played in the NBA, and aside from Wilt, there were a TOTAL of FIVE 60+ point games (with a high of 71.) And yet Chamberlain, by himself, had 32! Or that Kareem's HIGH game, in a 20 year career, was "only" 55.

[Kurosawa0]

Just watch footage of Pete Maravich, who was playing college ball in the 60's, and who would lead the NBA in scoring after the merger at 31.1 ppg. Do you think he would struggle in today's NBA?

You seem to believe that the players of the 60's wouldn't be able to adapt to the modern game, and yet I have given you examples of a 39 year old Kareem just wiping the floor with a Hakeem who would give Shaq all he could handle in the mid-90's.

As for Wilt...how come it was ONLY Chamberlain putting up those monster numbers, even into his LAST season (72-73)? Or that Kareem played FOUR years IN the "Wilt-era" and never came close to ANY of Chamberlain's records? How about this...IN the 14 years in which Chamberlain played in the NBA, and aside from Wilt, there were a TOTAL of FIVE 60+ point games (with a high of 71.) And yet Chamberlain, by himself, had 32! Or that Kareem's HIGH game was "only" 55.

I'm not saying the best players back then wouldn't play in today's game. I just really can't buy into the idea that all of the really great superhuman players all happened to play around the same time.

Do you really believe if we took prime Wilt and dropped him into today's NBA he'd average 50 a game or grab 55 rebounds?

That if the Celtics played now they'd win 11 titles in 13 years?

I guess we can just leave it at you believe that people in the past had superpowers and I don't.

[LAZERUSS]

I'm not saying the best players back then wouldn't play in today's game. I just really can't buy into the idea that all of the really great superhuman players all happened to play around the same time.

Do you really believe if we took prime Wilt and dropped him into today's NBA he'd average 50 a game or grab 55 rebounds?

That if the Celtics played now they'd win 11 titles in 13 years?

I guess we can just leave it at you believe that people in the past had superpowers and I don't.

I never said Wilt would be a 50-25 player in today's NBA. But, it was you who was claiming that the game is played at a much higher level today. Personally, I believe a prime Chamberlain would have no problem being a 30-35 ppg, 18 rpg player in today's NBA. And that he would clearly be the best rebounder, and by a wide margin (there is no way a Kevin Love woul ever outrebound a prime Chamberlain.)

As for Russell's Celtics...give him the rosters he had in his 13 seasons, and there is a good chance his team's would have been just as dominant. Here again, while his team's won 11 titles in his 13 seasons, they won TEN game seven's, and seven of those were decided by margins of four points, or less (including a couple of OT games.)

You can hypothesize all you want...but so can I. And once again, give me the EXACT year in which the game became "modern", and I will give you a TON of players who were just as dominant in the season before.

The game has been played since the 1890's. And aside from the shot-clock, and the 3pt shot, it has changed little.

[Kurosawa0]

I never said Wilt would be a 50-25 player in today's NBA. But, it was you who was claiming that the game is played at a much higher level today. Personally, I believe a prime Chamberlain would have no problem being a 30-35 ppg, 18 rpg player in today's NBA. And that he would clearly be the best rebounder, and by a wide margin (there is no way a Kevin Love woul ever outrebound a prime Chamberlain.)

As for Russell's Celtics...give him the rosters he had in his 13 seasons, and there is a good chance his team's would have been just as dominant. Here again, while his team's won 11 titles in his 13 seasons, they won TEN game seven's, and seven of those were decided by margins of four points, or less (including a couple of OT games.)

You can hypothesize all you want...but so can I. And once again, give me the EXACT year in which the game became "modern", and I will give you a TON of players who were just as dominant in the season before.

The game has been played since the 1890's. And aside from the shot-clock, and the 3pt shot, it has changed little.

Okay, we can agree to disagree. All we're doing is repeating the same stuff. Honestly though, really sucks for you. I mean to believe that today's players are so much worse than those that played 50 years ago. I wouldn't want that at all.

[avonbarksdale]

easily the worst poster on the site

[LAZERUSS]

Okay, we can agree to disagree. All we're doing is repeating the same stuff. Honestly though, really sucks for you. I mean to believe that today's players are so much worse than those that played 50 years ago. I wouldn't want that at all.

