If a young Bill, Wilt, KAJ, Shaq, Hakeem, TimD, KG and DRob were time travelled...

[TheMan]

Simple question, it's 2014, you're a GM, pick your bigman to start a franchise and state your reason(s) for picking your guy. Don't include the team's or era's accomplishments of each star (we know damn well Russell ain't winning 11 titles in this decade, don't troll)...

You get to pick between Bill Russell, Wilt, KAJ, Shaq, Hakeem, TimmyD, KG and David Robinson.

Me, I'm taking KAJ, dat longetivity and probably the most unstoppable shot ever.:bowdown: A close second would be Shaq for pure dominance, imagine Shaq today:eek:

Who you got

[Akrazotile]

I choose Bran

[IncarceratedBob]

I'll take Duncan

[TheMarkMadsen]

KAJ without hesitation.

20 years of greatness

[IncarceratedBob]

We know Duncan, KG and Shaq could dominate this era, Duncan is the only loyal guy outta the 3 so that's why I chose him.

Those other guys might not even be effective in this era

[TheMan]

Gonna be interesting to see the Russell fanboys state their case over far superior two way bigmen...

[Black and White]

Shaq for me, in this era, he is too physical and too dominant for the frontcourts today.

[fpliii]

Gonna be interesting to see the Russell fanboys state their case over far superior two way bigmen...
The next player big man who is far superior to Russell will be the first. That being said, Hakeem, Wilt, and Kareem (as well Walton) for some time were better two-way players. Pippen is also a better two-way player than Magic.

Hakeem is probably my pick, though there is no wrong answer here (Shaq's my favorite player all-time, but I wouldn't go with him or Robinson based on what we know in retrospect).

[Rocketswin2013]

We know Duncan, KG and Shaq could dominate this era, Duncan is the only loyal guy outta the 3 so that's why I chose him.

Those other guys might not even be effective in this era
Why would you question if Hakeem would be dominant?

[IncarceratedBob]

Why would you question if Hakeem would be dominant?
Because he accomplished everything in a past era, nobody knows if his game would translate today.

[Rocketswin2013]

Probably Shaq, 12 seasons of MVP level play in arguably the most impactful position the game.

[Overdrive]

Jabbar would be the only player in the NBA without a twitter handle.

[Rocketswin2013]

Because he accomplished everything in a past era, nobody knows if his game would translate today.


You know what, to assure yourself, go look look at his stats in the 2000 era with the Raps.

[Rocketswin2013]

Because he accomplished everything in a past era, nobody knows if his game would translate today.
Specifically his blocks and steals at age 37+ tells you all you need to know.

[IncarceratedBob]

You know what, to assure yourself, go look look at his stats in the 2000 era with the Raps.
obviously hakeem stayed too long, im not disrespecting the dream. he was awesome in his era but if i want to win im gonna take someone who was better in todays era than hakeem was in his.

[Milbuck]

Anywhere from 0-20.

[Rocketswin2013]

obviously hakeem stayed too long, im not disrespecting the dream. he was awesome in his era but if i want to win im gonna take someone who was better in todays era than hakeem was in his.
Yeah but nothing is guaranteed, I'd take Shaq but the offensive foul possibilities..... This era does not allow physical low-post play.

[SamuraiSWISH]

No one here saw Bill, Wilt, or probably even prime Kareem. I didn't, so I'm not going to rank them. It wouldn't be genuine if I did do that, also KG is a PF not a Center so that considering:

1) Hakeem
2) D. Rob
3) Shaq
4) Duncan
5) Ewing

[DonDadda59]

1) Kareem
2) Shaq
3) Duncan
4) Wilt
5) Hakeem
6) Robinson
7) KG
8) Russell

[CelticBaller]

Im tired of these time traveling threads

[SamuraiSWISH]

I feel like Russell based off what I know is a more intelligent, better passing version of Alonzo Mourining, Dennis Rodman, or Ben Wallace.

I get it, he won 11 rings. I also feel that relying exclusively on that makes him extremely overrated given he was between 3rd or 5th most important guy offensively on those teams.

Also, Duncan. David Robinson was an inferior playoff performer, but also clearly didn't have the coaching or talent around him that Tim Duncan did. If he had Ginobili, Parker, Horry, and coached by Pops he couldn't win championships? Context matters.

[TheMan]

I feel like Russell based off what I know is a more intelligent, better passing version of Alonzo Mourining, Dennis Rodman, or Ben Wallace.

I get it, he won 11 rings. I also feel that relying exclusively on that makes him extremely overrated given he was between 3rd or 5th most important guy offensively on those teams.

I feel like Wilt based off what I know is a more athletic, more selfish version of Shaquille O'Neal ... without the all-time great perimeter players like Penny, Kobe, and Wade to help him win as many championships.

Both guys are overrated, based off what I know. It's my opinion, but I'm sticking to it.

Also, Duncan. David Robinson was an inferior playoff performer, but also clearly didn't have the coaching or talent around him that Tim Duncan did. Context matters.
Don't forget that Bill went up against a bunch of white scrubs too.

[fpliii]

I feel like Russell based off what I know is a more intelligent, better passing version of Alonzo Mourining, Dennis Rodman, or Ben Wallace.

I get it, he won 11 rings. I also feel that relying exclusively on that makes him extremely overrated given he was between 3rd or 5th most important guy offensively on those teams.

Also, Duncan. David Robinson was an inferior playoff performer, but also clearly didn't have the coaching or talent around him that Tim Duncan did. If he had Ginobili, Parker, Horry, and coached by Pops he couldn't win championships? Context matters.
I can respect that opinion. :cheers:

You've done the research, so I have absolutely no problem with your stance. We'll just agree to disagree.

With regards to Duncan, I think it's just the fact that he's great defensively and has a reliable post game (which you basically need in the playoffs to win as an offensive anchor if you're a big man).

[TheMan]

1) Kareem
2) Shaq
3) Duncan
4) Wilt
5) Hakeem
6) Robinson
7) KG
8) Russell
Switch Hakeem with Wilt and I pretty much agree:cheers:

[fpliii]

Don't forget that Bill went up against a bunch of white scrubs too.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wAJwRWhTyY7813xGy8KKbxzcIk8O_EBLmJAAojp3mKg

I have no problem with differing reasonable opinions. Just don't care for the spreading of misinformation.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Don't forget that Bill went up against a bunch of white scrubs too.
Just cause they're white doesn't mean they're scrubs.

But it is true the league wasn't totally fully integrated from a talent or racial perspective until the more liberal ABA joined with the NBA.

I mean all these discussions about big men. Russell gets an argument in a young league, with not a lot of talent, or teams, with a team stacked full of HOFers ... yet Mikan was a better player on offense and has the rings in his resume.

Why no mention of George Mikan, the game's original big man / superstar? It's disrespectful.

[Jlamb47]

1.Duncan - Dominated both ends of the floor in our era
2.Shaq
3.Hakeem
4.D Rob
5.KG

[moe94]

lol @ whenever there is a gap between Duncan and KG

[fpliii]

Just cause they're white doesn't mean they're scrubs.

But it is true the league wasn't totally fully integrated from a talent or racial perspective until the more liberal ABA joined with the NBA.

I mean all these discussions about big men. Russell gets an argument in a young league, with not a lot of talent, or teams, with a team stacked full of HOFers ... yet Mikan was a better player on offense and has the rings in his resume.

Why no mention of George Mikan, the game's original big man / superstar? It's disrespectful.
No disrespect intended Swish, just some comments:

1) I agree with regards to the late 50s and early 60s. The mid/late 60s (particularly playoff teams) were generally well integrated.

2) Who other than Cousy (on the merit of his play in the pre-shotclock 60s), Havlicek, and Jones was a legit HOFer on those teams?

3) <10% of the league was black (as opposed to >50% for the greater part of the 60s), and he was forced out of the league by the shotclock's introduction.

[DonDadda59]

I feel like Russell based off what I know is a more intelligent, better passing version of Alonzo Mourining, Dennis Rodman, or Ben Wallace.

I get it, he won 11 rings. I also feel that relying exclusively on that makes him extremely overrated given he was between 3rd or 5th most important guy offensively on those teams.

Also, Duncan. David Robinson was an inferior playoff performer, but also clearly didn't have the coaching or talent around him that Tim Duncan did. If he had Ginobili, Parker, Horry, and coached by Pops he couldn't win championships? Context matters.

Robinson was a lot like LeBron in many ways- an absolute genetic freak who for one reason or another tended to shrink when the lights were brightest. People always questioned his mentality, wondered if he was 'too nice', or didn't have that killer instinct. At his peak he was a 30/11/5/2/3 player, MVP winner, DPOY candidate... but then got swept in the first round playing subpar ball. Next season he gets taken to school, absolutely harassed in the WCF by a guy he usually got the best of.

Duncan is as mentally tough as they come. Not loud, flashy, but a stoic killer, silent assassin type. He never put up the monstrous numbers Robinson did in the regular season, but when it was time for the real game to begin Timmy was at the forefront rising above his normal production. Just look at 2003 alone. Robinson in Duncan's place (which would create a weird alternate reality :oldlol: ) absolutely does not win the championship. Coaching can't make up for mental deficiencies.

[SamuraiSWISH]

No disrespect intended Swish, just some comments:

2) Who other than Cousy (on the merit of his play in the pre-shotclock 60s), Havlicek, and Jones was a legit HOFer on those teams?
None taken, you know you're my dude. Why no comment on Mikan being left out of the Russell, and Wilt debates?

