Virtually everyone who ever made a topic to bring down any of the following players..

[Kblaze8855]

...looked like an idiot:

Jordan
Kareem
Wilt
Russell
West
Magic
Bird
Shaq
Hakeem
Oscar
Duncan

If its not 100% its damn close.


Probably 90% of the topics ever made to bring down these people made the OP look like an idiot:

Kobe
Lebron
Barkley
Durant
Chris Paul
Iverson
KG
Dirk

These guys probably hover around 80%:

Westbrook
Wade(pre injury....90%)
Rose
Dwight
Gasol



Those are not player rankings at all. Has nothing to do with how good each tier is. Some people just inspire more idiocy in their detractors....better players just tend to inspire more because they leave less to reasonably use against them. SO you are left with some bullshit like.....

Calling Wilt a loser for making 6 finals and having 2 rings on 68 and 69 win teams

Saying Russell is a bad offensive player for being a 15-20ppg scorer who was top 5 in the entire league in assists..or talking about the gotdamn PER of the player who won 17 various titles from high school till retirement.


Lebron still doesnt have a post game when hes been punishing guys around the basket right in front of your eyes as you ignore it or pretend it didnt happen.

Kareems only remarkable trait is longevity...when he led the NBA in scoring, rebounds, and blocks...or acting like the sky hook would be getting blocked left and right today because of guys like Josh Smith...when guys like Larry Nance


http://prohoopshistory.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/larry-nance.jpg

were not doing it.

Kobe isnt a great offensive player because he shoots 45% when every single person to watch or play a game of basketball has been in awe of him for 14 years.


Making it out to mean something when KG missed the playoffs with Trenton Hassel(good defender for the record), Marko Jaric, Mccants, Mark blount, Eddie Griffin shooting 35%, Olowokandi for 32 games, ronald Dupree, Anthony Carter, Mark Madsen, 36 games of Troy Hudson, 40 games of Wally, and 36 games of Ricky Davis.

Acting like "Not getting past the second round" has ever been anyones idea of a way to measure a great point guard to hate on Chris Paul for being as good as all but like....3 people to ever play the position

Claiming that Hakeem losing in the first round while putting up literally 38/17/3/2 means...anything negative.

Pulling obscure nobody on earth cares facts out like how many times Bird lost with HCA...as if winning 56-67 games a year for 10 years wont mean that you have HCA vs most of the league and losing with it many times just means...you dont win EVERY title or make EVERY finals.

Or acting like Magic at 6'9'' should be able to guard a guy 5'11'' who other guys 5'11'' cant guard...

I struggle to believe that some of you even think you make good points when you do it....but on and on and goes. Im not saying you cant hate....I dont like Karl Malone. Find Reggie overrated. Thats being human.

But there comes a point when a guy has done so much...and is so good...you cant really hate and not look like a jackass.


And so few of you manage to walk that thin line between criticism and...being a dumbass...

I understand its a fine line...but it isnt as fine as so many make it look. So...out of sheer boredom im going to use this topic for what id consider reasonable hating on all the players listed above. Except perhaps Bill Russell. Ive yet to read anything I thought was a reasonable argument against him. Just people talking about a bunch of players he played with as if they would know most of their names if they didnt win a grip of rings with Russell...who won without all of them.

So...im gonna see who I can denigrate without looking like an idiot(with only myself as judge).

I dont think being a hater is as hard as some of you make it look.

[Kblaze8855]

Not now though. going to Zaxbys. Nobody can hate o n large wings and things with fried mushrooms. At least I hope not

[PsychoBe]

Acting like "Not getting past the second round" has ever been anyones idea of a way to measure a great point guard to hate on Chris Paul for being as good as all but like....3 people to ever play the position

I have a very strong dislike for chris paul because he has literally accomplished nothing of note yet is highly overrated for what? flashy passes and ball handling and over-passing to shy away from the big moments in playoff games?

he could not manage one win against the spurs in the post-season playing along side blake griffin.

not one.

yet stephen curry with a worse pf and center and nothing more than a shot-jacking three-point shooter beside him managed to squeak by two wins in the post-season?

something isnt adding up.

also magic, isiah, stockton, and kevin johnson i'd rank about cp3 off the top of my head. i'd also take curry over him easy. maybe chris jackson if he played longer, i also prefer rondo(won a championship, by far the better post-season performer), etc.

but nothing cp3 has done adds up to the hype-machine that he is. this is like calling t-mac a top 5 sg/sf it's just disrespectful to me.

[ArbitraryWater]

I love how Kobe's argument is the Eye Test :roll:


Btw why is Russell 15-20 PPG when its exactly 15 PPG? lol


Why add 5 more Points that aren't there?

Look, Russell in the Playoffs: 16 PPG on 43%

He simply was a bad scorer. Own up to it...

Try spinning this.

[BoutPractice]

Bad scorers don't put up 30 points in game 7 of the NBA Finals.

Or how about the fact that in the 61-62 season (I was about to say a title season, then I realized I was talking about Bill Russell), he scored more ppg in the playoffs (22.5) than Wilt Chamberlain (21.7) in what is often called his peak season, 66-67?

[Kblaze8855]

Spin? Russell needs no spin. I said 15-20 because he put up over 15 for 6-7 years in a roww of his prime. A 15+ a game scorer who got as high as top 4 in the entire league in assists as a bigman while being among the best outlet passers ever and stepping up scoring in the playoffs when it matters most is just not a bad offensive player. This dude had 30 point game 7s. Hes hardly some inept offensive player.

[JT123]

My favorite is when idiots try and say Lebron has no skill and can only score on fast break dunks, or by bullying his way to the basket. Then he gets knocked out of a game for the first time in years and those same idiots start claiming he is the softest superstar in NBA history. :rolleyes:
These fools need to make up their minds. He is either soft or he is a bully, it can't be both.

