Russel and Wilt don't belong in the top 10

[StrongLurk]

The NBA was so primitive at that time it's pointless to rank these players in the top 10. I keep seeing them thrown in super random places in the top 10 like top 3 or 9-10 without an explanation for where they are ranked.

Bill Russell wins 11 championships, and his teammates have 8 or 9, yet you never hear about them.

Also the NBA had 8 teams in the NBA...Which means you win one series and you're in the finals.

Wilt is impossible to rank too because of his stats. Both Russell and Wilt are the extremes (rings for Russell/stats for Wilt) that no criteria can be consistent for them and the rest of the all time greats. Wilt and Russell are either the two best players ever...or unrankable.

Top 10 should look like this:
1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Shaq
4. Duncan
5. Kobe
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Lebron
9. Olajuwon
10. Karl Malone (Career numbers - Points:36,928 Rebounds:14,968 Assists 5,248) (Here are Jordan's Points:32,292 Rebound:6,672 Assists: 5,633)

So Malone has more points, way more rebounds, and almost as many assists as Jordan, only thing you can say is he didn't win a finals...which he lost to the GOAT so not really a negative.

[LAZERUSS]

You better remove Kareem from your list, as well. He played four years in the Wilt-era.

BTW, a 38-40 year old Kareem just destroyed #9 on your list in their H2H's.

[Jameerthefear]

I liked what you were saying then I saw Kobe in your top 5.

[jlip]

Hell, Russell faced a team that won less than 20 games in the finals. Pathetic.[/B]




You should be banned for this level of ignorance.

[colts19]

I'm sure nobody will agree with me and that's OK. At some point we just have to agree to disagree. Context does matter to a point, but the fact that you can only play against the competition that you had is what it is.

Bill Russell, greatest winner of all time. I know it was a weak era and all that but he beat who he played against on all levels.

Wilt, MDE, just look at the record books. Those who say weak competition have apparently never heard of Russell, Thurmond, Reed and Jabbar.

Jordan, Still in my top 6 despite the fact he played in the expansion 90's against weak finals competition. The greatest 2 guard of all time.

Magic, played in a weak western conf., had a free ride to the finals almost every year and played with another top six of all time in KAJ. Ran a team better than anyone I've ever seen.

KAJ, Best Career overall when you include college and Pro's. Should have won more in the 70's but when you add in longevity at elite level for 20 years he has to be in the top 6.

Larry Bird, many will disagree, but Bird at the time was considered the greatest all around player ever. He was also considered better that Magic until injuries.

These are my top 6, I don't see that changing anytime soon. JMHO.

These are not ranked in order. That's for everyone else to decide.

[La Frescobaldi]

I'm sure nobody will agree with me and that's OK. At some point we just have to agree to disagree. Context does matter to a point, but the fact that you can only play against the competition that you had is what it is.

Bill Russell, greatest winner of all time. I know it was a weak era and all that but he beat who he played against on all levels.

Wilt, MDE, just look at the record books. Those who say weak competition have apparently never heard of Russell, Thurmond, Reed and Jabbar.

Jordan, Still in my top 6 despite the fact he played in the expansion 90's against weak finals competition. The greatest 2 guard of all time.

Magic, played in a weak western conf., had a free ride to the finals almost every year and played with another top six of all time in KAJ. Ran a team better than anyone I've ever seen.

KAJ, Best Career overall when you include college and Pro's. Should have won more in the 70's but when you add in longevity at elite level for 20 years he has to be in the top 6.

Larry Bird, many will disagree, but Bird at the time was considered the greatest all around player ever. He was also considered better that Magic until injuries.

These are my top 6, I don't see that changing anytime soon. JMHO.

These are not ranked in order. That's for everyone else to decide.

And maybe the funniest thing about this 100% correct list is........... there's not a single ring in that entire collection of 33 championships that was won except when they had totally stacked and deep teams.