Ummm, you just named pre shotclock the best PG EVER ... and two other seriously dominant all time players with amazing resumes, and games. Hondo being one of the best swingman of all time too, high up in the ranks during his time.

There is no excuse for a guy being 3rd or 4th best, sometimes even 5th best offensively being called a better player than more complete guys.

He needed dominant offensive players for him to play his niche role to perfection to win all these rings in a weak era, with less teams (and just because there was less teams doesn't mean the teams were more stacked)

Rings aren't the exclusive measuring tool for the impact of a player. It's a team achievment, regardless of the influence of a team's best player.

Russell gets so overrated in these arguments it isn't even funny. All evidence points to him being an Alonzo Mourning type. A winner. But as a player? There are better options.

[DonDadda59]

lol @ whenever there is a gap between Duncan and KG

Why? Duncan was possibly one bad coaching decision away from winning ring #5 and finals MVP #4. This season he's on the best team in the league... again, looking to make up for last year.

KG is where exactly right now? :confusedshrug:

[Micku]

Tough decision. Kareem maybe. His longevity is one of the best ever, probably the best. Depending on what type of team you construct, your team could be a championship contender for a long time.

After Kareem, maybe Shaq or Wilt. Shaq because he'll be too physical against the league's current frontline. And he had the footwork to fake them out. While he could protect the paint very well, I assume the other team will use more picks against them to get open.

Wilt also is up there. Similar to Shaq, he could probably overpower his opponent, but he could shoot fadeaways more often. From what I seen, he doesn't have the footwork as Shaq does, he is better at reading the defense and have more moves.

But in terms of fast pace team, then I would have to choose DRob. I don't think any big man is great at running the floor than DRob, and he is great defensively and his face up game. He'll work wonders for the Clips. As long as he isn't the first option.

[T_L_P]

Robinson was a lot like LeBron in many ways- an absolute genetic freak who for one reason or another tended to shrink when the lights were brightest. People always questioned his mentality, wondered if he was 'too nice', or didn't have that killer instinct. At his peak he was a 30/11/5/2/3 player, MVP winner, DPOY candidate... but then got swept in the first round playing subpar ball. Next season he gets taken to school, absolutely harassed in the WCF by a guy he usually got the best of.

Duncan is as mentally tough as they come. Not loud, flashy, but a stoic killer, silent assassin type. He never put up the monstrous numbers Robinson did in the regular season, but when it was time for the real game to begin Timmy was at the forefront rising above his normal production. Just look at 2003 alone. Robinson in Duncan's place (which would create a weird alternate reality :oldlol: ) absolutely does not win the championship. Coaching can't make up for mental deficiencies.

:bowdown:

Duncan played longer, increased his production in the Playoffs, dragged an undermanned cast to the title (in-case people want to use the teammate argument as the end all be all), and, generally speaking, had better production all around.

Just look at '99. Robinson probably had a better Regular Season, adjusted for minutes, but come Playoff time Duncan was clearly superior.

[fpliii]

None taken, you know you're my dude. Why no comment on Mikan being left out of the Russell, and Wilt debates?

Ummm, you just named pre shotclock the best PG EVER ... and two other seriously dominant all time players with amazing resumes, and games. Hondo being one of the best swingman of all time too, high up in the ranks during his time.

There is no excuse for a guy being 3rd or 4th best, sometimes even 5th best offensively being called a better player than more complete guys.

He needed dominant offensive players for him to play his niche role to perfection to win all these rings in a weak era, with less teams (and just because there was less teams doesn't mean the teams were more stacked)

Rings aren't the exclusive measuring tool for the impact of a player. It's a team achievment, regardless of the influence of a team's best player.

Russell gets so overrated in these arguments it isn't even funny. All evidence points to him being an Alonzo Mourning type. A winner. But as a player? There are better options.
1) I did have a comment, see (3) in my last response.
2) As I posted in CavsFTW's thread, those Celtics teams were mediocre to poor offensively. We can't call them dominant if they played on such bad offenses.
3) Problem with that is again, it brings in the Pippen-Barkley (or even Pippen-Barkley) argument. There's no bonus for being balanced offensively and defensively (don't get me wrong though, Russell was not a scorer by any means, but he did have great scoring games in clinching games when needed).
4) Agree to disagree, at least in the mid-late 60s when the league was integrated.
5) I understand that, but I haven't mentioned the number of rings once my good man. It's just the degree to which he impacted those teams on defense.

[dunksby]

Jabbar would be the only player in the NBA without a twitter handle.
Who the **** have I been following for the past year then? :eek: @KAJ33 (https://twitter.com/kaj33)
Joking aside, I know where you are coming from, I don't see him talking smack on twitter either.

[SamuraiSWISH]

It's just the degree to which he impacted those teams on defense.
Then Ben Wallace, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo needs to be in conversation for best players of all-time. I don't even see the validity for ranking Russell over Duncan. Putting the ball in the hole is still the name of the game, it has more value than defense, or rebounding. The game isn't played exclusively on one end of the floor.

[D-FENS]

I'm taking Hakeem. Just too much overall talent.
2nd pick Duncan
3rd KAJ
4th Wilt


SHaq = missed free throws, injuries, personality and weight issues mitigate his strengths

D-Rob and KG had no post game

Russell is too small

Where da **** is Ewing?

[T_L_P]

Jabbar would be the only player in the NBA without a twitter handle.

I think you mean Duncan.

[Rocketswin2013]

Then Ben Wallace, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo needs to be in conversation for best players of all-time. I don't even see the validity for ranking Russell over Duncan. Putting the ball in the hole is still the name of the game, it has more value than defense, or rebounding. The game isn't played exclusively on one end of the floor.
Nah, Russell wouldn't completely wreck the league. Put him on the Sixers and they'd be top ten defensively. GOAT, no question.

[Rocketswin2013]

I don't see Russell averaging less than 25 rebounds and 8 blocks in this era. Nobody could handle his athleticism in the paint today. Jumps to high, his box outs too strong.

[fpliii]

Then Ben Wallace, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo needs to be in conversation for best players of all-time. I don't even see the validity for ranking Russell over Duncan. Putting the ball in the hole is still the name of the game, it has more value than defense, or rebounding. The game isn't played exclusively on one end of the floor.
Magic? Barkley? Dirk? Nash?

EDIT: Sorry, just reread. Disagree with the bolded.

[fpliii]

I don't see Russell averaging less than 25 rebounds and 8 blocks in this era. Nobody could handle his athleticism in the paint today. Jumps to high, his box outs too strong.
Nah. Probably 10/16/5/5/2.

[RichieW]

Im taking Kareem and Timmy as #1 and #2 for their work ethic and longevity. Shaq and Wilt at #3 and #4 because of their incredible physical profile and their peak ability. The Hakeem, Russell, Garnett and Robinson.

Shaq had possibly the greatest peak of all time, but he liked to play the clown. I'd rather start my franchise with a player like Duncan who will set a more mature tone.

[Micku]

Magic? Barkley? Dirk? Nash?

I think it's a matter of what you consider to be more important between offense or defense in a single player.

Like if you would rather have Barkley or a Dennis Rodman or something similar.

[fpliii]

I think it's a matter of what you consider to be more important between offense or defense in a single player.

Like if you would rather have Barkley or a Dennis Rodman or something similar.
I don't think Rodman is as impactful as Barkley though. It's really tough to find guys who contribute a massive amount on defense, they're generally bigs.

I care more about defense in bigs, offense in perimeter players.

[dunksby]

Simple question, it's 2014, you're a GM, pick your bigman to start a franchise and state your reason(s) for picking your guy. Don't include the team's or era's accomplishments of each star (we know damn well Russell ain't winning 11 titles in this decade, don't troll)...

You get to pick between Bill Russell, Wilt, KAJ, Shaq, Hakeem, TimmyD, KG and David Robinson.

Me, I'm taking KAJ, dat longetivity and probably the most unstoppable shot ever.:bowdown: A close second would be Shaq for pure dominance, imagine Shaq today:eek:

Who you got
1- Kareem (3xNCAA Champion +HS titles and a ton of individual honors) The surest thing you could get without hindsight.
2- Bill Russell (2xNCAA Champion) Great defender and leader another already established winner.
3- Shaq/Wilt: Can't go wrong with either, both enormous and strong, unstoppable force in the paint.
5- Tim Duncan/Hakeem: Big men with the right attitude and great fundamentals. Smart and quick learners, as NBA ready as you can get.
7- Kevin Garnett
8- David Robinson

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

People underrating Russell in here.

Guy revolutionized the game w/ his defense (perfected help defense by leaving his man to rotate over and prevent a drive to the basket; often he

[Rocketswin2013]

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]People underrating Russell in here.

Guy revolutionized the game w/ his defense (perfected help defense by leaving his man to rotate over and prevent a drive to the basket; often he

[STATUTORY]

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]People underrating Russell in here.

Guy revolutionized the game w/ his defense (perfected help defense by leaving his man to rotate over and prevent a drive to the basket; often he

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

But in 2014 Bill Russell is no better than Mutumbo.

Agreed, though both do look good for their ages.

[Micku]

I don't think Rodman is as impactful as Barkley though. It's really tough to find guys who contribute a massive amount on defense, they're generally bigs.