[ArbitraryWater]

Spin? Russell needs no spin. I said 15-20 because he put up over 15 for 6-7 years in a roww of his prime. A 15+ a game scorer who got as high as top 4 in the entire league in assists as a bigman while being among the best outlet passers ever and stepping up scoring in the playoffs when it matters most is just not a bad offensive player. This dude had 30 point game 7s. Hes hardly some inept offensive player.


If he had 6-7 years of over 15 he also had 6-7 years of under 15.... you can't just add 5 points.

Neither did he really "stepped up in scoring in the playoffs"

From 15 ppg on 44% to 16 ppg on 43% ? Not much stepping up there.

And then picking out one arbitraty G7 of his? Why not talk about his Finals Game 7 in which he scored 6 Points in? Quite the scorer huh. I can pick out random games like this too, in fact more G7's of under his average than over.

So yes, he was an inept scorer. Inept offensive player? His passing was hardly better than Wilt's. 4 APG that would likely be 3 with Adjusted Pace. Meh, doesn't change much for me on Bill offensively.

Concentrate on my Scoring points though.

[fpliii]

I love how Kobe's argument is the Eye Test :roll:


Btw why is Russell 15-20 PPG when its exactly 15 PPG? lol


Why add 5 more Points that aren't there?

Look, Russell in the Playoffs: 16 PPG on 43%

He simply was a bad scorer. Own up to it...

Try spinning this.
30-40 in G7 of the 62 Finals, and this:

www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1965_finals.html

still the record for FG%.

Obviously not on the level of the GOAT scorers, but c'mon man.

[Prometheus]

I completely agree with the truth of the OP, but not with the purpose. Without haters and trolls, none of this talk would be any fun at all.

[Pushxx]

What grinds my gears the most is people who say Kareem, Bird, Wilt, Magic, West, and Russell wouldn't dominate the NBA today.

There are great players who bridge every generation gap that prove those all-time greats would be every ounce as special.

[fpliii]

What grinds my gears the most is people who say Kareem, Bird, Wilt, Magic, West, and Russell wouldn't dominate the NBA today.

There are great players who bridge every generation gap that prove those all-time greats would be every ounce as special.
:applause:

[ArbitraryWater]

30-40 in G7 of the 62 Finals, and this:

www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1965_finals.html

still the record for FG%.

Obviously not on the level of the GOAT scorers, but c'mon man.

Picking out some Random Game? Dude also scored under double digit in plenty g7's/elimination games/closeout games...


Rodman scored 34 Points once, so what?

Basketball-Reference tells me Russell had 1 Playoff 30+ Point Game in his Career. 1966 Finals vs Lakers: 32 on 13-23.

Of course they only date back since 1964. Next best was 28, same series. Next ones would be 5 25 point games. So 7 25+ Point Games.

You know how many he had from 1975-1963? (30+)

[fpliii]

Picking out some Random Game? Dude also scored under double digit in plenty g7's/elimination games/closeout games...


Rodman scored 34 Points once, so what?

Basketball-Reference tells me Russell had 1 Playoff 30+ Point Game in his Career. 1966 Finals vs Lakers: 32 on 13-23.

Of course they only date back since 1964. Next best was 28, same series. Next ones would be 5 25 point games. So 7 25+ Point Games.

You know how many he had from 1975-1963? (30+)
:facepalm

Anyhow, you can't criticize a guy who wasn't asked to score for scoring when he was asked to do so.

Here's his gamelog BTW if you want points prior to 64:

http://nbastats.net/01NBA/07playerlogs/Russell.xls

probably not many high-scoring games early on either. It was by design, look at the Celtics system.

Russell obviously wouldn't be a great featured scorer if asked, but he wasn't an offensive liability because of his rebounding/passing/screens. I don't mind if he's called a non-scorer. I do mind when that becomes a big part of the conversation, when he's arguably the GOAT defender and rebounder (as well as a tremendous athlete in any era), and met the needs of the position.

There are plenty of scorers in league history. Russell gave you everything else, so he'd fit anywhere.

[navy]

What grinds my gears the most is people who say Kareem, Bird, Wilt, Magic, West, and Russell wouldn't dominate the NBA today.

There are great players who bridge every generation gap that prove those all-time greats would be every ounce as special.
Im not saying that these players wouldnt be good in todays NBA, but you would be delusional to say Wilt and Russel , would average the same numbers if they played today. That is what grinds my gears.

[Prometheus]

Im not saying that these players wouldnt be good in todays NBA, but you would be delusional to say Wilt and Russel , would average the same numbers if they played today. That is what grinds my gears.

Obviously Wilt would average even more points and rebounds. 75 PPG and 42 RPG is very likely. :hammerhead:

[Sakkreth]

I see... Not putting LeBron in the first group to bring him down, so according to op himself he's most likely an idiot.

[Real Men Wear Green]

I see... Not putting LeBron in the first group to bring him down, so according to op himself he's most likely an idiot.
From the OP: "Those are not player rankings at all. Has nothing to do with how good each tier is. Some people just inspire more idiocy in their detractors."

If kblaze did anything wrong it was thinking that there was any helping trolls.

[Dizzle-2k7]

LMAO Kblaze of all people tryna act like he's not biased towards Lebron...

Kblaze never hesitates to defend Lebron, no matter what the accusation. Hes a fangirl just like the rest of the ESPN groupies.

[NumberSix]

100% chance that OPs numbers are unreliable and made up.

[9erempiree]

OP haven't made a relevant or worthy basketball thread since 2006.

As a moderator on the internet or in real life, a moderator's duty is to lead the forum with good discussion. OP doesn't even make a worthy basketball discussion except for the nostalgic B.S. that he makes us read.

People like to say the forum is ran by trolls well just look at who is leading us. A racist moderator who name calls its members and a guy that makes long rants when he is drunk.:facepalm

[Mr. Jabbar]

put kobe in the first tier and lebron off these ranks and ill sign this thread

[sd3035]

...looked like an idiot:

Jordan
Kareem
Wilt
Russell
West
Magic
Bird
Shaq
Hakeem
Oscar
Duncan

If its not 100% its damn close.