As great as all these guys were, not one of them ever won even one single ring with a weak team.

[outbreak]

OP doesn't belong in general population.

[StrongLurk]

Bird and Magic have two major factors against them - Defense and Longevity.

Duncan, Kobe and Shaq absolutely destroy Bird and Magic in longevity. All three are also better defenders.

Add in the fact that they have similar amount of rings/peaks, I don't see the argument for Bird and Magic over Duncan, Kobe and Shaq.

[LAZERUSS]

Bird and Magic have two major factors against them - Defense and Longevity.

Duncan, Kobe and Shaq absolutely destroy Bird and Magic in longevity. All three are also better defenders.

Add in the fact that they have similar amount of rings/peaks, I don't see the argument for Bird and Magic over Duncan, Kobe and Shaq.

You can have your list, then, but Bird and Magic are definitely on mine.

[senelcoolidge]

I guess in another 20 years or so Kobe, Shaq, Jordan, etc. will be considered obsolete and played in an inferior era. The level of ignorance here is sometimes astounding, but hey you can believe whatever you want to..fairies probably exist in your reality.

[TheBigVeto]

The NBA was so primitive at that time it's pointless to rank these players in the top 10.

Bill Russell wins 11 championships, and his teammates have 8 or 9, yet you never hear about them.

Also the NBA had 8 teams in the NBA...Which means you win one series and you're in the finals.

Wilt is impossible to rank too because of his stats. Both Russell and Wilt are the extremes (rings for Russell/stats for Wilt) that no criteria can be consistent for them and the rest of the all time greats. Wilt and Russell are either the two best players ever...or unrankable.

Top 10 should look like this:
1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Shaq
4. Duncan
5. Kobe
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Lebron
9. Olajuwon
10. Karl Malone (Career numbers - Points:36,928 Rebounds:14,968 Assists 5,248) (Here are Jordan's Points:32,292 Rebound:6,672 Assists: 5,633)

So Malone has more points, way more rebounds, and almost as many assists as Jordan, only thing you can say is he didn't win a finals...which he lost to the GOAT so not really a negative.

Kobe in top 10, list is invalid.

[LAZERUSS]

Bird and Magic have two major factors against them - Defense and Longevity.

Duncan, Kobe and Shaq absolutely destroy Bird and Magic in longevity. All three are also better defenders.

Add in the fact that they have similar amount of rings/peaks, I don't see the argument for Bird and Magic over Duncan, Kobe and Shaq.

FWIW...

Bird vs. MJ in their 85-86 and 86-87 seasons...

7-0 W-L Record in their regular season H2H's.

6-0 W-L Record in their post-season H2H's.


Regular season stat-line:

MJ: 28.3 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 4.3 apg, .429 FG%, .825 FT%
Bird: 33.6 ppg, 7.6 rpg, 7.6 apg, .556 FG%, .938 FT%

Playoffs:

MJ: 39.7 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 5.8 apg, .464 FG%, .885 FT%
Bird: 27.2 ppg, 9.0 rpg, 8.5 apg, .531 FG%, .869 FT%


No question that Bird had a much better supporting cast, but he was simply brilliant.

[StrongLurk]

I guess in another 20 years or so Kobe, Shaq, Jordan, etc. will be considered obsolete and played in an inferior era. The level of ignorance here is sometimes astounding, but hey you can believe whatever you want to..fairies probably exist in your reality.

While I don't think it will happen...it's a possibility. But really though, it WAS an extremely primitive era compared to now. No worldwide competition, archaic play styles, WAY different rules, technological differences.

I'm not saying Wilt and Russell weren't great players..I'm saying it's impossible to rank them against the players of the more modern eras. What criteria do you use if you are?

Oh, and Russell and Wilt were 45-55 years ago...not 20.

[StrongLurk]

FWIW...

Bird vs. MJ in their 85-86 and 86-87 seasons...

7-0 W-L Record in their regular season H2H's.