I care more about defense in bigs, offense in perimeter players.

Indeed. I was thinking of a comparable defense vs offense between players without comparing out of position like a guard to a center. Most of the centers or power forwards that I think of are mostly two way players or if they are good offensively, they don't suck defensively. If they suck offensively, they are good defensively.

A guy like Bill Russell is the only player that I can think of who many ppl hold in high regard without averaging 20 ppg in the regular season. He did so in the playoffs. So, I can't find a good comparison.

I can think of two way players like Mourning and compare him to Dirk or Barkley or somebody else who aren't consider to be two way players. But I don't know if that's even a good enough comparison.

[NumberSix]

KAJ without hesitation.

20 years of greatness
You get that Kareem weighed LESS than Durant, right?

[SHAQisGOAT]

Shaq's probably my favorite player, love Timmy, I'm a fan of Bill/Wilt, KG's that ***** but you just gotta go with Kareem.

Most points scored in nba history, crazy longevity, still doing it big in his mid to late 30s, terrifc peak/prime, beast in the rs and ps as well, vastly improved his teams (see 1977), dominated against terrific competition, big impact, amazing overall scorer, had the best shot/move of all-time along with many counters and a pretty good overall post-game, high IQ, great at reading defenses, very athletic 7 footer, good FT shooter, most ppg in a season while shooting over 55%eFG, clutch, played dpoy-level defense for plenty of years, one of the best bigmen passers, great rebounder...

Shaq's a close 2nd and I would've went with him if it was for peaks.



You get that Kareem weighed LESS than Durant, right?

Dat wikipedia knowledge :roll:

[SHAQisGOAT]

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]People underrating Russell in here.

Guy revolutionized the game w/ his defense (perfected help defense by leaving his man to rotate over and prevent a drive to the basket; often he

[Pointguard]

When we talk about who we think is the best offensively, it isn't a guarantee that Jordan wins it all. In fact a good case can be made for Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Lebron and Durant. When we talk defense, despite there being less variation in (skill set, use of athleticism, creativity, resourcefulness, passing, player interaction, range of effectiveness, handle, post game, long distance, middle game, running game, half court game and physical advantages based on body make) we have Russell in a class by himself despite operating with a great majority of similar qualities of other great defensive players.

Its very different if Russell had the greatest length, the weight to handle big guys, and was the greatest rebounder. Like Jordan, Russell does have the cat like quickness to catch a defender off guard to block a shot - think only Ben Wallace and Anthony Davis spring off the ground like Russell did - Russell does seem a little bit faster but I don't know if that is film work or not. To me this was Russell's most outstanding defensive gift along with his great foot movement (think I'm alone there cause nobody talks about KG's foot movement, or at least understand it's value).

The thing about winning 11 of 13 is the mentality to keep going out there and winning all the time is amazing. With that said I would pick Tim Duncan because he could do everything and mesh with everyone. He probably won more games (RS and PS) than the rest (even proportionately to Kareem) despite never having one great team. If he had great teams... .

[BIZARRO]

Wilt. :pimp:

[SamuraiSWISH]

When we talk about who we think is the best offensively, it isn't a guarantee that Jordan wins it all. In fact a good case can be made for Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Kobe, Lebron and Durant.
:oldlol:

[tpols]

Then Ben Wallace, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutombo needs to be in conversation for best players of all-time. I don't even see the validity for ranking Russell over Duncan. Putting the ball in the hole is still the name of the game, it has more value than defense, or rebounding. The game isn't played exclusively on one end of the floor.

If Ben Wallace anchored a defense that went up against centers like Wilt and won 11 rings as a defensive anchor, he would be considered a top 5 GOAT..

Problem is Wallace only has 1 ring.. and he had stacked teams too.

[Pointguard]

:oldlol:
Durant is going to break Jordan records. He's going to have more scoring titles than anybody probably ever. And if he didn't have Westbrook he would have the most plus 33ppg seasons since Chamberlain. You have to be totally nuts to say he doesn't have a case. Best range, best numbers across the board if you consider efficiency and this is before his prime. If you don't know now you will never know.

Kobe has a case too.

[Micku]

Kobe has a case too.

I'm curious of why you said Kobe has a case of being the best offensive player? In what he does? Especially over Jordan. They both have similar games, but Jordan was more effective and scored more points. I could understand if you would say that he is one of the best offensive players.

[Big#50]

As an owner/GM it all depends on what you value. All these centers are so close that there is no wrong answer. Different eras, pace, opponents, and rules benefit all of these players.
I'd go with Duncan GOAT defensive player ever. Best passer along with Walton. Can score in the paint and take you outside. His team respects him and wants to do their best for him. No attitude or drama. Will always be a pro. With him you get the perfect big.
Shaq would be my second choice. His offensive dominance can't be ignored. His defense lacked a lot. He can pout and be lazy. One of the biggest egos ever. Total diva. But in the end he can still destroy frontlines and just take over. He can demoralized opponents like no other.
Duncan
Shaq
Greatest players of all time in my book.






The others.

[Pointguard]

I'm curious of why you said Kobe has a case of being the best offensive player? In what he does? Especially over Jordan. They both have similar games, but Jordan was more effective and scored more points. I could understand if you would say that he is one of the best offensive players.
Range would be the principle argument there. His ability to be great as a support player and a main player - I know, but its still something on the resume. Its not a great argument but it is one.

[TheMan]

Range would be the principle argument there. His ability to be great as a support player and a main player - I know, but its still something on the resume. His insistence. Its not a great argument but it is one.
Kobe has no argument over Jordan, none.

MJ has better midrange, shot selection, off ball movement, finisher at the rim, post moves, scored more on better efficiency. Only thing Kobe has on MJ is the 3ptr and not by much.

[TheMan]

5 pages in and not one first pick for "GOAT" Bill Russell.

Where are the Russell fanboys at? Yeah they were talking alot of smack (CavaliersFTW) in another thread so I made this one for them to state their case and not one poster has picked Russell over the other great bigmen. Guess what, Russell was an era specific player. (Nothing wrong with that, same with George Mikan and Bob Cousy). Anyone who believes he can anchor a team to 5 or 6 titles in this era, much less 11, needs to get their head checked. Sorta like believing fat drunk Babe Ruth can still hit 714 HRs in this era, AIN'T HAPPENING.

Now before I get accused by the delusional Russell stans, I'll say this...Russell deserves to have his name mentioned as a GOAT because of HIS TEAM'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS but GTFO if you think he's the best ever. He isn't even better than half a dozen or so legendary bigmen. I'd take KG over him in a draft right now, no hesitation. And most of you would too...

[fpliii]

EDIT: Redacted, not going to be baited by bad trolling again.

[TheMan]

EDIT: Redacted, not going to be baited by bad trolling again.
I don't blame your hesitance, you're on record here picking KAJ and Shaq as your first choices:oldlol:

Kinda hard to argue for ol' Billy when you yourself picked others before him:cheers:

[fpliii]

I don't blame your hesitance, you're on record here picking KAJ and Shaq as your first choices:oldlol:

Kinda hard to argue for ol' Billy when you yourself picked others before him:cheers:
I picked Hakeem, not KAJ or Shaq. I'd take Russell (or Wilt) over Shaq, not sure about Kareem.

My concern with Russell isn't with his level of play, athleticism, or the competition (since he held up in the late 60s), just how impactful he'd be in the 3pt era (and I'm not talking 80s or early 90s when it was a gimmick shot, he'd still be tremendous). I don't think it'd make a huge difference, but it's enough to make me hesitate.

EDIT: Typo, late 60s, not 90s. But yeah, the 3pt line makes it harder to play defense. Even if we make him better than Hakeem/KG, he has to be several levels better to be worth the pick over Hakeem. Not saying he isn't, but I'm not 100% confident that it's possible to have that kind of impact on defense today (especially since the 3 is such a big part of the game, since 07-08 20%+ of shot attempts have been from distance).

[TheMan]

I picked Hakeem, not KAJ or Shaq. I'd take Russell (or Wilt) over Shaq, not sure about Kareem.

My concern with Russell isn't with his level of play, athleticism, or the competition (since he held up in the late 60s), just how impactful he'd be in the 3pt era. I don't think it'd make a huge difference, but it's enough to make me hesitate.

EDIT: Typo, late 60s, not 90s. But yeah, the 3pt line makes it harder to play defense. Even if we make him better than Hakeem/KG, he has to be several levels better to be worth the pick over Hakeem. Not saying he isn't, but I'm not 100% confident that it's possible to have that kind of impact on defense today (especially since the 3 is such a big part of the game, since 07-08 20%+ of shot attempts have been from distance).
Yep, you picked the Dream, my bad.

Look, there are some genuine Russell haters here saying stuff like he's a poor man's DeAndre Jordan today:facepalm. I'm not saying that, what I do believe is that Russell had an athletic advantage (excluding Wilt) compared to the rest of the league that he just wouldn't have today. Bill Russell today, with all the advantages of modern technology, I'm guessing he'd still be a perrenial All Star defensive C/PF. But there is no way you'll convince me he would dominate the league today like he did in the inferior 60s era. Not unless he teamed up with LeBron, KD and CP3:oldlol:

[fpliii]

Yep, you picked the Dream, my bad.