Probably 90% of the topics ever made to bring down these people made the OP look like an idiot:

Kobe
Lebron
Barkley
Durant
Chris Paul
Iverson
KG
Dirk

These guys probably hover around 80%:

Westbrook
Wade(pre injury....90%)
Rose
Dwight
Gasol



scared to play
dumber than a bag of hammers
soft

[Prometheus]

put kobe in the first tier and lebron off these ranks and ill sign this thread

I'm a firm believer that as a player, LeBron > Kobe, but I kind of agree with this anyway. LeBron, in spite of his greatness, is SO easy to make fun of. You overrate the shit out of Kobe though. Homer to the max.

[moe94]

put kobe in the first tier and lebron off these ranks and ill sign this thread
Slow down.

[AlphaWolf24]

...


Making it out to mean something when KG missed the playoffs with Trenton Hassel(good defender for the record), Marko Jaric, Mccants, Mark blount, Eddie Griffin shooting 35%, Olowokandi for 32 games, ronald Dupree, Anthony Carter, Mark Madsen, 36 games of Troy Hudson, 40 games of Wally, and 36 games of Ricky Davis.

.


I disagree with this one in certain aspects...

I think most people were Bashing KG for wanting to Dominate in Crunchtime.

It was like "Lebron 2010 - 11' 4th quarters" for 3 years straight in Minnesota .

Playoff's time ...It's like KG could create for himself and get others involved and the Wolves would be playing great....then in the 4th quarter KG would totally disappear and totally disengage himself.

I know he caught a lot of flack for it...deservedly so...he also left his team, but at least they were on the downside as was KG entering his twilight of his career in 08'

[ArbitraryWater]

:facepalm

Anyhow, you can't criticize a guy who wasn't asked to score for scoring when he was asked to do so.

Here's his gamelog BTW if you want points prior to 64:

http://nbastats.net/01NBA/07playerlogs/Russell.xls

probably not many high-scoring games early on either. It was by design, look at the Celtics system.

Russell obviously wouldn't be a great featured scorer if asked, but he wasn't an offensive liability because of his rebounding/passing/screens. I don't mind if he's called a non-scorer. I do mind when that becomes a big part of the conversation, when he's arguably the GOAT defender and rebounder (as well as a tremendous athlete in any era), and met the needs of the position.

There are plenty of scorers in league history. Russell gave you everything else, so he'd fit anywhere.


It IS a random game. What else would it be? Picking out his one great scoring game, to make your argument? Like me picking out his 6pt game...

[iamgine]

Another critic of Russell

- He had terrible FT%. Probably can't be counted on at the end of games.

- Half his career his FG% was 43% or less despite not shooting much at all.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Another critic of Russell

- He had terrible FT%. Probably can't be counted on at the end of games.

- Half his career his FG% was 43% or less despite not shooting much at all.


11 rings as a player and player/coach, 5 MVPs voted on by players > FG%

"Probably can't be counted on at the end of games"

Well he won 11 titles.. Soooo

[juju151111]

I disagree with this one in certain aspects...

I think most people were Bashing KG for wanting to Dominate in Crunchtime.

It was like "Lebron 2010 - 11' 4th quarters" for 3 years straight in Minnesota .

Playoff's time ...It's like KG could create for himself and get others involved and the Wolves would be playing great....then in the 4th quarter KG would totally disappear and totally disengage himself.

I know he caught a lot of flack for it...deservedly so...he also left his team, but at least they were on the downside as was KG entering his twilight of his career in 08'
Actually KG is one of the clutchest player throughout his career.

[edrick]

This forum would be boring without the haters and stans battling it out over pointless shit like a basketball game. "We know drama."

[Teanett]

well i sure look good with my threads about mike woodson.

[jlip]

Picking out some Random Game? Dude also scored under double digit in plenty g7's/elimination games/closeout games...


OK. Let's not pick out a random game. Let's choose entire playoff series and runs.

Russell had at least six playoff series off the top of my head where he avg. at least 20ppg... '61 EDF, '62 EDF and Finals, '63 EDF and Finals, and '66 Finals.
He led the Celtics in scoring during the '62 (22.9ppg) and the '66 Finals (23.6ppg). He led the team in scoring for the entire '62 playoff run.


Rodman scored 34 Points once, so what?
Rodman played in over 20 playoff series covering 169 games. He never scored 30 pts in a playoff game, let alone came remotely close to actually leading his team in scoring for a series as Russell did several times. There were only a couple of playoff series where Rodman even reached double figure pts. In no way does he remotely compare to Russell in terms of scoring.


Basketball-Reference tells me Russell had 1 Playoff 30+ Point Game in his Career. 1966 Finals vs Lakers: 32 on 13-23.

Of course they only date back since 1964. Next best was 28, same series. Next ones would be 5 25 point games. So 7 25+ Point Games.
By the start of the 1964 season, Russell had already played seven seasons of basketball, won 4 MVPs, led the league in rebounding multiple times, and won six titles of which he was clearly the best player on at least five of them. A little over half of his career was over by then.


You know how many he had from 1975-1963? (30+)

Russell had five playoff games of at least 30pts in his career. Two of those were championship clinching games decided by single digits. He had 21 playoff games of at least 25pts.

No one in their right mind would claim that Russell was a dominant scorer, but no one who actually is familiar with his game would claim that he couldn't score or was an offensive liability. Despite not being a dominant scorer, the coaches, teammates, opponents, and fans who actually watched him play almost unanimously consider him to be one of the most dominant players ever. It's fans 40 years later who look at only scoring numbers in box scores that don't appreciate him. The logical question which follows should be, What did those who actually faced him and coached against him see in his game that those of us 40+ years after he

[32MJ32]

Pau Gasol hasn't been good for 3 years. Above average? Yeah, at some things. Good? Nah. Not overall. If I want to win basketball games, I'm not paying Pau $20 million per year.

I'm not sure how anyone can simultaneously hold the opinions of:

"Kevin Love is just empty numbers" and "You can't rip on Pau - look at his numbers."