Here again, I never claimed that the players of today are "much worse" than those of 50 years ago. The greats of today would be great in any era. But, it was you claiming that todays' game is far more advanced, which it is not.

Do you honestly believe that Wilt wouldn't be capable of 18 rpg in TODAY's NBA, if a 6-8 Kevin Love could average 15 rpg in 36 mpg?

Or that Kareem couldn't easily score 30 ppg in today's game, if he was scoring more than that at age 39 against Hakeem?

And the reality was, Bob McAdoo was an even more explosive scorer than Kareem, but how often do you ever here about him here? Or that the 6-10 Moses just abused a near prime Kareem in their 40 career H2H's? Or that little known Nate Thurmond routinely held Kareem to just horrible scoring and shooting games?

Those are just some of the many examples. The greats of today would be great in any era, and so would the greats of yesteryear.

[Kurosawa0]

Here again, I never claimed that the players of today are "much worse" than those of 50 years ago. The greats of today would be great in any era. But, it was you claiming that todays' game is far more advanced, which it is not.

Do you honestly believe that Wilt wouldn't be capable of 18 rpg in TODAY's NBA, if a 6-8 Kevin Love could average 15 rpg in 36 mpg?

Or that Kareem couldn't easily score 30 ppg in today's game, if he was scoring more than that at age 39 against Hakeem?

And the reality was, Bob McAdoo was an even more explosive scorer than Kareem, but how often do you ever here about him here? Or that the 6-10 Moses just abused a near prime Kareem in their 40 career H2H's? Or that little known Nate Thurmond routinely held Kareem to just horrible scoring and shooting games?

Those are just some of the many examples. The greats of today would be great in any era, and so would the greats of yesteryear.

You basically said that Wilt Chamberlain would show up and dominate the league in a way that Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan etc. haven't. I can't see that, at all.

Could Wilt jump out and guard pick and rolls? Sure. That was not remotely as prevalent back then as it is today because teams run smarter offenses and defenses.

Go read something like Zach Lowe and tell me you really believe that Red Auerbach ran his teams with that kind of detail. Then you have to realize that teams now are smarter than that.

They had talent that it requires to play in any era, but I don't know how anyone could watch basketball now and then go watch it from that era and go "Yep. Equal levels!" It had these amazing accomplishments because the players that had immense talent then were playing an easier game than what we see now.

It's like I said, watch how Boston played defense in 2008. Do you watch basketball from the 1960's and think that it's even remotely on the same level?

[PHILA]

http://www.thesportsfanjournal.com/columns/starting-lineups-bill-russell-provide-evidence-supports-jordan-retirement-conspiracy/


Must have been at this golf tournament (Aug. 21, 1993)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-SBiv0QtkI

[AintNoSunshine]

Not ONLY were there only 8 teams when Bill won his first title, there were only two rounds of playoffs (vs FOUR today). The Celtics beat the 35-37 Nationals their first series and the 33-39 Minneapolis squad in the NBA Finals. I mean c'mon. The won a title and didn't play a .500 team in the playoffs.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[SamuraiSWISH]

To me it's almost a different sport. It's like I don't think you can really compare basketball before the shot clock to what came after it. I would say about the time of the NBA/ABA merger was when basketball started resembling the sport we have today.
This

:applause:

[Dr.J4ever]

This

:applause:
Lazerus' bridge theory is original and persuasive but kurosawa wins with his "superhuman" argument. Bottom line if wilt cant average 50 and 25 in todays nba or if the celtics cant win 8 of 9 today, then this a different era.

[Asukal]

Basically the greats are all capable of playing in "any" era. What has changed from 50 years ago is the quality of talent among role players thus "8peating" is simply not possible anymore. This is not because today's greats are less than those from the 60's, rather regular players are just much more skilled now along with the rule changes and having better strategies.

[CeltsGarlic]

You not really know what gold standard is tho

[Psileas]

I agree.

And does anyone really believe that Shaq's "three-peat" teams would have a prayer in TODAY's NBA? Or MJ's 90's Bulls teams even making it to the playoffs in TODAY's NBA? Or Magic's 80's Lakers even having a winning record in TODAY's NBA?