Look, there are some genuine Russell haters here saying stuff like he's a poor man's DeAndre Jordan today:facepalm. I'm not saying that, what I do believe is that Russell had an athletic advantage (excluding Wilt) compared to the rest of the league that he just wouldn't have today. Bill Russell today, with all the advantages of modern technolog, I'm guessing he'd still be a perrenial All Star defensive C/PF. But there is no way you'll convince me he would dominate the league today like he did in the inferior 60s era. Not unless he teamed up with LeBron, KD and CP3:oldlol:
I can understand where you're coming from. :cheers:

I respect a lot of what you guys are saying, but a few posters (NumberSix, The-Legend-24, MavsSuperFan, and some LeBron alts) just scope out every single one of these threads to troll. A few of you guys (Swish, Don, and yourself) seem to know what's up.

Honestly, what I see from Russ today is 07-08 and 08-09 (pre-injury) KG, with worse scoring but better defense, rebounding and passing (who I felt was MVP his first year in Boston). Even though I'm a Lakers fan, I have no problem admitting that if KG doesn't get hurt (and nobody should bring up Bynum, healthy KG is much more important), we lose three straight Finals to the Celtics.

[AintNoSunshine]

We know Duncan, KG and Shaq could dominate this era, Duncan is the only loyal guy outta the 3 so that's why I chose him.

Those other guys might not even be effective in this era


Dumbazz knicks fan

[Rocketswin2013]

Durant is going to break Jordan records. He's going to have more scoring titles than anybody probably ever. And if he didn't have Westbrook he would have the most plus 33ppg seasons since Chamberlain. You have to be totally nuts to say he doesn't have a case. Best range, best numbers across the board if you consider efficiency and this is before his prime. If you don't know now you will never know.

Kobe has a case too.
You really think KD could get better than he is right now? Like, I just don't see it, at least statistically. LeBron last season was better than ever, but the Cavs days stats from 06-09 arguably blew last years stats out of the water. I think he could get more polished on offense and better on D but statistically there's no way he'll trump what he's doing right now.

[ILLsmak]

Simple question, it's 2014, you're a GM, pick your bigman to start a franchise and state your reason(s) for picking your guy. Don't include the team's or era's accomplishments of each star (we know damn well Russell ain't winning 11 titles in this decade, don't troll)...

You get to pick between Bill Russell, Wilt, KAJ, Shaq, Hakeem, TimmyD, KG and David Robinson.

Me, I'm taking KAJ, dat longetivity and probably the most unstoppable shot ever.:bowdown: A close second would be Shaq for pure dominance, imagine Shaq today:eek:

Who you got

Shaq.

Dude is pretty emo, but he's a good personality, a good teammate, and a helluva player. I really think with the right GM (ME..), he would have stayed with the same team. He also didn't have a lot of years where he had an ideal team. he had some great teammates, but I don't know if he ever got the chance to have a custom fit team. I would build him one...

In fact it almost seems like with the most subtle change, Shaq could have stayed motivated his whole career, too.

-Smak

[Psileas]

Yep, you picked the Dream, my bad.

Look, there are some genuine Russell haters here saying stuff like he's a poor man's DeAndre Jordan today:facepalm. I'm not saying that, what I do believe is that Russell had an athletic advantage (excluding Wilt) compared to the rest of the league that he just wouldn't have today. Bill Russell today, with all the advantages of modern technology, I'm guessing he'd still be a perrenial All Star defensive C/PF. But there is no way you'll convince me he would dominate the league today like he did in the inferior 60s era. Not unless he teamed up with LeBron, KD and CP3:oldlol:

Why wouldn't Russell be able to have a significant athletic advantage over today's centers, especially considering today's technology?
Let's see how consistently you think: Do you also think 80's Jordan playing today would have the same athletic advantage and be able to dominate today's league like he did in the 80's?

[Rocketswin2013]

Why wouldn't Russell be able to have a significant athletic advantage over today's centers, especially considering today's technology?
Let's see how consistently you think: Do you also think 80's Jordan playing today would have the same athletic advantage and be able to dominate today's league like he did in the 80's?
Really? Bill Russell was a decent jumper(wouldn't be anywhere near the highest jumpers of the league today), and undersized at 6'9 235 soaking wet. Be realistic.

[TheMan]

Why wouldn't Russell be able to have a significant athletic advantage over today's centers, especially considering today's technology?
Let's see how consistently you think: Do you also think 80's Jordan playing today would have the same athletic advantage and be able to dominate today's league like he did in the 80's?
Yes I do, and it's simple.

First, the 80s weren't athletically weak like the late 50's to late 60's, Russell's era.

Second, there are players who played against past his prime Jordan who are still playing or played recently that consider Jordan their toughest cover (Bruce Bowen, Metta World Peace and Shawn Marion have talked about how hard MJ was to defend). And we're talking late 90s, early 00s Jordan when he was way past his athletic prime.

Lastly, Dwyane Wade, is smaller, not as strong and nowhere near the shooter MJ was and he's done fine in this era. Kobe Bryant is a cheap copy of Jordan and he's also done pretty good.

Jordan would own this era, it's a perimeter friendly era, Jordan killed in a bigman league, he'd destroy this league.

[Big#50]

Shaq.

Dude is pretty emo, but he's a good personality, a good teammate, and a helluva player. I really think with the right GM (ME..), he would have stayed with the same team. He also didn't have a lot of years where he had an ideal team. he had some great teammates, but I don't know if he ever got the chance to have a custom fit team. I would build him one...

In fact it almost seems like with the most subtle change, Shaq could have stayed motivated his whole career, too.

-Smak
He had shooters everywhere he went. Didn't he weigh about 30 lbs less from 93 to 98 than he did in his peak?? I think that's when he became the most dominant player ever.

[Big#50]

Yes I do, and it's simple.

First, the 80s weren't athletically weak like the late 50's to late 60's, Russell's era.

Second, there are players who played against past his prime Jordan who are still playing or played recently that consider Jordan their toughest cover (Bruce Bowen, Metta World Peace and Shawn Marion have talked about how hard MJ was to defend).

Lastly, Dwyane Wade, is smaller, not as strong and nowhere near the shooter MJ was and he's done fine in this era.

Jordan would own this era, it's a perimeter friendly era, Jordan killed in a bigman league, he'd destroy this league.
Jordan would do great in any era. He was ahead of his time in the 80's and 90's. Greatness transcends eras.

[fpliii]

Really? Bill Russell was a decent jumper(wouldn't be anywhere near the highest jumpers of the league today), and undersized at 6'9 235 soaking wet. Be realistic.
6'9 5/8" or 6'10" barefoot, meaning he'd be listed as 6'11" or 7' (if he got the Hakeem/Ewing treatment).

Dude could get his head to rim level (see CavsFTW's footage), how many other centers can do that?

[Rocketswin2013]

6'9 5/8" or 6'10" barefoot, meaning he'd be listed as 6'11" or 7' (if he got the Hakeem/Ewing treatment).

Dude could get his head to rim level (see CavsFTW's footage), how many other centers can do that? What footage? Where?

[fpliii]

What footage? Where?
This is just a sample he has up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tZmlLMkvdI

He's working on the full mix (next, after Oscar), which will use all of the footage he has available.

[Rocketswin2013]

Alright I'm done on the Bill Russell subject. Gotta stay away from this argument.





:banghead:

[Big#50]

I think Russell would be an SF/PF in this league.

[Psileas]

Yes I do, and it's simple.

I expected you to be biased, thanks for confirming it.


First, the 80s weren't athletically weak like the late 50's to late 60's, Russell's era.

LOL at equating 50's to 60's and calling 60's weak athletically. You know damn well they were not the same, but pretend they are, because Russell managed to dominate both eras.
So, according to you, during some time, athleticism suddenly picked up humongous speed and then remained the same? So, when did this happen exactly? Were the early 70's weak in athleticism? Mid 70's? Late 70's? Early 80's? Do you think the difference between the late 60's and the 80's is smaller than the difference between 80's and 2010's? Where's any kind of evidence?



Second, there are players who played against past his prime Jordan who are still playing or played recently that consider Jordan their toughest cover (Bruce Bowen, Metta World Peace and Shawn Marion have talked about how hard MJ was to defend).

Do you think this wasn't the case with players who played during Russell's time and afterwords? Do you think players of the 70's or even early 80's haven't called Russell or someone of his age their toughest opponent?
Dr.J has called Havlicek one of his toughest opponents, and that's a past prime Havlicek going against an athletic marvel, who retired in the late 80's.
Kareem has called Thurmond his toughest opponent. You know, a guy who came from the "athletically weak" era of Russell has been called the toughest opponent of someone who faced Hakeem and Ewing...


Lastly, Dwyane Wade, is smaller, not as strong and nowhere near the shooter MJ was and he's done fine in this era.

Jordan would own this era, it's a perimeter friendly era, Jordan killed in a bigman league, he'd destroy this league.

I strongly doubt Wade is smaller or weaker than 80's Jordan.
But using some similar arguments with the "anti 60's" people: Players with limited athleticism like Alex English, Adrian Dantley, Mark Aguirre and others were also killing the same "big man" leagues. Heck, a 35 year old, banged up Bernard King was killing it even in the early 90's. Ergo, weak era.
"Let's get real, none of them would be doing that $hit nowadays..."

[TheMan]

Psileas, just answer these simple questions. Do you think George Mikan dominates today? Is Bob Cousy a perrenial All Star in today's league? You don't agree with the term "era specific player"?