Yet, it happens. Often. Either numbers don't tell the whole story and we need to look further or they tell the whole story. If numbers tell the whole story, Love is a megastar and Pau is a good or even great player - even now. If they don't - which, of course, they don't - both of those statements are worth challenging.

Pau's giving you 20, 10 and 3 on 47% shooting with 3 turnovers on a team that guarantees him 17 shots per night, because it stinks, and doesn't play defense at all. He plays one end (Lakers D is 2nd worst in the league), gets his 15-20 shots, makes less than half, turns the ball over as many times as a lot of PG's who get hated on for turning the ballover too much, and gobbles rebounds - of which there are a lot because of the break neck pace the Lakers play at.

You take any above average or better big and put them in the same situation - Nene, Gortat, Boozer, KG, Duncan, Lee, Lopez, Z-Bo, Monroe, Vucevic - with the same conditions and you're getting Pau's output. If you somehow convinced Noah to stop caring about D and just focus on offense on this year's Bulls, you're getting Pau's #'s.

There are probably 50 starting bigs in the league, given some teams start "stretch 4's" who don't really qualify. Current day Pau plots somewhere in the end of the middle of the 50. No way he's top 10 anymore. And I'd argue he's barely top 20-25.

Criticizing his whole career? Different story. He's a Hall of Famer. And he deserves all the plaudits in the world for his play from 08-10 - especially in the playoffs. Since then? Eh. Crapped the bed in the 11 and 12 playoffs and played the same way he has this year in 12-13.

None of the above factors in any of the advanced metrics, which hate him, either. I'll spare you those because you also hate them.

He's just.. not a max money player anymore. Hasn't been for 3 seasons. Good? Depending on your definition of good, he could be. Above average? Yeah. But he's not worthy of the praise he gets from a lot of places anymore.

Stick him on the Warriors or Thunder and he's a very useful rotation guy as a 3rd-4th banana. As a Laker or Sixer or Celtic or someone as the feature guy? Not getting it done to a level which warrants any celebrating. I can say that because the Lakers are 19-36 and he's the feature guy

[SHAQisGOAT]

:applause: :applause: :applause:

and you can say that won't even cover half of the ignorance going around

[SHAQisGOAT]

What grinds my gears the most is people who say Kareem, Bird, Wilt, Magic, West, and Russell wouldn't dominate the NBA today.

There are great players who bridge every generation gap that prove those all-time greats would be every ounce as special.

:applause:

[AintNoSunshine]

How is trying to bring down Lebron any less of an idiotic thing to do than trying to bring down Hakeem???

[Mr Feeny]

If he had 6-7 years of over 15 he also had 6-7 years of under 15.... you can't just add 5 points.

Neither did he really "stepped up in scoring in the playoffs"

From 15 ppg on 44% to 16 ppg on 43% ? Not much stepping up there.

And then picking out one arbitraty G7 of his? Why not talk about his Finals Game 7 in which he scored 6 Points in? Quite the scorer huh. I can pick out random games like this too, in fact more G7's of under his average than over.

So yes, he was an inept scorer. Inept offensive player? His passing was hardly better than Wilt's. 4 APG that would likely be 3 with Adjusted Pace. Meh, doesn't change much for me on Bill offensively.


Concentrate on my Scoring points though.

Says the master of detailing threads. Ironic to say the least.

[Dr.J4ever]

[QUOTE=jlip]OK. Let's not pick out a random game. Let's choose entire playoff series and runs.

Russell had at least six playoff series off the top of my head where he avg. at least 20ppg... '61 EDF, '62 EDF and Finals, '63 EDF and Finals, and '66 Finals.
He led the Celtics in scoring during the '62 (22.9ppg) and the '66 Finals (23.6ppg). He led the team in scoring for the entire '62 playoff run.


Rodman played in over 20 playoff series covering 169 games. He never scored 30 pts in a playoff game, let alone came remotely close to actually leading his team in scoring for a series as Russell did several times. There were only a couple of playoff series where Rodman even reached double figure pts. In no way does he remotely compare to Russell in terms of scoring.


By the start of the 1964 season, Russell had already played seven seasons of basketball, won 4 MVPs, led the league in rebounding multiple times, and won six titles of which he was clearly the best player on at least five of them. A little over half of his career was over by then.



Russell had five playoff games of at least 30pts in his career. Two of those were championship clinching games decided by single digits. He had 21 playoff games of at least 25pts.

No one in their right mind would claim that Russell was a dominant scorer, but no one who actually is familiar with his game would claim that he couldn't score or was an offensive liability. Despite not being a dominant scorer, the coaches, teammates, opponents, and fans who actually watched him play almost unanimously consider him to be one of the most dominant players ever. It's fans 40 years later who look at only scoring numbers in box scores that don't appreciate him. The logical question which follows should be, What did those who actually faced him and coached against him see in his game that those of us 40+ years after he

[LAZERUSS]

[QUOTE=jlip]OK. Let's not pick out a random game. Let's choose entire playoff series and runs.

Russell had at least six playoff series off the top of my head where he avg. at least 20ppg... '61 EDF, '62 EDF and Finals, '63 EDF and Finals, and '66 Finals.
He led the Celtics in scoring during the '62 (22.9ppg) and the '66 Finals (23.6ppg). He led the team in scoring for the entire '62 playoff run.


Rodman played in over 20 playoff series covering 169 games. He never scored 30 pts in a playoff game, let alone came remotely close to actually leading his team in scoring for a series as Russell did several times. There were only a couple of playoff series where Rodman even reached double figure pts. In no way does he remotely compare to Russell in terms of scoring.


By the start of the 1964 season, Russell had already played seven seasons of basketball, won 4 MVPs, led the league in rebounding multiple times, and won six titles of which he was clearly the best player on at least five of them. A little over half of his career was over by then.



Russell had five playoff games of at least 30pts in his career. Two of those were championship clinching games decided by single digits. He had 21 playoff games of at least 25pts.