The game is so much more advanced today than "back in the day."

Hell, a prime Shaq, a prime MJ, and a prime Magic would be lucky to make a team today.

This is the reason I created that thread some time ago and pretty much everyone pretended it didn't exist:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=311987

So, I repeat the most relevant (with the topic) question I also posed there:

How do the 1980 Lakers fare if they are, uh, "transported" in 2013?

[ILLsmak]

The bar for GOAT is 4 peat.

I think people could still say WELL MJ 3 peated TWICE and may have 4 peated, but an actual 4 peat would pretty much handle any doubt.

-Smak

[ILLsmak]

Lazerus' bridge theory is original and persuasive but kurosawa wins with his "superhuman" argument. Bottom line if wilt cant average 50 and 25 in todays nba or if the celtics cant win 8 of 9 today, then this a different era.

Double post:

I agree with the Wilt thing, but I don't think any team could 8 peat in today's NBA just because of player movement. Contending for 8 years is insane as it is.

-Smak

[SilkkTheShocker]

This is what happened to some Cavs fans when LeBron left. OP was one of the ones that lost his damn mind.

[HurricaneKid]

The bar for GOAT is 4 peat.

I think people could still say WELL MJ 3 peated TWICE and may have 4 peated, but an actual 4 peat would pretty much handle any doubt.

-Smak

No team has been to 4 straight Finals and won 3 since Russell. LeBron looking to be the first this year.

Far less wear and tear back then as well. Shorter season, less contact, and max 14 playoff games (as opposed to 28 now).

[Owl]

This is a streak debate, and it concerns teams. "6 of 6" never happened. "6 in 8", "7 in 8" and anything less than 100% success isn't a streak. Btw, if you want to go by more individual criteria, Russell went 11 in 12 (with a streak of 10) when healthy.If the debate is teams 6 of 6 doesn't exist for Chicago. But I have no idea why 7 in 8 years where the loss is in the middle is worse (and a loss at either end otherwise we'd list those years too) then 7 in a row then a loss on one end and two losses on the other. Does that consecutiveness multiply the value of those titles? The Lakers were "close" to 7 in 7 and where the loss to Rochester happened in that run doesn't affect that. And for what it's worth Boston's fatal ceding of HCA in the finals happened under Russell's watch in 1958.


Correct, the Celtics weren't winning by blowing their opponents year in and year out. They weren't setting 70-win seasons. They had to play multiple do-or-die games, they had to fight to create their dynasty. There were seasons when they didn't have absolute HCA. In 1969, they won the title without a single HCA. It wasn't all "facing horrible teams", far from that, this could sporadically happen at any era.
Not many seasons without HCA. They had it through '65. In '66 they lost more games than the 76ers due to regular season injuries but still had the best SRS in spite of this. in '67 they lost. In '68 the only better team suffered badly from injuries in the playoffs. Only in '69 did they come through the playoffs as legitimate underdogs (after accounting for the circumstances). Even then their win total was misleading, their SRS was up their with the best teams that year, and once Boston slimmed down its rotation (playing Hondo and Russell proper minutes) for the playoffs they were sure to get even better.

They didn't have many absolute patsies but in a 8 team league an SRS in the ballpark of 5 will usually do. You don't need to be as as dominant (relative to the average team) to be significantly better than the second best team. The average team is always .500. but given the same standard deviation the best and second (and third and fourth) best team will usually be substantially better in the larger league. You can frame that as more competitive in the older era, but it is surely more difficult in the larger league.

Of course you could debate league talent levels in absolute terms.

[Owl]

No team has been to 4 straight Finals and won 3 since Russell. LeBron looking to be the first this year.

Far less wear and tear back then as well. Shorter season, less contact, and max 14 playoff games (as opposed to 28 now).
Less contact?
Less wear and tear? Have their been no medical advances since then? No improvement in travelling conditions?

[CavaliersFTW]

No team has been to 4 straight Finals and won 3 since Russell. LeBron looking to be the first this year.