Not trying to be a dick, honestly want your opinion on those issues since you seem to know your premodern NBA era.

[Psileas]

Psileas, just answer these simple questions. Do you think George Mikan dominates today? Is Bob Cousy a perrenial All Star in today's league? You don't agree with the term "era specific player"?

Not trying to be a dick, honestly want your opinion on those issues since you seem to know your premodern NBA era.

This is the most significant of your questions. My answer to this is: Hell, no. Humans are adaptable. There hasn't been any evidence that the "era specific player/human" term SHOULD exist. In other words, I've yet to meet a player or whatever else who just gives up because "this new era is too much", and of course I'm talking about physically and mentally healthy, strong individuals, not naturally born quitters (I hope you don't think this is an "era specific" feature as well).

Similarly regarding Mikan, Cousy and others: I guess you're using the old time machine argument, with which I disagree on a logical and arguably factual basis (hey, where are the time travelers from A.D 10,000?). But still, suppose they start playing today and initially they struggle. Do you think they'd give up? Do you think they'd still struggle, regardless of the effort they made? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that these guys had realistically not enough talent, not an "adequate DNA" to dominate today, despite the fact that they were considered the exact opposite in their day?

Here's another way to look at it: If Mikan and Cousy had the "elixir of eternal youth" available to them and could remain young, if not forever, say, for 1,000 years, do you think they'd be able to play basketball at a high level for only like 20 years? Then they'd do what? Become accountants? Would they similarly be able to remain accountants for centuries? Hey, maybe, being "era specific accountants", they'd have to fall another level and, after a few years fall into complete obscurity, they wouldn't even be able to pick garbage from the streets. Except...they were humans. Therefore, this scenario probably wouldn't apply at all.

[TheMan]

So you don't think athletes aren't bigger, faster and stronger than before? Obviously not by human evolution, that doesn't happen in a span of decades but by sports medicine, better nuitrition, modern training and facilities etc. How do you explain olympic records being broken every 4 years? I saw in another thread that the high jump record in Russell's time was 6 ft 11 1/2 IIRC, it's now at 8'3 that is a HUGE diference.

[jlip]

In a draft, I'm going with Kareem.

[Psileas]

So you don't think athletes aren't bigger, faster and stronger than before? Obviously not by human evolution, that doesn't happen in a span of decades but by sports medicine, better nuitrition, modern training and facilities etc. How do you explain olympic records being broken every 4 years? I saw in another thread that the high jump record in Russell's time was 6 ft 11 1/2 IIRC, it's now at 8'3 that is a HUGE diference.

Did I ever say anything different?
But you have to realize that these comparative differences aren't that impressive, especially if you take into account technology that doesn't even involve human bodies. Bolt isn't getting 9.58 running on the terrain of the 1936 Olympic Stadium, period (although he'd still dominate, because he's an incredible athlete). The high jump record isn't anywhere near 8'3 if the jumper can only take 2-3 steps, lands on crappy soil and doesn't use the Fosbury Flop (actually, it's not 8'3 anyway, it's around 8'0.5) On the contrary Mark Spitz was swimming in the early 90's (in his 40's) as fast as he swam in his prime, just because he wore more advanced suits...
Why would basketball have to belong to a different category?

PS. If it's true that Olympic records are broken every 4 years, how can someone argue that the 80's are athletically "strong"? 6 Olympiads have passed since then.

[secund2nun]

Shaq or Duncan...probably Shaq.

[TheReal Kendall]

KAJ for me. Then probably Shaq or Wilt

The league would be awesome with all the great bigs in the league at the same time.

[Pointguard]

You really think KD could get better than he is right now? Like, I just don't see it, at least statistically. LeBron last season was better than ever, but the Cavs days stats from 06-09 arguably blew last years stats out of the water. I think he could get more polished on offense and better on D but statistically there's no way he'll trump what he's doing right now.
Hey, I said the same thing last year about Durant so I feel what you are saying. But he finds ways. to improve. He not going to stop til he's 60/40/90 on 30ppg. His game is clean and sharp and he keeps refining that. We really don't know.


Kobe has no argument over Jordan, none.

MJ has better midrange, shot selection, off ball movement, finisher at the rim, post moves, scored more on better efficiency. Only thing Kobe has on MJ is the 3ptr and not by much.

Please watch your tone when talking about the great Kobe. Kobe is in every argument as he is in every grain of sand you blasphemous butcher of basketball deities.

Actually the angle I took was that Kobe had a skill set for every practical distance on the floor. Versatility in scoring has its place just as a more versatile player can morph into more needs. There is a place for that in making a case for say a complete scoring machine. I personally don't think he was better than Jordan scoring wise and already said as much.

[LAZERUSS]

Psileas already addressed this "era" nonsense. Go ahead, pick any season in NBA history, and then either jump to the next season, or go back to the previous season, and I will show you the greats of that era generally being just as dominant in any of those years.

Then there are the "bridges", the players whose careers spanned decades. Nate Thurmond brutally outplayed Bob Lanier in their career H2H's. And yet Lanier would be among the most dominant players in the 70's, and in fact, probably gave a prime Moses more trouble than any other center. And we know that Moses just brutalized all of his other peers in the late 70's and early-to-mid 80's, including Kareem (whom he just owned in their 40 career H2H's.)

Of course, Kareem in the greatest "bridge" of all-time. He played 20 seasons, and his career nearly spanned four decades. As great as KAJ was, a PEAK Kareem really struggled against an old Wilt, and an aging Thurmond. In fact, his HIGH game against Thurmond, in 40 career starts, was only 34 points. And, in those 40 games, he only topped 30 points against Nate in five games. Even more remarkable... his overall FG% against Thurmond in those games was an awful .440.

Compare that PEAK Kareem with a 38-39 year old Kareem, against a 22-23 year old Hakeem in their first TEN STRAIGHT games: A 32 ppg on a staggering .621 FG%. Included were SEVEN games (again, out of TEN), of 30+, with THREE of 40+ (40, 43, and 46...and that 46 point game came in only 37 minutes and on 21-30 shooting.)

A PEAK Kareem only had about a dozen games, in 40 H2H's with Thurmond, in which he shot about 50%. A 37-41 year old Kareem, in 23 career H2H's with Olajuwon, only had THREE in which he shot LESS than 50%, and in fact, had TWELVE above 60%, and FIVE above 70%!!! BTW, in his 28 career H2H's with Chamberlain, 27 of which came after Wilt's knee surgery and a 34+ year old Wilt, KAJ shot above 50% in ten, and only had one game above 60%. He also had SIX below .399..and overall, Chamberlain outshot him from the field by a sizeable margin. And yet a 37-41 year old KAJ outshot a 23-26 year old Hakeem by a margin of .607 to .512 in their 23 career H2H's (and outscored Olajuwon in those 23 games, as well.)

Furthermore, a PEAK KAJ played four seasons IN the WILT-era, and faced several of the same centers that a PRIME Chamberlain had faced earlier in the 60's. Guess what? Kareem was not even remotely close to as dominant as a PRIME Chamberlain had been against the SAME centers (most of whom were aging and declining by the time a PEAK Kareem was battling them.) The numbers a PRIME Wilt put up against Dierking, Imhoff, Reed, Bellamy, and Thurmond were LIGHT YEARS greater than what a PRIME Kareem did against those SAME centers. BTW, just the year before Kareem came into the league, Wilt hung a 60 point game on Dierking, and a 66 point game on Jim Fox. Kareem's high against both... 41 points.

And a PRIME Chamberlain just SHELLED a PRIME Thurmond in their 23 H2H games from '65 thru the '67 Finals. Even a Wilt beyond those years, and dramatically reducing his shooting, just crushed Nate in both rebounding and FG%'s in their three post-season series (he outshot Nate by margins of .500 to .392; .611 to .373; and against Nate in Thurmond's greatest season, by a margin of .560 to .343. Meanwhile, KAJ, in his three playoff series H2H's with Thurmond, could only shoot .486, .428, and get this... .405 (in a series in which Nate outscored and ousthot him.)

I could go on. Player after player that dominated in one decade, and that would dominate well into another. Barry, Hondo, Gervin, Gilmore, Moses, Dr. J, and Kareem to name a few.

And for those that claim that the "modern NBA" began with the arrival of Magic and Bird in '80...how do they explain that the first five MVP winners came from players who played in the 70's; the first six rebounding leaders from players from the 70's, and the first five FG% winners, players from the '70's? Or that an older Gilmore was far more dominant in the 80's. Same with Dantley. Or that an old KAJ, who couldn't jump over a match-stick, was routinely hanging 40+ point games on the likes of Hakeem and Ewing...both of whom would go on to be two of the best four centers of the 90's.

Hell, in the 58-59 season, the NBA shot .756 from the FT line. Which is exactly what TODAY's NBA is shooting (and last year it was at .753.) Oh, and in the 73-74 season, the NBA shot .771 from the line. If today's players are indeed more skilled, how do you explain the FT shooting?

Basketball has been around since the 1890's. Colleges began playing it in the late 1890's. There were PROFESSIONAL teams dating as far back as 1920. The NBA was formed in 1946. And the reality is, aside from the shot-clock in the mid-50's, and the 3pt shot in the late 70's (BTW the ABA was using it in the 60's), the game has changed very little. Yes, there have been minor tweaks to the rules, but most all of those had little effect. I have read those that claimed that the widening of the lane from 12 to 16 feet before the start of the '65 season had a dramatic effect on Chamberlain. The reality was, it had ZERO impact on Chamberlain's dominance. In fact, in the first half of the '64-65 season, Wilt's scoring INCREASED by a solid margin over his previous season. And, his FG%'s went thru the roof AFTER the widening. BTW, college basketball STILL uses the 12 ft lane.