No one in their right mind would claim that Russell was a dominant scorer, but no one who actually is familiar with his game would claim that he couldn't score or was an offensive liability. Despite not being a dominant scorer, the coaches, teammates, opponents, and fans who actually watched him play almost unanimously consider him to be one of the most dominant players ever. It's fans 40 years later who look at only scoring numbers in box scores that don't appreciate him. The logical question which follows should be, What did those who actually faced him and coached against him see in his game that those of us 40+ years after he

[Black Mamba's B]

great post op

[K Xerxes]

Justifying Russell's offensive numbers isn't necessary whatsoever. He led his team ti 11 championships in his 13 seasons in the league, and in the 58 finals where they lost, he was injured. Technically, you could argue, he won 9 straight championships when healthy.

The aim of this sport is ultimately to win, not to pad your individual offensive stats so that people 50 years down the line can look at them in awe. His team won with him being a dominant defensive anchor and rebounder. Why change it? Russell exemplified what it meant to be a team player, and he continued to work on defense and rebounding. However, as has already been said, he could be relied on offense when required.

If he didn't keep on winning, I could understand the point that he was 'offensively deficient'. But he clearly wasn't when he didn't hurt his team.

[ArbitraryWater]

Actually KG is one of the clutchest player throughout his career.

Riiiight :roll:

Dude was a complete chokejob in Minny. No revisionist history please

[ArbitraryWater]

Says the master of detailing threads. Ironic to say the least.

Ugh, you mean derailing threads? Because this isn't just what you did?

And who are you again?

Reported for not staying on point

[ArbitraryWater]

[QUOTE=jlip]OK. Let's not pick out a random game. Let's choose entire playoff series and runs.

Russell had at least six playoff series off the top of my head where he avg. at least 20ppg... '61 EDF, '62 EDF and Finals, '63 EDF and Finals, and '66 Finals.
He led the Celtics in scoring during the '62 (22.9ppg) and the '66 Finals (23.6ppg). He led the team in scoring for the entire '62 playoff run.


Rodman played in over 20 playoff series covering 169 games. He never scored 30 pts in a playoff game, let alone came remotely close to actually leading his team in scoring for a series as Russell did several times. There were only a couple of playoff series where Rodman even reached double figure pts. In no way does he remotely compare to Russell in terms of scoring.


By the start of the 1964 season, Russell had already played seven seasons of basketball, won 4 MVPs, led the league in rebounding multiple times, and won six titles of which he was clearly the best player on at least five of them. A little over half of his career was over by then.



Russell had five playoff games of at least 30pts in his career. Two of those were championship clinching games decided by single digits. He had 21 playoff games of at least 25pts.

No one in their right mind would claim that Russell was a dominant scorer, but no one who actually is familiar with his game would claim that he couldn't score or was an offensive liability. Despite not being a dominant scorer, the coaches, teammates, opponents, and fans who actually watched him play almost unanimously consider him to be one of the most dominant players ever. It's fans 40 years later who look at only scoring numbers in box scores that don't appreciate him. The logical question which follows should be, What did those who actually faced him and coached against him see in his game that those of us 40+ years after he

[ArbitraryWater]

Justifying Russell's offensive numbers isn't necessary whatsoever. He led his team ti 11 championships in his 13 seasons in the league, and in the 58 finals where they lost, he was injured. Technically, you could argue, he won 9 straight championships when healthy.

The aim of this sport is ultimately to win, not to pad your individual offensive stats so that people 50 years down the line can look at them in awe. His team won with him being a dominant defensive anchor and rebounder. Why change it? Russell exemplified what it meant to be a team player, and he continued to work on defense and rebounding. However, as has already been said, he could be relied on offense when required.

If he didn't keep on winning, I could understand the point that he was 'offensively deficient'. But he clearly wasn't when he didn't hurt his team.

This is what I'm talking about. This is what I don't get.

They COULDN'T always rely on him when required... that's BS. Dude had elimination games/game 7's of 10 points, the team won, and he got away with it.

But yes, then again they didn't need him to score more, right? It's like because the Team won, Russell's scoring is excused for.

So shooting 43% in the playoffs doesn't hurt your team? Okay. Minimal attempts? Okay. This clearly shows he wasn't a scorer. Look, how can a scoring liability be Top 5? If he's asked to do the biggest part of basketball, score, he'd shoot around 40%... of course now it's easy to pick some games out here or there and say "Look, he stepped his scoring up when it mattered"..

[Kblaze8855]

Pau Gasol hasn't been good for 3 years. Above average? Yeah, at some things. Good? Nah. Not overall. If I want to win basketball games, I'm not paying Pau $20 million per year.


Perhaps the most foolish thing ive ever seen you say. Forget Pau Gasol for a moment...

Im not sure anyone has ever put up 17/8 and not been....a good player.

Shit Mike James was a good player if we arent joking.

I might not want him on my team.....but there is a whole lot of difference between some random player in the league and a guy who can put up 20 on a pretty regular basis, be among the best passers at his position(ever), rebound at an average or above level, and shoot, post up, and finish in traffic. Listing a bunch of other good players doesnt say much of anything.

With the possible exception of Boozer or old as dirt KG you didnt mention anyone most people wouldnt call a good player.

And most saying they arent arent really thinking it out either.



I'm not sure how anyone can simultaneously hold the opinions of:

"Kevin Love is just empty numbers" and "You can't rip on Pau - look at his numbers."

Yet, it happens. Often. Either numbers don't tell the whole story and we need to look further or they tell the whole story. If numbers tell the whole story, Love is a megastar and Pau is a good or even great player - even now. If they don't - which, of course, they don't - both of those statements are worth challenging.

Key difference....

I think Kevin Love is a future hall of famer who is merely....not as good as the others to produce the way he does.

You think Pau Gasol has not even been a good player in 3 years.

One is saying he isnt Barkley, Moses Malone, Wilt, Elvin Hayes, Kareem, and so on...and is closer to a Spencer Haywood...or that id rather have Dennis Rodman. Which is only an insult if you ignore that Haywood is a HOF finalist this year and Rodman is already there. The other is acting like this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwIRY5iqeww

Isnt a good player. Dude is out there 7 feet tall going through the legs posting, reposting, and spinning into the lane for lefthand jump hooks in traffic...nobody is even surprised...but hes not even a good player.