Far less wear and tear back then as well. Shorter season, less contact, and max 14 playoff games (as opposed to 28 now).
They played as many as 22 exhibition games sometimes back then usually about 15, far far more than today - which means they played at least as many games as modern teams play. Definitely not less wear and tear. Definitely not less contact. Jerry West broke his nose 9 times, Bob Pettit had 2 broken hands and 150 stitches in his face throughout his career. How were these types of injuries being inflicted with 'less contact'? How many stitches has Lebron had on his face during his career? Or is his skin simply too tough to be cut?

http://youtu.be/WR3WHMXouAM?t=2m32s
'About 110-115 games a season' - that's not less wear and tear.

[Flash31]

No team has been to 4 straight Finals and won 3 since Russell. LeBron looking to be the first this year.

Far less wear and tear back then as well. Shorter season, less contact, and max 14 playoff games (as opposed to 28 now).


Far less wear and tear?
NO just no.

Teams traveled by car or bus then and then coach.
They played back to back to backs.
They played 4 games in 5 days.There werent as advanced medical technology and care for the players as there is now.

Fouls were harder,hits were stronger,injuries were just another part of the game rather than now where youre prohibited from playing or rested for months.
Concussions happened and people played through them.


Sure there were only 8 teams and then 12 but the travel was worse,the game schedule was worse,the contact was harder.

Nowadays teams fly in their own private jet,have trainers and medical personnel 24/7,there are no triple header back to back to backs
no 4 games in 5 days,the rules are softer and contact is easier.
The money and care for athletes is better.

The hardwood and arenas are better taken care of.

[guy]

http://www.thesportsfanjournal.com/columns/starting-lineups-bill-russell-provide-evidence-supports-jordan-retirement-conspiracy/

All this means is that Bill Russell goes by the same stupid simple logic that the 180 players in whatever year of the 60s that had only 12 teams is equal to the top 180 players in the league in 1993.

[guy]

One so simple a child could understand it, also one that apparently makes you mad.

:oldlol: Who's mad? I didn't create the topic nor am I bringing up ridiculous comparisons to back up my argument.

Its funny you bring up a child, cause it would only be reasonable for a child to actually buy that reasoning and comparison and think they're valid in this argument.

[Psileas]

If the debate is teams 6 of 6 doesn't exist for Chicago. But I have no idea why 7 in 8 years where the loss is in the middle is worse (and a loss at either end otherwise we'd list those years too) then 7 in a row then a loss on one end and two losses on the other. Does that consecutiveness multiply the value of those titles? The Lakers were "close" to 7 in 7 and where the loss to Rochester happened in that run doesn't affect that. And for what it's worth Boston's fatal ceding of HCA in the finals happened under Russell's watch in 1958.

8 out of 8 is not dramatically better than 7 out of 8 and overall it doesn't really matter when the lost title will occur, but, again, the thread talks about streaks. Put it another way: Had the 1972 Lakers lost 2 of their 33 games in their hot streak, thus breaking it into 3 much smaller streaks, wouldn't have made their overall performance significantly worse either, but much fewer fans would have been talking about them.
BTW, the Lakers' streak includes their titles in the NBL, which basically shared the talent with BAA, which is considered the real early version of the NBA and is the reason the Lakers are considered to have 16 titles today instead of 17.
Also, "7 out of 8" is Mikan's record, the Lakers won the title in 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, that's 6 in 7.


Not many seasons without HCA. They had it through '65. In '66 they lost more games than the 76ers due to regular season injuries but still had the best SRS in spite of this. in '67 they lost. In '68 the only better team suffered badly from injuries in the playoffs. Only in '69 did they come through the playoffs as legitimate underdogs (after accounting for the circumstances). Even then their win total was misleading, their SRS was up their with the best teams that year, and once Boston slimmed down its rotation (playing Hondo and Russell proper minutes) for the playoffs they were sure to get even better.

Make no mistake, the Celtics were the best team and there were reasons they didn't always have HCA. But so were the Bulls in certain less overwhelming seasons ('93, '98) and other teams that didn't appear so judging from their record. Fans, however, are too gripped on the "high competition" thing to look any further.