The game TODAY is essentially the SAME game that was invented in 1890. The court dimensions; the hoop height and diameter; the number of players; and the same basic rules as nearly 40 years ago, and aside from the 3pt line, as far back as 60 years ago. And it is a SIMPLE game, as well. It all comes down to shooting, passing, rebounding, and defense. Nothing else. And little kids have been playing it in every decade in the last 100+ years.

Finally...does anyone in their right mind believe that a 2000 Shaq would not be as great today (or even greater)? How about a '95 Hakeem? Or a '91 MJ? Or an '87 Magic? Or an '86 Bird? Or an '83 Moses? Or a '75 McAdoo? Or a '73 Dr. J? Or a '72 Kareem?

Carry that further. We know that an aging Thurmond gave a PRIME Kareem FAR more trouble than a 23-26 year old Hakeem did against a shell of a Kareem. And yet NO ONE would have claimed that Thurmond was a better player than either Russell or Wilt (and even Reed might have an argument, as well.) Again, a mid-60's Chamberlain just carpet-bombed Thurmond (and was still easily outplaying him in his LAST season in '73.)

If an aging Thurmond could outplay a prime KAJ in his greatest scoring season, just what would a mid-60's Nate have done against him? And by extension...a mid-60's Wilt?

The game TODAY, is only played by MARGINALLY better players today, and only at a MARGINALLY higher level,...than even 50 years ago. Hell, how do you explain a 37 year old 6-2 white guy running away with the APG (and in only 33 mpg); or a 6-8 WHITE guy running away with the RPG title (and in only 35 mpg); or a 6-11 WHITE guy winning the BPG title; all in the same season, and only a couple of years ago? And go back just 10 years ago, when a 6-7 center won the DPOY and led the league in rebounding (in two straight years.) Or go back 20 years ago, when a 6-8 Rodman was running away with RPG crowns (in less than 40 mpg), and in leagues with Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, and Shaq. Or a few years before that, when a 6-5 Barkley led the league in RPG.

The reality is...take the best players from as far back as the 60's (and beyond), plant them in 2014...and they would still be great. Only their numbers would change, and only because of the way the game is played today. And yes, the reverse is also true. Lebron, KG, Dirk, CP3, Kobe, Shaq, Duncan, et al...would have been great in the 60's. And yes, their overall numbers likely would have increased in the 60's, BUT, I would maintain their FG%'s would have declined because of the CONDITIONS that existed at the time (most notably the brutal schedules, and the fact that they would be expected to play 40-45 mpg.)

Again, the game today is essentially the same game that was being played 40-50-60+ years ago.

[LAZERUSS]

The next player big man who is far superior to Russell will be the first. That being said, Hakeem, Wilt, and Kareem (as well Walton) for some time were better two-way players. Pippen is also a better two-way player than Magic.

Hakeem is probably my pick, though there is no wrong answer here (Shaq's my favorite player all-time, but I wouldn't go with him or Robinson based on what we know in retrospect).

Interesting...

So you wouldn't take a Shaq over Hakeem, despite the fact that Shaq led team's to more titles, more 60+ win seasons, better post-season team success, was much more dominant statistically, more FMVPs, more dominant in the post-season, as many MVPs and considerably higher finishes in the MVP balloting, ...as well as downright owning Hakeem in their career H2H's, including the their playoff H2H's????

[fpliii]

Interesting...

So you wouldn't take a Shaq over Hakeem, despite the fact that Shaq led team's to more titles, more 60+ win seasons, was much more dominant statistically, and downright owned Hakeem in their career H2H's, including the their playoff H2H's????
If I'm drafting them in today's game. Shaq would get called for an offensive foul every possession (just as he would in the 60s). This wouldn't be a problem with Hakeem, Wilt, Russell, or Kareem IMO.

I say this with Shaq as my favorite player all-time.

[LAZERUSS]

If I'm drafting them in today's game. Shaq would get called for an offensive foul every possession (just as he would in the 60s). This wouldn't be a problem with Hakeem, Wilt, Russell, or Kareem IMO.

I say this with Shaq as my favorite player all-time.

I think you are basing that on a 2000+ Shaq. A Shaq in the 90's was much more athletic, and still a physical force (albeit, not as overpowering as a 2000's Shaq.) He would adapt.

BTW, I have always wondered why Jackson didn't use Shaq, withOUT the ball, more often. Several times a game, Shaq would come down the floor, overpower his defender(s) in the lane, and receive a pass at point-blank range, which was an automatic dunk. Same with Chamberlain. Both of them could have been even more dominant IMHO.

[fpliii]

I think you are basing that on a 2000+ Shaq. A Shaq in the 90's was much more athletic, and still a physical force (albeit, not as overpowering as a 2000's Shaq.) He would adapt.
I agree, but I have all four of the players I mentioned ahead of 90s Shaq.

However, I do think that young Shaq was a game-changer defensively, and was super fast. Just not a GOAT level center just yet IMO.

[fpliii]

BTW, I have always wondered why Jackson didn't use Shaq, withOUT the ball, more often. Several times a game, Shaq would come down the floor, overpower his defender(s) in the lane, and receive a pass at point-blank range, which was an automatic dunk. Same with Chamberlain. Both of them could have been even more dominant IMHO.
It was unnecessary with Shaq IMO. With Wilt I think it would help, because he generally wasn't surrounded by shooters (except for his time with the Sixers). Unless you have proper spacing, it's impossible to run an isolation-heavy low-post offense IMO.

[LAZERUSS]

I agree, but I have all four of the players I mentioned ahead of 90s Shaq.

However, I do think that young Shaq was a game-changer defensively, and was super fast. Just not a GOAT level center just yet IMO.


In Shaq's SECOND season, and at age 21...

29.3 ppg, 13.2 rpg, and a .599 FG%.



In his THIRD season, and at age 22...

29.3 ppg, 11.4 rpg, .583 FG%...led his team to a 60-22 record, and hung a 29-14-6 .595 series on a peak Hakeem in the Finals.


Compare those with his 2000 season (a PEAK Shaq)...

29.7 ppg, 13.6 rpg, .574 FG%...led his team to a 67-15 record, a title, and with a 38-17 .611 Finals (albeit against the scrub combo of Smits-Davis.)

[fpliii]

In Shaq's SECOND season, and at age 21...

29.3 ppg, 13.2 rpg, and a .599 FG%.



In his THIRD season, and at age 22...

29.3 ppg, 11.4 rpg, .583 FG%...led his team to a 60-22 record, and hung a 29-14-6 .595 series on a peak Hakeem in the Finals.


Compare those with his 2000 season (a PEAK Shaq)...

29.7 ppg, 13.6 rpg, .574 FG%...led his team to a 67-15 record, a title, and with a 38-17 .611 Finals (albeit against the scrub combo of Smits-Davis.)
Definitely was a beast.

BTW, just wondering, who would your top 10 big men low post scorers all-time be? ShaqAttack just recently got me researching Lanier, so I wonder who else I'm missing out on.

[LAZERUSS]

Definitely was a beast.

BTW, just wondering, who would your top 10 big men low post scorers all-time be? ShaqAttack just recently got me researching Lanier, so I wonder who else I'm missing out on.

Lanier actually had decent range. Similar to Willis Reed.

I haven't given that list a lot of thought. It would probably depend on what you mean by low-post scoring. Only scoring at the rim? Wilt and Shaq for sure. Up to 10 ft? Wilt, KAJ, Shaq, and Moses.

From 0-20 ft, then you bring in a ton of great "bigs" like McAdoo, Dirk, and KG.

In between... Robinson, Lanier, Ewing, Hakeem, Bellamy, McHale, and Hayes. And I'm sure that I am missing some.

And if you include ANY player... Dantley was probably a Top-5 all-time post-up scorer, and Barkley would probably be in the Top-10.

[fpliii]

Lanier actually had decent range. Similar to Willis Reed.

I haven't given that list a lot of thought. It would probably depend on what you mean by low-post scoring. Only scoring at the rim? Wilt and Shaq for sure. Up to 10 ft? Wilt, KAJ, Shaq, and Moses.

From 0-20 ft, then you bring in a ton of great "bigs" like McAdoo, Dirk, and KG.

In between... Robinson, Lanier, Ewing, Hakeem, Bellamy, and Hayes. And I'm sure that I am missing some.

And if you include ANY player... Dantley was probably a Top-5 all-time post-up scorer, and Barkley would probably be in the Top-10.
Good stuff, I was recently watching some monster McAdoo game (I think against the Caps?).

What about Duncan? Do any other non-bigs warrant mention other than Dantley and Barkley?

[VIntageNOvel]

lew alcindor

[LAZERUSS]

Good stuff, I was recently watching some monster McAdoo game (I think against the Caps?).

What about Duncan? Do any other non-bigs warrant mention other than Dantley and Barkley?

I forgot about Timmy.

Bernard King?

[fpliii]

I forgot about Timmy.

Bernard King?
Good call.

What about Walton? Do you think he'd qualify?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I forgot about Timmy.