Pau Gasol is...today...right now...not 5 years ago...one of the most skilled 7 footers in basketball history. I dont believe you could give me 25 true bigmen more skilled than Pau Gasol is...today. In the history of this sport.

Every game of his I see hes displaying skills that are out of this world. We just see it so often it doesnt stand out anymore. But a 7 footer operating like that out of the high post, with those moves, that off hand, and instinct for the game is a rare thing. You watch/play too much basketball to be blind to the fact that Paus skill level really is all time great for a bigman...









https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-7WbOf3q7MNw/UeXI9RTYS3I/AAAAAAAAG1w/CtFBPGuGKxI/s0-d/Pau-Gasol-PG-Pass.gif


That guy is amazing. He isnt some elite player. He never was. But to say hes not even good is just emotion talking.




Off the top of my head the worst I ever said of Love was that in the games id seen Rubio had more to do with if the team was playing well or not. And that was like 3 years ago. You have never seen me say any bullshit like he literally isnt a good player.

Pau Gasol is playing on the sort of team people pretend Kevin Love is playing on. Minnesota could take the entire Lakers team other than Pau for Pek....and get worse. Kevin Martin is better than anyone Pau has. Rubio? Id trade anyone but Pau on the Lakers for Rubio and probably Pau too age considered. He isnt a star...but he isnt the sweepings of the FA pool, Dleague, and NBA funeral home either.

Ive watched Laker games this year with people who have been fans al ltheir lives who couldnt identify anyone in the starting lineup but Pau.

The Lakers are a trainwreck of mismatched parts, injuries, and probably tanking.

There is no reason Minnesota shouldnt be good. Granted...in the east they would be. But thats a whole other discussion.

[Kblaze8855]

This is what I'm talking about. This is what I don't get.

They COULDN'T always rely on him when required... that's BS. Dude had elimination games/game 7's of 10 points, the team won, and he got away with it.


Got away with it? You say that as if he failed to do something he was asked to do. Besides...during their run of 8 straight rings this is what he did down the stretch of close series....meaning the last 3 games of a 6 or 7 game series....

*leaves out some big games early in series and throws out some poor ones...this is not secret information...you can look for yourself*


17/23
19/32
17/26
17/16
22/35
30/38 rebounds
26 points unknown rebounds
19 points 24 rebounds
30 points and 40 rebounds in a game 7 OT win.
22/19
25 points 5 assists unknown rebounds
12 points, 24 rebounds, 9 assists
25 points
32 points
22 points
25/32

The only series he really got held down was vs Wilt in 64 when he put up like 10-11 for the series but it was a sweep I believe. Sweep or 5 games.

He scored less when he was in his final years but in his prime there was no area of the game he didnt contribute heavily. Hell he was the Celtics leading scorer one title run putting up 22 points and 5 assists a game.

Russell really left nothing to hate on.

When you have to resort to calling out a 15-19 a game through his prime scorer who was near the top of the entire league in assists as a center to hate...there just isnt much there.

Bill russell was a defensive player and rebounder. He also scored quite a bit and passed like a point guard. Acting like he let the team down when he has like 14 points, pulls down 30 boards 20 of which turned into fast break chances, blocks 8-9 shots and has 8 assists is just a joke.

[La Frescobaldi]

I love how Kobe's argument is the Eye Test :roll:


Btw why is Russell 15-20 PPG when its exactly 15 PPG? lol


Why add 5 more Points that aren't there?

Look, Russell in the Playoffs: 16 PPG on 43%

He simply was a bad scorer. Own up to it...

Try spinning this.

No. You purely don't understand Celtics basketball of that time.
Bill Russell could score at will. Sam Jones could score at will. Hondo could too. Anyone of those guys was literally a superstar level of scoring machine. And they always had a guy like a Don Nelson or Ramsay who could score a lot.
A guy like Sam Jones is totally, completely forgotten today simply because he didn't have torrential numbers like a Chamberlain or a West. Jones could have scored in the 40s on the regular, but the Celtics were about something else entirely.
They had no superstars on the Celtics. They understood balanced attack at the most complete mastery level of any team in history. No other team that I've seen keeps every single player involved, every angle covered, every cut planned like those teams did.

They aimed to have their #1 and #2 options get 20 points a game, their 3rd and 4th to get 15, and their next 3 options to get 8 or 10 points. They didn't want to have the problems that every team has today - the skewed, warped star syndrome, where the leader gets 30 points and the rest of the guys are not engaged offensively. I'm not talking about a Carmelo Anthony type that has descended to pure ball-hoggery; he's just the most glaring example.



You can't measure those teams through the prism of current basketball, because there isn't a team like that in the NBA today. The closest is the Spurs, but even they have to rely heavily on Parker to carry them at times.

On those Celtics teams, any of 4 guys could carry the team offensively but they never did, because they stayed balanced. Passing was far more important to them than scoring was. Russell was the master at this.

If you sat behind the Celtics bench in those days, it wasn't the assist pass they would exclaim about.... it was the 2nd pass , the one that led to the assist pass..... the one that threw a defense out of whack.

The Celtics knew in their bones that even the greatest scorers go cold. And so when that happened to one of their great scorers, it didn't matter at all to the outcome of the game..... they still won. Because they were always balanced.

As an individual force on a court, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, & Michael Jordan are the greatest players I've ever seen. I only saw Bill Russell on his last legs, when he was coaching, so I can't say what he was like in the 1950s or early '60s; but he had an entirely different view of basketball from any of those guys.

He never relied on himself, see, but only and always on his team. And that is what gave them their confidence, in themselves, and their teammates.

[Kblaze8855]

I wonder sometimes how much thought people put into why in the most wide open era of fast breaking a guy like Russell....quite literally one of the finest athletes on the planet(#2 ranked high jumper in America)...didnt just run out on the break and score more.