[jlip]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5327419&postcount=63

[La Frescobaldi]

I'm not saying the best players back then wouldn't play in today's game. I just really can't buy into the idea that all of the really great superhuman players all happened to play around the same time.

Do you really believe if we took prime Wilt and dropped him into today's NBA he'd average 50 a game or grab 55 rebounds?

That if the Celtics played now they'd win 11 titles in 13 years?

I guess we can just leave it at you believe that people in the past had superpowers and I don't.

I dunno how old you are, my friend. Did you see Michael Jordan play? Chamberlain and Jabbar were at that level. Honest. They just took over games - the entire court - like MJ did. Chamberlain could sky, man, and his all-round defense was the best of anyone I've ever seen. Kareem in his early days, '69 to '79 was the very height of basketball that I've ever seen anyone play, the only man (with Jordan) I put next to Wilt.

Even in the midst of the huge media blitz in the '90s about 'Jordan is the greatest ever' - most announcers made it clear that they were considering Wilt & Kareem as more or less not in the conversation because they were centers, and so freaking big it almost wasn't fair to compare.
I saw Russell mostly on his last legs so I can't say what the man was really like.... to me what I saw of him would be like somebody who saw Kareem after like 1985, or Duncan after about 2008, slowed down, great on defense, moments of sheer brilliance.... but clearly aged.

[La Frescobaldi]

No team has been to 4 straight Finals and won 3 since Russell. LeBron looking to be the first this year.

Far less wear and tear back then as well. Shorter season, less contact, and max 14 playoff games (as opposed to 28 now).

Far more wear and tear back then actually. Not even close. Those guys rode a freaking bus hundreds of miles, then played a game, got back on the bus, and rode hundreds of miles to play another game the next night. Ever ride Greyhound? Seats are brutal especially if your legs are over 4 feet long.
Chamberlain's famous '62 game log shows them playing 5 games in 5 nights, in 4 different cities. And plenty more 3 & 4 in a rows. All the teams did that; and on top of the absolutely torturous schedule, they played at a blistering fast pace every night, unlike anything we have seen since Showtime Lakers.

The regular season has been 82 games for ages. Beyond that, if you think a shorter playoff season made up for it, they played dozens and dozens of exhibition games every year in little cities all over the country. Not 8 or 10 pre-season games, but dozens and dozens.

[SamuraiSWISH]

This is what happened to some Cavs fans when LeBron left. OP was one of the ones that lost his damn mind.
He's 19, not busy running up inside of 19 year old, prime, tight wet box

Instead he's busy posting on ISH all day about the 1960s.

Think about that for a second ...

:oldlol:

[La Frescobaldi]

OP there was no free agency in those days.

Today's league - and really this has been true since a few years after Oscar Robertson's lawsuit - cannot have that kind of dynasty because players chase the dollar as much or more as they chase championships.

The overarching factor that makes a difference is those Celtics stayed together a full decade. No team could lure away Sam Jones or Satch Sanders if the Celtics were not interested - and they weren't interested.

Would Russell be able to do that in today's game? He'd have to have a team like Miami and keep essentially the same players for a decade. While Wade was amazing taking basically a pay cut to bring in Chris Bosh, not too many players in today's NBA would dream of such a thing.
If the Heat win 5 or 6 in a row in today's game, that would be absolutely astounding and to me at that same level of achievement really, given the free agency rules and the astronomical payday guys can get by moving around to different teams.

All that said, yeah 3-peat is a bar, but that's because it's mighty hard to achieve with all the movement.... not to mention the psychological pressure. Havlicek and old Donnie Nelson used to come out of timeouts with a look of furious concentration on their faces and they would just take flight. I dunno what Russell was saying to them but it definitely had to be effective speaking at its finest.

[Simple Jack]

The posting of NBA players' opinions' as some sort of proof of truth is just silly. You can literally find dozens of varying comments from NBA players that conflict with just about anything anyone says; and they can all pull the same "well the NBA player knows more than you" card. It's stupid.