6-0 W-L Record in their post-season H2H's.


Regular season stat-line:

MJ: 28.3 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 4.3 apg, .429 FG%, .825 FT%
Bird: 33.6 ppg, 7.6 rpg, 7.6 apg, .556 FG%, .938 FT%

Playoffs:

MJ: 39.7 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 5.8 apg, .464 FG%, .885 FT%
Bird: 27.2 ppg, 9.0 rpg, 8.5 apg, .531 FG%, .869 FT%


No question that Bird had a much better supporting cast, but he was simply brilliant.

I am fully aware of how great Bird was. He IS in my top ten. And how he played against a rookie and second year Jordan doesn't address my points about Duncan, Kobe and Shaq.

[StrongLurk]

You can have your list, then, but Bird and Magic are definitely on mine.

They ARE both on mine...

[LAZERUSS]

I am fully aware of how great Bird was. He IS in my top ten. And how he played against a rookie and second year Jordan doesn't address my points about Duncan, Kobe and Shaq.

2nd and 3rd year MJ.

[StrongLurk]

2nd and 3rd year MJ.

Thanks for the correction.

I'm interested in where you rank Bird and Magic in the top 10, and then how do you use the same criteria with Wilt and Russell?

[LAZERUSS]

Thanks for the correction.

I'm interested in where you rank Bird and Magic in the top 10, and then how do you use the same criteria with Wilt and Russell?

My Top-10's change all the time.

Greatness is greatness.

But, in any case, Bird and Magic are in it, as well as Wilt and Russell.

[StrongLurk]

My Top-10's change all the time.

Greatness is greatness.

But, in any case, Bird and Magic are in it, as well as Wilt and Russell.

Interesting take. But there still lies the problem with Wilt and Russell. What could take them out of your top ten, but leave Magic and Bird?

Stats? Wilt stays in. Winning? Russell stays. I don't know what to actually do with them for rankings since they are so extreme.

And looking at it like that, those two players can NEVER be out of the top 10.

Say in 20 years there are 3 other players you think deserve to be in the top 10, who would you take out first? Bird and Magic or Wilt and Russell?

[Genaro]

I agree on Russell but not about Wilt. Wilt was an all around monster and he would be at any era he would play. 3rd all time on my list.

[Marchesk]

Wilt and Russell have serious staying power. Let's see if Lebron and Kobe are still in the top ten 40 years after they retire.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

You're welcome to your opinion. Both are in my top 10.

[StrongLurk]

Wilt and Russell have serious staying power. Let's see if Lebron and Kobe are still in the top ten 40 years after they retire.

A lot easier for Wilt and Russell to do that since there were way less players playing back then. There wasn't a true expansion until the merger and then the 90's

[StrongLurk]

I agree on Russell but not about Wilt. Wilt was an all around monster and he would be at any era he would play. 3rd all time on my list.

Why is Wilt third all time though? Is it stats? Wouldn't he be first then?

[StrongLurk]

You're welcome to your opinion. Both are in my top 10.

What criteria do you use to rank them, and how does that compare to the rest of the players in your top 10?

[knicksman]

then how much for bran? 2/6 is worse than 2/7 since its harder to get 2/6 in this era.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

What criteria do you use to rank them, and how does that compare to the rest of the players in your top 10?

It's a combination of everything; winning, individual accolades, stats, dominance, longevity, intangibles, etc.

Russell is 3 and Wilt is 4 for me. Here's the rest of my list:

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Russell
4. Wilt
5. Duncan
6. Magic
7. Shaq
8. Bird
9. LeBron
10. Hakeem/Kobe

[StrongLurk]

It's a combination of everything; winning, individual accolades, stats, dominance, longevity, intangibles, etc.