Team puts up 120 points a night. Mostly triggered by the fast break...which was Russels job to start. He and Cousy had places to be...Cousy would tell Russell where to look for him...how to start the break...he does it. Half the time he doesnt even get down the court before they get a shot up.

You really believe that if 6'10'' sprinter/high jumper Bill Russell decided to pull a Lebron and back out to 30 feet and drive on the centers of that day he couldnt get to the basket? Or that he couldnt outrun 98% of the league on the break if he decided to do it instead of...trigger it?

Really...what is anyone in 1959 gonna do about this:


http://imageshack.com/a/img401/7947/84kq.gif

If he decides to make that what he does?

Nobody is saying Russell was some polished bask to the basket scorer. But he could have been a 20ppg scorer just off athletic ability and unselfish teammates if thats what he decided to do. The team would have been worse for it though. Which im sure is all he cared about.

[ArbitraryWater]

Got away with it? You say that as if he failed to do something he was asked to do. Besides...during their run of 8 straight rings this is what he did down the stretch of close series....meaning the last 3 games of a 6 or 7 game series....

*leaves out some big games early in series and throws out some poor ones...this is not secret information...you can look for yourself*


17/23
19/32
17/26
17/16
22/35
30/38 rebounds
26 points unknown rebounds
19 points 24 rebounds
30 points and 40 rebounds in a game 7 OT win.
22/19
25 points 5 assists unknown rebounds
12 points, 24 rebounds, 9 assists
25 points
32 points
22 points
25/32

The only series he really got held down was vs Wilt in 64 when he put up like 10-11 for the series but it was a sweep I believe. Sweep or 5 games.

He scored less when he was in his final years but in his prime there was no area of the game he didnt contribute heavily. Hell he was the Celtics leading scorer one title run putting up 22 points and 5 assists a game.

Russell really left nothing to hate on.

When you have to resort to calling out a 15-19 a game through his prime scorer who was near the top of the entire league in assists as a center to hate...there just isnt much there.

Bill russell was a defensive player and rebounder. He also scored quite a bit and passed like a point guard. Acting like he let the team down when he has like 14 points, pulls down 30 boards 20 of which turned into fast break chances, blocks 8-9 shots and has 8 assists is just a joke.

So what he wasn't asked to do it??

He wasn't asked to do it and STILL only shot 43%? Imagine if he's actually asked to do it..

[iamgine]

[QUOTE=jlip]
I'm indebted to ThaRegul8r for this information:

Russell made his free throws when winning or losing the game depended on it. The following is what Fred Schaus, coach of the Los Angeles Lakers whose teams lost four Finals to Russell

[ArbitraryWater]

http://imageshack.com/a/img401/7947/84kq.gif


That looks pretty fkn impressive lol

[Bandito]

Riiiight :roll:

Dude was a complete chokejob in Minny. No revisionist history please
What a retard somebody ban him:facepalm:

[Kblaze8855]

LMAO Kblaze of all people tryna act like he's not biased towards Lebron...

Kblaze never hesitates to defend Lebron, no matter what the accusation. Hes a fangirl just like the rest of the ESPN groupies.

First let me say....its approaching unbearable how people like you talk on the internet.

I dont know what it is about typing instead of talking that turns grown men into such jackasses. So many discussions on these subjects have some guy who normally wouldnt stand out as abnormal in here on some head scratching unoriginal following nonsense using buzzwords like groupie, stan, beta, fangirls and so on....

Really...what happens to you people when you sit in front of a computer?

Especialla the recent Beta thing. How people fail to see the irony in calling people betas because a bunch of people on the internet decided that is the new buzzword and they follow right along is beyond me. That said....


Almost every topic made hating on Lebron has been just...****ing stupid. Its people who seem to know nothing of the game, making idiotic points, using Skip Bayless just to get attention logic that favors catch phrases and a dumbed down version of events over basketball discussion.

When someone has something to say that makes no sense I dont care if its pro or anti anyone. Jordans been my favorite player all my life....there are those who think I dont defend him enough. I always liked Wilt. Bought his books. Respect him. Some of his fans get upset over questions about his approach to the game. Everyone I know in person seems to think I dont like Lebron....people like you who spend your time hating think I love him...Pauk and some others accuse me of hating.

Its the same reason for all of you. An emotional attachment in favor of or against the guy....makes you see anyone not totally on your side as the enemy. So I delete some dumb Lebron topic and wak to find that this nutjob made 65 more in the night:

http://i44.tinypic.com/zv54ox.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/254vp5f.jpg

One time it was something about Kobes shooting percentages in losses as opposed to wins...some bullshit to start an argument he was already having in another topic....topic closed...

So he makes 50 more. Tells me...I dont like Lebron...this that and the third....

I....dont know how some of you get so emotionally invested in these peoples internet standing.

But fact is...there is always gonna be more room to reasonably praise the games elite players than to harp on one or two faults. Which is why more anti Lebron or Durant or whoever topics are bad....than those praising them.

Haters dont have much to work with. 90% of the time a Lebron hating topic is just some idiot venting or making awful points to support some other guy.

Its almost never a half decent argument. So sure...you would more likely see me explaining why an anti Lebron topic is idiotic than why a pro lebron topic is....

There is a lot more positive to say.

[ArbitraryWater]

What a retard somebody ban him:facepalm:

AlphaWolf24 holds the same Opinion. Dude is older than you, I'll take his opinion, thanks. Please ban bandito

Never wanted to take the big shots. I remember late in games, Troy Hudson would get him the ball and he wouldn't even look to make a play, he'd pass it back out and run out and set a pick.

What do you remember?

[SCdac]

I agree that most of the threads are out of control (ie. dumb), but at the end of the day no player is above criticism... because no player is perfect.

If the thread is reasonable, well-thought, and not completely agenda-driven I don't mind something that's critical of an all-time great. Unfortunately, those prerequisites are not often met on ISH, so in that sense I agree with the OP.