Bernard King?

Some great BK footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmRf5epYgso

:cheers:

[Black Mamba's B]

You're foolish if you don't think Hakeem's skills would translate to today's game. Op seems like you have an obvious lack of respect for one of the game's greatest Mr Bill Russell. On topic I'd take Shaq. He has the biggest personality so I'm making money and he is so dominant offensively and can be defensively as well

[LAZERUSS]

Good call.

What about Walton? Do you think he'd qualify?

I have no doubt that a prime, and healthy Walton, could have been a bigger scorer. But that was just not his game. His greatest game came in the '73 NCAA Finals, when he scored 44 points... on 21-22 shooting. He was certainly capable of scoring more, but he was also a brilliant passer, rebounder, and defender. Too bad he was seldom healthy.

[LAZERUSS]

Some great BK footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmRf5epYgso

:cheers:

:cheers:

His 83-84 playoff series against the Pistons was just unfathomable. 42.6 ppg on a .604 FG%.

:bowdown:

[TheMan]

Good stuff LAZERUSS.

I must admit that I started really paying attention to the NBA in the mid 80s and really haven't taken the time to learn about other greats before the "modern era" except for some Wilt and Bill stuff. Didn't realize Nate was killing KAJ like that. Will look into those guys you mentioned.

BTW, what's your take on the original bigman, George Mikan? Can he cut it today if he was born in 1990?

[SHAQisGOAT]

What about Duncan? Do any other non-bigs warrant mention other than Dantley and Barkley?

In terms of skill in the post, really up there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBnwSeMiVaU

I usually say a player is "non-big" when he's neither a C nor a PF, Barkley was mostly a PF so I wouldn't call him a non-big, you're probably taking height into consideration yea.

AD is the best scorer in the post for non-bigs, easily, even considering bigs he's one of the very best in terms of post scoring.

[LAZERUSS]

Good stuff LAZERUSS.

I must admit that I started really paying attention to the NBA in the mid 80s and really haven't taken the time to learn about other greats before the "modern era" except for some Wilt and Bill stuff. Didn't realize Nate was killing KAJ like that. Will look into those guys you mentioned.

BTW, what's your take on the original bigman, George Mikan? Can he cut it today if he was born in 1990?

Only Deuce has actually seen Mikan play here. He was before my time. My only problem with Mikan was that he dominated in the pre-shot-clock era, and in a league that had few black players. As a sidenote, Bob Kurland outplayed Mikan in their college H2H. Had Kurland chosen to go pro, he might have been more dominant than Mikan.

[SHAQisGOAT]

:cheers:

His 83-84 playoff series against the Pistons was just unfathomable. 42.6 ppg on a .604 FG%.

:bowdown:

Then in the following series, Knicks losing 4-3 to the Celtics..

Bird: 30.4 ppg on 58.5% FG, 64.9% TS (along with 10.6 rpg and 7.1 apg)
King: 29.1 ppg on 54.5% FG, 59.7% TS

Gonna underrate Bird? :D


On the real though, peak King was a freaking beast, shame for injuries.

[Pointguard]

Good stuff, I was recently watching some monster McAdoo game (I think against the Caps?).

What about Duncan? Do any other non-bigs warrant mention other than Dantley and Barkley?
Post players

High Repertoire
Hakeem, McHale, Kareem, Petite

Power
Shaq, Wilt, Mikan, - non bigs K Malone, Barkley

Not so much Gilmore

Plenty to do in the post
Duncan, KG

Asterisk
Walton, Yao, Sabonis

Non descript but lets gets some boards with it:
Hayes and Moses Malone


Non Centers
Worthy, King, Dantley, Jordan, Oscar, Baylor, Doc J, The Pearl, Frazier

[LAZERUSS]

Then in the following series, Knicks losing 4-3 to the Celtics..

Bird: 30.4 ppg on 58.5% FG, 64.9% TS (along with 10.6 rpg and 7.1 apg)
King: 29.1 ppg on 54.5% FG, 59.7% TS

Gonna underrate Bird? :D


On the real though, peak King was a freaking beast, shame for injuries.

Bird was an all-time great. You and I only disagree where we would rank him. And at his peak, he was a near unanimous MVP (and three-in-a-row), and as great as anyone that has ever played the game.

:cheers:

[LAZERUSS]

Post players

High Repertoire
Hakeem, McHale, Kareem, Petite

Power
Shaq, Wilt, Mikan, - non bigs K Malone, Barkley

Not so much Gilmore

Plenty to do in the post
Duncan, KG

Asterisk
Walton, Yao, Sabonis

Non descript but lets gets some boards with it:
Hayes and Moses Malone


Non Centers
Worthy, King, Dantley, Jordan, Oscar, Baylor, Doc J, The Pearl, Frazier

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[TheMan]

You're foolish if you don't think Hakeem's skills would translate to today's game. Op seems like you have an obvious lack of respect for one of the game's greatest Mr Bill Russell. On topic I'd take Shaq. He has the biggest personality so I'm making money and he is so dominant offensively and can be defensively as well
Not really. On page 5 I wrote that Bill Russell should be mentioned as an all time great but my problem with him is that he wasn't as well rounded (offensively) as other great big men. In my opinion, to be considered as the all time greatest, you have to have no major weaknesses or as little as possible (Shaq, Wilt FT shooting, Larry and Magic, subpar defenders etc.)...

I'm sorry, Bill Russell being the 3rd-5th best scorer on the Celtics just doesn't cut it for me.

[Pointguard]

Then in the following series, Knicks losing 4-3 to the Celtics..

Bird: 30.4 ppg on 58.5% FG, 64.9% TS (along with 10.6 rpg and 7.1 apg)
King: 29.1 ppg on 54.5% FG, 59.7% TS

Gonna underrate Bird? :D

On the real though, peak King was a freaking beast, shame for injuries.

In all fairness to BK, if Bird guards him he wins that matchup. McHale was a great defender as was the Celtic team.

[LAZERUSS]

Good stuff LAZERUSS.

I must admit that I started really paying attention to the NBA in the mid 80s and really haven't taken the time to learn about other greats before the "modern era" except for some Wilt and Bill stuff. Didn't realize Nate was killing KAJ like that. Will look into those guys you mentioned.

BTW, what's your take on the original bigman, George Mikan? Can he cut it today if he was born in 1990?


I would never claim that Nate was "killing KAJ" but here is Julizaver's research on their H2H's when Nate was still a fulltime starter in the league.



I am posting the aggregated stats of Kareem against Nate Thurmond during the period 1969 - 1973 season by season, as in that period both players met 3 times in the playoffs and in total of 34 times (including the regular season meetings):

1969 - 1970 (Kareem's rookie season) 3 games - reg.season

Kareem - 42.0 mpg 21.67 ppg, 12.0 rpg, 4.0 apg, 0.348 FG/FGA

Nate ---- 46.7 mpg 20.67 ppg, 17.0 rpg, 3.3 apg, 0.490 FG/FGA

1970 - 1971 6 games - reg.season

Kareem - 26.67 ppg, 14.7 rpg, 0.484 FG/FGA

Nate ---- 23.83 ppg, 11.0 rpg, 0.477 FG/FGA

1970 - 1971 5 games - playoffs

Kareem - 39.2 mpg 27.8 ppg, 15.6 rpg, 0.6 apg, 0.486 FG/FGA

Nate ---- 38.4 mpg 17.60 ppg, 10.2 rpg, 3.0 apg, 0.371 FG/FGA

1971 - 1972 3 games - reg.season

Kareem - 24.00 ppg, 16.3 rpg, 0.441 FG/FGA

Nate ---- 16.33 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 0.260 FG/FGA

1972 - 1973 5 games - playoffs

Kareem - 47.0 mpg 22.8 ppg, 19.0 rpg, 5.4 apg, 0.405 FG/FGA

Nate ---- 46.0 mpg 25.40 ppg, 17.8 rpg, 5.2 apg, 0.434 FG/FGA

1972 - 1973 6 games - reg.season

Kareem - 25.83 ppg, 13.7 rpg, 0.488 FG/FGA

Nate ---- 13.67 ppg, 15.0 rpg, 0.367 FG/FGA

1972 - 1973 6 games - playoffs

Kareem - 46.0 mpg 22.83 ppg, 16.2 rpg, 2.8 apg, 0.428 FG/FGA

Nate ---- 42.5 mpg 13.5 ppg, 9.8 rpg, 3.2 apg, 0.423 FG/FGA

[SHAQisGOAT]

In all fairness to BK, if Bird guards him he wins that matchup. McHale was a great defender as was the Celtic team.


Maxwell was the one guarding King the most, McHale was coming off the bench and didn't guard him as much as Cornbread, he was 2nd in time spent guarding BK, let's say, though. Larry also had plenty of shots at him, King easily guarded Bird more than the other way around though, mostly because the Knicks had nobody better suited for it, in their starting line-up, so yea you have a point if you're trying to say that King had to "use more energy" (but, on the other hand, Bird also did more on the boards, playmaking and team d). Anyways, with that said, what you've said are just assumptions too, fact is that Bernard was still killing any defender on him and Bird was eating them alive (BK and so on), even beating King at his "own game", his maing thing, scoring, while being better all-around as you can't also forget that Bird grabbed 40 more rebounds than King in the series, and averaged a considerable higher number of assists, so it's not "just" the scoring even though Larry also was clearly above in that department.
And you just don't put your best offensive player on the opponent's best offensive player, for long stretches, when you have other players who can do it, plus can expend more energy on defense and/or do it better.. Always happened and will continue to happen, even with dudes like Jordan, Kareem, Lebron....