[Deuce Bigalow]

In other news...Wilt only has 2

http://cdn.niketalk.com/f/f5/200x200px-ZC-f5db3601_BIUBIUBIU.jpeg

[La Frescobaldi]

In other news...Wilt only has 2

http://cdn.niketalk.com/f/f5/200x200px-ZC-f5db3601_BIUBIUBIU.jpeg

monotone much Deuce? The dude played on the worst team in the league half his career.

[jlip]

Do people realize the Russell era Celtics were like 8 or 9 combined plays from winning just 6 titles instead of 11 titles?

[Smoke117]

Let's say that is the bar...that would be terrible for the league. The NBA already is a sport and league where disparity between the real contenders and the pretenders is huge. If a team won 8 times in a row it would kill any interest in the league.

[plowking]

One guy offers you 11 million dollars, 8 million up front in cash. Another guy offers you only 6 million dollars with 3 million up front in cash, but tries to tell you that his 6 million is somehow greater than the other dudes 11 million. Do you people buy his spiel and lower your standards to accept the 6 million?

11 > 6

8 > 3

The amount of tantrums people are having right now is unbelievable. You guys can't possibly be this upset about a simple reality check. The bar is 8-peat and 11 rings, I don't even understand why people are so upset the truth must really sting I guess.

The worst analogy I've ever heard.

Do you take $5 million 50 years ago, or $6 million now.

There is appreciation/depreciation with this type of thing. Same with Russell's rings compared to today. They just aren't worth as much.

[plowking]

monotone much Deuce? The dude played on the worst team in the league half his career.

That's a crock of shit. :oldlol:

Half the time his teams were comparable to Russell's.
'

[TheCorporation]

Dammit OP, I know you're trolling, but I will play along.

8 was the bar when the basketball era was weak, consisted of five teams, and all of them made the playoffs (with the #1 seed getting a bye and going straight to the Finals :lol )

In the real world, in the MODERN world of basketball, it's amazing for a team to win TWO in a row. Think about it, how many teams have even won back to back, since 99?

Lakers, Heat. That's it.

So, you see, it's harder to win multiple ships in a row because the competition is a lot more fierce. Russell won during a weak ass era. OP, you didn't know this? LOL

Spurs never even WENT to the Finals back to back, let alone win. Can you believe it? A dominant dynasty like the Spurs never even WENT to the Finals back to back, let alone win it twice.

In summary, please do not compare a weak ass era of basketball to the much more complex, competitive, and stronger modern era.

Do you honestly think Russell's team would beat Shaq's Lakers? Duncan's Spurs? LeBron's Heat? :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

[TheCorporation]

Weak Era: Sure, the bar can be whatever since it's a weak ass era

Modern Era: Spurs never even won back to back during their dynasty run, but yup, weak ass era records are 'relevant' nowadays.

:coleman:

[poido123]

Dammit OP, I know you're trolling, but I will play along.

8 was the bar when the basketball era was weak, consisted of five teams, and all of them made the playoffs (with the #1 seed getting a bye and going straight to the Finals :lol )

In the real world, in the MODERN world of basketball, it's amazing for a team to win TWO in a row. Think about it, how many teams have even won back to back, since 99?

Lakers, Heat. That's it.

So, you see, it's harder to win multiple ships in a row because the competition is a lot more fierce. Russell won during a weak ass era. OP, you didn't know this? LOL

Spurs never even WENT to the Finals back to back, let alone win. Can you believe it? A dominant dynasty like the Spurs never even WENT to the Finals back to back, let alone win it twice.

In summary, please do not compare a weak ass era of basketball to the much more complex, competitive, and stronger modern era.

Do you honestly think Russell's team would beat Shaq's Lakers? Duncan's Spurs? LeBron's Heat? :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

Winning back-to back is a lot easier if you make superteams with your buddies right? :lol

[Owl]