But it's a slippery slope if you start treating players as untouchable on a message board. Even "all-time greats" deserve criticism at different points in their career, because they don't always play great.

For instance, creating a thread about Dirk around 2007 calling him out is perfectly reasonable. Just like it's perfectly reasonable to acknowledge his growth and championship status since then. Every player's legacy fluctuates in other words. And that's normal.

[Kblaze8855]

Kevin Garnett made plety of big shots. What he wouldnt do is play differently down the stretch than most of the game. A few exceptions....but for the most part if he has a look he would pass up in the second hed pass it up in the 4th. But he made a lot of big plays and shots.

People just dont remember most.

Last video I made on him I included a section of game winners/huge shots for just that purpose. I was cutting some out. Hes made more game winners than a number of people more prone to shoot in general.

I believe he has more game winners than Allen Iverson who nobody ever called timid or a poor 4th quarter player.

[Kblaze8855]

I agree that most of the threads are out of control (ie. dumb), but at the end of the day no player is above criticism... because no player is perfect.

If the thread is reasonable, well-thought, and not completely agenda-driven I don't mind something that's critical of an all-time great. Unfortunately, those prerequisites are not often met on ISH, so in that sense I agree with the OP.

But it's a slippery slope if you start treating players as untouchable on a message board. Even "all-time greats" deserve criticism at different points in their career, because they don't always play great.

For instance, creating a thread about Dirk around 2007 calling him out is perfectly reasonable. Just like it's perfectly reasonable to acknowledge his growth and championship status since then. Every player's legacy fluctuates in other words. And that's normal.

I agree for the most part. But the problem is...what few things there are to point out for some of the true elites....usualy arent even covered by the people who try to hate on them.

Its generally some nonsense they saw someone else say repackaged with an emoticon or two for no reason but propping up someone else.

There are perfectly reasonable things to say about Wilt.

But they arent said.

Its "If hes so great why did wilt win a pathetic 2 titles playing in a weak era?"

Its painful to read.

[iamgine]

I agree for the most part. But the problem is...what few things there are to point out for some of the true elites....usualy arent even covered by the people who try to hate on them.

Its generally some nonsense they saw someone else say repackaged with an emoticon or two for no reason but propping up someone else.

There are perfectly reasonable things to say about Wilt.

But they arent said.

Its "If hes so great why did wilt win a pathetic 2 titles playing in a weak era?"

Its painful to read.
Actually it's a legit question, phrased badly. Basically it asks why didn't Wilt won more titles if he was as dominant as people say.

The answer is simply...because there are other teams who were better/equal than his team.

Maybe there needs to be a FAQ for this kind of question.

[Kblaze8855]

An ISH FAQ is an interesting concept.....

[Pointguard]

AlphaWolf24 holds the same Opinion. Dude is older than you, I'll take his opinion, thanks. Please ban bandito

Never wanted to take the big shots. I remember late in games, Troy Hudson would get him the ball and he wouldn't even look to make a play, he'd pass it back out and run out and set a pick.

What do you remember?
How are you going to discuss Russell when you can't even back up what you say about current players? There is no shortage of clutch shot stats on the internet from '05 onward. KG is consistently ranked in the top 10% and there isn't a dirth of shots either. And this is after his great '04 run where he was dominant on every part of the floor and playing a part of nearly every position and monopolized the big plays on both sides of the floor.

You can't say AlphaWolf is your source when he's hater. KG averaged 25ppg 16 rebounds 5 assist 2 blcks and 2 assist as a defensive keg over 27 straight playoff games across three years you are talking about his lack of games above 30ppg. Your one dimensional mind can't grasp 5 dimensional games. You are in over your head. If you want to go into it, grab yourboy crazywolf and lets have some fun.

[Pointguard]

Actually it's a legit question, phrased badly. Basically it asks why didn't Wilt won more titles if he was as dominant as people say.

The answer is simply...because there are other teams who were better/equal than his team.

Maybe there needs to be a FAQ for this kind of question.
BINGO!!!

[LAZERUSS]

How are you going to discuss Russell when you can't even back up what you say about current players? There is no shortage of clutch shot stats on the internet from '05 onward. KG is consistently ranked in the top 10% and there isn't a dirth of shots either. And this is after his great '04 run where he was dominant on every part of the floor and playing a part of nearly every position and monopolized the big plays on both sides of the floor.

You can't say AlphaWolf is your source when he's hater. KG averaged 25ppg 16 rebounds 5 assist 2 blcks and 2 assist as a defensive keg over 27 straight playoff games across three years you are talking about his lack of games above 30ppg. Your one dimensional mind can't grasp 5 dimensional games. You are in over your head. If you want to go into it, grab yourboy crazywolf and lets have some fun.

I wonder how many rings KG would have today, had he has the luxury of playing with Pierce and Allen his entire career, instead of the inept casts he carried for so many years?

[CavaliersFTW]

It IS a random game. What else would it be? Picking out his one great scoring game, to make your argument? Like me picking out his 6pt game...
It's game 7 of the Finals during his prime of one of his 5 MVP seasons.

"Random"

F*ck outta here kid :oldlol:

[ArbitraryWater]

It's game 7 of the Finals during his prime of one of his 5 MVP seasons.

"Random"

F*ck outta here kid :oldlol:

Russell scored 6 Points in the 1969 Finals Game 7:roll:

Dude was a horrible scorer.


See what I just did there, son?

[CavaliersFTW]

Russell scored 6 Points in the 1969 Finals Game 7:roll:

Dude was a horrible scorer.


See what I just did there, son?
Let me just expose the error in your ways.

So... the last game of Russell's career is a fair measuring stick, but the G7 Finals during his MVP prime wasn't?

By this logic, how many points did Shaq score the last game of his career? (The answer is 2... 2 points) During only round 1 in the playoffs no less, wasn't even in the Finals... nor was it against say, an opponent like Wilt Chamberlain... no, Shaq's opponent? Joel Anthony. Using the stats of the last game of any players career as an example of how good they were at anything is ridiculous. See what I just did there son? Shoo troll, shoo.