Russell is 3 and Wilt is 4 for me. Here's the rest of my list:

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Russell
4. Wilt
5. Duncan
6. Magic
7. Shaq
8. Bird
9. LeBron
10. Hakeem/Kobe

Why do you think Wilt is better than Shaq? And Russell better than Duncan? Can you actually list details? Which stats and accolades?

The only thing Wilt has over Shaq is stats. Shaq has better everything else. But Wilt has better stats than anyone so he should be number 1 then.

Russell only has rings over Duncan. Duncan has better everything else. But Russell has more rings than anyone so he should be number 1.

[StrongLurk]

then how much for bran? 2/6 is worse than 2/7 since its harder to get 2/6 in this era.

Rent Free

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Why do you think Wilt is better than Shaq? And Russell better than Duncan? Can you actually list details? Which stats and accolades?

The only thing Wilt has over Shaq is stats. Shaq has better everything else. But Wilt has better stats than anyone so he should be number 1 then.

Russell only has rings over Duncan. Duncan has better everything else. But Russell has more rings than anyone so he should be number 1.

You're assuming that one factor is enough to override everything else in both of those scenarios. Stats on their own aren't enough to be GOAT, neither are rings. It's a combination of all the factors I listed previously and my own interpretation of them applied to the players.

[StrongLurk]

You're assuming that one factor is enough to override everything else in both of those scenarios. Stats on their own aren't enough to be GOAT, neither are rings. It's a combination of all the factors I listed previously and my own interpretation of them applied to the players.

Hmmm well if you're saying that it's purely subjective then I can't really say anything else. What exactly is it that makes you rank Jordan and Kareem higher than Wilt and Russell?

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Hmmm well if you're saying that it's purely subjective then I can't really say anything else. What exactly is it that makes you rank Jordan and Kareem higher than Wilt and Russell?

All lists are subjective in one way or another.

Jordan is the GOAT and had the greatest combination of skill, dominance, winning, individual accolades, etc. Kareem also features a strong combination of those factors, less than Jordan but withe incredible longevity.

[colts19]

My listings are subjective and I admit it. There is no way to prove quantitatively that this player or that player is the greatest. There are just to many factors involved to do that. I have seen them all play and to me they were the best by my eye test.

In no way does this mean I'm right. It's just one man's opinion. More than anything thing else I just see these guys as legendary.

[knicksman]

Rent Free

still 2/6:lol

[Spurs5Rings2014]

2 separate lists might be the way to go. A list for that era, call it the 'classic' top 10 with Russell, Wilt, Mikan, West, Baylor, etc. Then have a 'modern' top 10 list from the '80's era on.

Jordan
Duncan
Bird
Magic
Kareem
Kobe
Shaq
Hakeem
LeBron
Moses

[colts19]

2 separate lists might be the way to go. A list for that era, call it the 'classic' top 10 with Russell, Wilt, Mikan, West, Baylor, etc. Then have a 'modern' top 10 list from the '80's era on.

Jordan
Duncan
Bird
Magic
Kareem
Kobe
Shaq
Hakeem
LeBron
Moses

Great idea. I'll give it some thought and post both classic and modern list later. Would like to see it from Laz and others also.

[Asukal]

While I don't agree with OP, the amount of hypocrisy on ISH is astounding. :whatever:

We keep insisting Russell/Wilt have as much right to be on the ATG as anyone whoever played yet Mikan is forever excluded from the top 10 and he was the first guy to dominate the game and won a lot of championships. Yeah I know I know weak era, the double standard is real. :rolleyes:

[24-Inch_Chrome]

While I don't agree with OP, the amount of hypocrisy on ISH is astounding. :whatever:

We keep insisting Russell/Wilt have as much right to be on the ATG as anyone whoever played yet Mikan is forever excluded from the top 10 and he was the first guy to dominate the game and won a lot of championships. Yeah I know I know weak era, the double standard is real. :rolleyes:

Where do you/would you rank him?

[Asukal]

Where do you/would you rank him?

Maybe around 11-20? I don't know much about him though. :oldlol:

Dunno if I can put him in top 10.