8 out of 8 is not dramatically better than 7 out of 8 and overall it doesn't really matter when the lost title will occur, but, again, the thread talks about streaks. Put it another way: Had the 1972 Lakers lost 2 of their 33 games in their hot streak, thus breaking it into 3 much smaller streaks, wouldn't have made their overall performance significantly worse either, but much fewer fans would have been talking about them.
BTW, the Lakers' streak includes their titles in the NBL, which basically shared the talent with BAA, which is considered the real early version of the NBA and is the reason the Lakers are considered to have 16 titles today instead of 17.
Also, "7 out of 8" is Mikan's record, the Lakers won the title in 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, that's 6 in 7.
I just feel that that being the case it is misleading to repeatedly state
no 8-peat, no-one even close. when the phrase is ambigous and teams (or at least one team, the 40s, 50s Lakers) were, in the more meaningful sense, close. I get that there isn't a consecutive run of titles of which the number is close to 8 but, per yourself, that "really doesn't matter" to anything that I care about.
NBL was considered the better talent league when the Lakers and Royals were in it and being the established league it had most of the established talent. As such Mikan, the Chicago American Gears and the Lakers won the bigggest major league North American basketball championship in each year. Whether they are accepted as NBA lineage is of very little importance, to me at least.
And yes Lakers were 6 in 7 so as in my post above they were close to 7 in 7 if not for a Mikan injury. It's not quite 8 in 8 but it's hardly a million miles away.



Make no mistake, the Celtics were the best team and there were reasons they didn't always have HCA. But so were the Bulls in certain less overwhelming seasons ('93, '98) and other teams that didn't appear so judging from their record. Fans, however, are too gripped on the "high competition" thing to look any further.
I won't repeat my arguments but I stand by my point in the previous post re: more teams, same standard deviation = trickier route to the title.
This isn't done to denigrate the Celtics achievements, theirs was probably the greatest dynasty in North American sports (though I don't really follow other US sports, and "soccer" football could plausibly claim equivalents, though typically as national, rather than nominal "world", champions). No this is just because as in my previous post I have no idea what the point of the thread was (though the possibility that it's to irrate LeBron fans and mitigate his achievements, which OP, despite otherwise excellent posting, has been known to do, has been suggested). If the thread were just celebrating the Boston dynasty I'd be right there with you. As it's dismissing/diminishing 3-peats (and past and future 3-peating teams); ignoring, at best, era arguments and crediting teams wins at the individual level, I'm not.

[DaSeba5]

Winning back-to back is a lot easier if you make superteams with your buddies right? :lol

http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ly48j5iTPg1rn95k2o1_500.gif

[poido123]

http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ly48j5iTPg1rn95k2o1_500.gif


http://img.pandawhale.com/74110-oh-yeah-gif-Obama-b86q.gif

[DaSeba5]

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTGnyu_qxhfUvi2wbNF06EYCK2X_LSFk jgNENiK0u4OF2FCSzeN

http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-02-19/1235048034091.jpg

[poido123]

http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-02-19/1235048034091.jpg

Ask my computer.

Gotta ammend that shit everytime it fcks up.

Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't :lol

[DaSeba5]

Ask my computer.

Gotta ammend that shit everytime it fcks up.

Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't :lol

http://images.wikia.com/glee/images/5/5c/2242102-gamer-gifs-i-know-that-feel-bro.gif

[La Frescobaldi]

That's a crock of shit. :oldlol:

Half the time his teams were comparable to Russell's.
'
la f: "I've come to the conclusion that you and I see things too differently, my dear. I prefer to live in a world of facts, while you.... {shakes head} so I'm going to have to ask for a divorce."
plowk: "I don't understand!!"
la f: "my point entirely. Good bye my Darling, I shall miss you...."
plowk: "how dare you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about!"

cavs, laz, poido leading a cast of thousands "and soooo.... he left her......
CRYING..... in the rain..... CRYING!!!.... crying..."

[Psileas]

when the phrase is ambigous and teams (or at least one team, the 40s, 50s Lakers) were, in the more meaningful sense, close. I get that there isn't a consecutive run of titles of which the number is close to 8 but, per yourself, that "really doesn't matter" to anything that I care about.

Yes, to sum up, this doesn't really matter if you want to talk about dynasties, 6/7 is dynasty material regardless of when this 0/1 happened (though it usually makes more sense to be somewhere within the streak). And it does matter at the same time when it comes to streaks. In that sense, a chronological series of 3/3+0/1+3/3 isn't close to an 8-peat or, in this case, a 7-peat, although you could only be one basket away from actually achieving it.