Also, speaking of team defense, Knicks had the best ranked defense in the 1983-84 regular season.

[Pointguard]

Maxwell was the one guarding King the most, McHale was coming off the bench and didn't guard him as much as Cornbread, he was 2nd in time spent guarding BK, let's say, though. Larry also had plenty of shots at him, King easily guarded Bird more than the other way around though, mostly because the Knicks had nobody better suited for it, in their starting line-up, so yea you have a point if you're trying to say that King had to "use more energy" (but, on the other hand, Bird also did more on the boards, playmaking and team d). Anyways, with that said, what you've said are just assumptions too, fact is that Bernard was still killing any defender on him and Bird was eating them alive (BK and so on), even beating King at his "own game", his maing thing, scoring, while being better all-around as you can't also forget that Bird grabbed 40 more rebounds than King in the series, and averaged a considerable higher number of assists, so it's not "just" the scoring even though Larry also was clearly above in that department.
And you just don't put your best offensive player on the opponent's best offensive player, for long stretches, when you have other players who can do it, plus can expend more energy on defense and/or do it better.. Always happened and will continue to happen, even with dudes like Jordan, Kareem, Lebron....

Also, speaking of team defense, Knicks had the best ranked defense in the 1983-84 regular season.


McHale guarded King most of the time and there are articles of McHale and King going at it - it was not Maxwell as you have conjured in your head. Maxwell was brought in to try to rough King up but King humiliated him and made him look like a fool - Maxwell was missing hard fouls! But Maxwell, the hitman, got off his pops to the eye and head before he left. McHale was more effective because of the long arms. McHale even said "we are going to stop this B" and it was front lines in the NY papers. King did have two 40 point games in that series.

This is Bird's first peak year and still he King was much more of phenomenal scorer. He had Bird by at least 80% points in FG% very close right at 70% points in TS% and EFG% and scored 3 more ppg for the regular season that year.

In the playoffs King still had 50% points higher in FG% along with 10% points TS and 40% points in EFG and despite it being Birds best point per game average in the playoffs, King still had him by seven full points per game. These are not small margins.

Bird was guarding truck Robinson who hung out under the basket so the rebounds are suppose to favor him. Plus he was just a better rebounder anyway. King tired at the end of the series because of his duties.

[fpliii]

In terms of skill in the post, really up there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBnwSeMiVaU

I usually say a player is "non-big" when he's neither a C nor a PF, Barkley was mostly a PF so I wouldn't call him a non-big, you're probably taking height into consideration yea.

AD is the best scorer in the post for non-bigs, easily, even considering bigs he's one of the very best in terms of post scoring.



Post players

High Repertoire
Hakeem, McHale, Kareem, Petite

Power
Shaq, Wilt, Mikan, - non bigs K Malone, Barkley

Not so much Gilmore

Plenty to do in the post
Duncan, KG

Asterisk
Walton, Yao, Sabonis

Non descript but lets gets some boards with it:
Hayes and Moses Malone


Non Centers
Worthy, King, Dantley, Jordan, Oscar, Baylor, Doc J, The Pearl, Frazier
:applause:

[Orlando Magic]

Career? Kareem.
Peak or guy who I think can most likely bring me a title by himself for a 3-4 year stretch? Shaq.

[TheMan]

Career? Kareem.
Peak or guy who I think can most likely bring me a title by himself for a 3-4 year stretch? Shaq.

Maybe you should consider Hakeem instead. His best teammate was an over the hill Drexler. Shaq won his titles with Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade and missed with a player who I feel could've had a GOAT career if not for injuries, Penny Hardaway. I wouldn't call that winning by himself.:cheers:

[SHAQisGOAT]

McHale guarded King most of the time and there are articles of McHale and King going at it - it was not Maxwell as you have conjured in your head. Maxwell was brought in to try to rough King up but King humiliated him and made him look like a fool - Maxwell was missing hard fouls! But Maxwell, the hitman, got off his pops to the eye and head before he left. McHale was more effective because of the long arms. McHale even said "we are going to stop this B" and it was front lines in the NY papers. King did have two 40 point games in that series.

This is Bird's first peak year and still he King was much more of phenomenal scorer. He had Bird by at least 80% points in FG% very close right at 70% points in TS% and EFG% and scored 3 more ppg for the regular season that year.

In the playoffs King still had 50% points higher in FG% along with 10% points TS and 40% points in EFG and despite it being Birds best point per game average in the playoffs, King still had him by seven full points per game. These are not small margins.

Bird was guarding truck Robinson who hung out under the basket so the rebounds are suppose to favor him. Plus he was just a better rebounder anyway. King tired at the end of the series because of his duties.


[B]Why are you making stuff up, really? :rolleyes: Maxwell was the one guarding King the most, not that McHale didn't guard him a lot but he was 2nd in that department, right after Cornbread. Maxwell was brought in? If anything it was McHale who was brought in, because Max was starting. Conjured in my head? :wtf: :facepalm I've watched a full 3 games from the series not long ago. I'd even upload those full games on youtube just to prove my point if they didn't take it down, but here, watch some highlights if you want:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEVdHo2OYs4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX45kgRREbQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrHCrwU6InU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWr5JLVZV-E

Not enough, want an article too?



Even before the first forearm shiver was fired in anger, Boston's M.L. Carr, a little-used sub who's chiefly renowned for his strong-arm stuff, publicly predicted, "Bernard has scored his last 40 points. We've got somebody who can stop him." That somebody was 6'8" forward Cedric Maxwell. Stopping King promised to be no mean feat because in the Knicks' five-game playoff series with Detroit, the 6'7" King had averaged a remarkable 42.6 points a game, including 44 in the decisive game. But Maxwell was unmoved by this feat, and the day before the series began he said, "He ain't getting 40 on us. We're going to stop the bitch."

[QUOTE]Maxwell later insisted he had only been kidding, but when King scored 26 points in Game 1 and then was held to 13 in Game 2

[Pointguard]

Why are you making stuff up, really? :rolleyes: Maxwell was the one guarding King the most, not that McHale didn't guard him a lot but he was 2nd in that department, right after Cornbread. Maxwell was brought in? If anything it was McHale who was brought in, because Max was starting. Conjured in my head? :wtf: :facepalm I've watched a full 3 games from the series not long ago. I'd even upload those full games on youtube just to prove my point if they didn't take it down, but here, watch some highlights if you want:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEVdHo2OYs4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX45kgRREbQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrHCrwU6InU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWr5JLVZV-E

Not enough, want an article too?





So McHale even said "we're going to stop this bitch"? :rolleyes: Typical Kevin McHale :rolleyes:

Anyways, like I've said, King was still pretty much murking whoever.

Who was talking about the regular-season though? So you're saying peak King was a better scorer than Larry Bird? Most likely yea, peak King is one of the GOAT scorers, at the very top in that regard. Bird was still MUCH better in rebounding, passing/playmaking and even had him by a comfortable margin in overall D, plus he was close in scoring and was more versatile doing it. Bird was top10 in points and rebounds, leading non-guards in assists, 2nd in PER, 2nd in WS, 1st in DWS and 2nd in DRtg, getting MVP, making all-defensive... But you wanna boil it down to scoring, go ahead..
Oh and, again, when their teams went against each other in the playoffs, Bird outscored him while being more efficient, grabbed much more boards, made much more assists, outplayed him in game7 and won the series. That's prime Bird for ya. So yea keep mentioning other "things" and making shit up.
One, you brought up scoring.
You brought up TS%.
You brought up FG%.
And that is all I addressed.

Those are things I know Bernard King was great at. At a level few would ever achieve including Bird. Few players that ever played were better than Bird overall and I say that frequently, I don't have a tier over Bird in overall offense. But a lot of people here have these one size fits all for everybody. Bird simply wasn't on the same level as King that year in scoring efficiency and productivity. Its not the end of the world or some crazy assertion. King was off the hook in those categories. King would shoot 59% and 57% fg with over 15 attempts per game. He was a high efficiency scorer and he did it from all over. When healthy he had one of the most impressive shots in the game ever.

Just like Jordan wasn't the best everything, nobody is. I had an argument on here with someone saying Jordan was more efficient in his movement than BK was. King rarely did pump fakes and frequently took one or two dribbles and shoot in complete flow. He moved the ball as quick as anybody ever.

My memory is still pretty good but the NY papers did put McHale on the front cover. It definitely sounds like that jerk Maxwell, tho. The difference of what King averaged at the Garden where Maxwell was allowed to do everything short of kidnap King is huge. King averaged 37 at home and only 23 at Boston. The refs were flat out scared in Boston but I'm glad the league isn't that ridiculous anymore. You did see the series and you don't talk about how Parrish took King out, early in that last game. Boston was dirty and had a totally crazy ref/arena advantage.

Bird flat out said, “I didn’t guard Bernard. I knew I had no chance guarding Bernard.” and Bird was second team all defense. In the NY Times I recall Bird saying "Bernard was the best SF in the league" - it had to have been at this time in question. Dominique said he was the one he dreaded playing against and I think he only saw injured King?

Of course I'm not saying he was the best, but he was the best pure scorer for a minute there.