I won't repeat my arguments but I stand by my point in the previous post re: more teams, same standard deviation = trickier route to the title.
This isn't done to denigrate the Celtics achievements, theirs was probably the greatest dynasty in North American sports (though I don't really follow other US sports, and "soccer" football could plausibly claim equivalents, though typically as national, rather than nominal "world", champions). No this is just because as in my previous post I have no idea what the point of the thread was (though the possibility that it's to irrate LeBron fans and mitigate his achievements, which OP, despite otherwise excellent posting, has been known to do, has been suggested). If the thread were just celebrating the Boston dynasty I'd be right there with you. As it's dismissing/diminishing 3-peats (and past and future 3-peating teams); ignoring, at best, era arguments and crediting teams wins at the individual level, I'm not.

Diminishing a 3-peat is not my own type of act, I know how hard it is and it had always been to achieve (I think the OP tries to focus a lot on the "streak" thing), but people like to/tend to use the "different era, different context for back then" criteria as a means of diminishing (not celebrating/"respecting in a different way") an 8-peat, despite the fact that it was unique even for its time. I've almost never seen anyone in a message board see both sides and bring a balanced view, it always has to be seen as either a "weak era with only 8 teams" or a "fully competitive era", and since message boards are dominated by youngsters, the first opinion takes the largest piece of the cake. The thing is, an era similar to the 60's is unlikely to ever return, so, if all we do is use such kinds of one-sided, only modern-era favoring arguments, we achieve nothing more than contributing to a significant portion of history being forgotten, since most people forget things that are out of their line of living and thinking, especially if it's grown on them that these things were/are "inferior", not just different.
While talking about different era arguments, btw, you can't ignore the vast differences between the Mikan era and Russell's era either, so, Minny's championship string has to be viewed in a different perspective compared to Boston's as well.

[Jax]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/cover/news/2000/04/14/deford_russell/cover.jpg

People act like "3-peat" is some sort of gold standard for achieving absolute greatness. F*ck No. Bill Russell 8-peated. Bill Russell is to achievement what Wilt Chamberlain is to sheer individual ability and dominance. Russell accomplished things so far out of reach people fail to comprehend the magnitude of his accomplishements and his involvement within them. HE set the bar for championships, not Jordan not Kobe not anyone else. He's alone at the top and no one is close. Until somebody comes along and wins at least 5 MVP's, 8-peats and wins 11 rings (at least 8 of which he'd be the unanimous finals MVP) Bill Russell is THE gold standard for 'ships' equating to greatness.
CHALLENGE ACCEPTED! http://i.imgur.com/qWFzXw5.png

[Stringer Bell]

I don't think anyone seriously expects any team to equal the Celtics' 8 straight championships.

It's a little weird, after the Celtics in 69', no one repeated for almost 20 years. Then there was a whole bunch of repeat champs, including three 3-peats.

If a team wins 4 in a row, I'll be surprised and really, really impressed.

[moe94]

Sick life

I burst out laughing.

[Angel Face]

8 peat is easy if you're team is stacked and playing against taxi drivers.

[JohnFreeman]

League isn't full of 5 foot white guys anymore.

[TheWeeknd]

op is either 65 or has nothing going for him in present times

[Marchesk]

The Bulls winning 6 of 8 is up there with what the Celtics did. Keep in mind that Jordan left to go play baseball. After all was said and done, people were seriously arguing that Chicago could have won 8 in a row had MJ stayed around, and maybe 9 if he wanted to put off retirement another year.

Russell is the greatest winner, but he got drafted into the perfect situation. Ask any Wilt fan that. Jordan was drafted to a bad team and had to wait until he had the teammates and coach to win. And also for the great 80s teams to decline.

All situations are not equal. Bill won the most, but he also played with the most HOFers and had one of the GOAT coaches. It was a very stable situation for him. Compare Bill's career to Wilt and there is a world of difference in their circumstances.

[ImKobe]

The Bill Russell Celtics dominated their era more than any other NBA team ever will, due to the lack of talent and teams, but no one will ever come close in the modern era. If MJ didn't retire, maybe the Bulls would have pulled it off.