[Carter_17]

The NBA was so primitive at that time it's pointless to rank these players in the top 10. I keep seeing them thrown in super random places in the top 10 like top 3 or 9-10 without an explanation for where they are ranked.

Bill Russell wins 11 championships, and his teammates have 8 or 9, yet you never hear about them.

Also the NBA had 8 teams in the NBA...Which means you win one series and you're in the finals.

Wilt is impossible to rank too because of his stats. Both Russell and Wilt are the extremes (rings for Russell/stats for Wilt) that no criteria can be consistent for them and the rest of the all time greats. Wilt and Russell are either the two best players ever...or unrankable.

Top 10 should look like this:
1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Shaq
4. Duncan
5. Kobe
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Lebron
9. Olajuwon
10. Karl Malone (Career numbers - Points:36,928 Rebounds:14,968 Assists 5,248) (Here are Jordan's Points:32,292 Rebound:6,672 Assists: 5,633)

So Malone has more points, way more rebounds, and almost as many assists as Jordan, only thing you can say is he didn't win a finals...which he lost to the GOAT so not really a negative.

:no:

[Marchesk]

A lot easier for Wilt and Russell to do that since there were way less players playing back then. There wasn't a true expansion until the merger and then the 90's

Um, everyone else in the top 10 back then fell out. You've had 40+ years of great players climb into the top 10 pushing others out, and yet Wilt and Russell barely budge. Kareem as well, but he retired a lot later. Still, Kareem is closing in on 30 years in the top 5.

How often does a potential top 5 all-time talent come along, anyway? Once a generation? Lebron might make it, and then ...? Wilt and Russell are going to remain there for a long time along with Kareem and Jordan.

[julizaver]

The NBA was so primitive at that time it's pointless to rank these players in the top 10. I keep seeing them thrown in super random places in the top 10 like top 3 or 9-10 without an explanation for where they are ranked.

Bill Russell wins 11 championships, and his teammates have 8 or 9, yet you never hear about them.

Also the NBA had 8 teams in the NBA...Which means you win one series and you're in the finals.



Top 10 should look like this:
1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Shaq
4. Duncan
5. Kobe
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Lebron
9. Olajuwon
10. Karl Malone (Career numbers - Points:36,928 Rebounds:14,968 Assists 5,248) (Here are Jordan's Points:32,292 Rebound:6,672 Assists: 5,633)

So Malone has more points, way more rebounds, and almost as many assists as Jordan, only thing you can say is he didn't win a finals...which he lost to the GOAT so not really a negative.

"Greatness is a concept of a state of superiority affecting a person or object. Greatness can also be referred to individuals who possess a natural ability to be better than all others. The concept carries the implication that the particular person or object, when compared to others of a similar type, has clear advantage over others."

By deniying entry of Wilt and Russell in TOP10 you deny the history of basketball. In the sense of your post you should better use the term "best" instead of "great" if your point is that modern day players are better than the players from the past. It is the same as saying that Muhamad Ali and Rocky Marciano doesn't belong to the Top10 GOAT boxing list.



Wilt is impossible to rank too because of his stats. Both Russell and Wilt are the extremes (rings for Russell/stats for Wilt) that no criteria can be consistent for them and the rest of the all time greats. Wilt and Russell are either the two best players ever...or unrankable.

And if you said that someone is unrankable in any sport because of overhelming team success/stats and numbers is ... like stating that Earth is flat and doesn't spin because you can't see it and therefore can't believe it.

[Kvnzhangyay]

"Greatness is a concept of a state of superiority affecting a person or object. Greatness can also be referred to individuals who possess a natural ability to be better than all others. The concept carries the implication that the particular person or object, when compared to others of a similar type, has clear advantage over others."

By deniying entry of Wilt and Russell in TOP10 you deny the history of basketball. In the sense of your post you should better use the term "best" instead of "great" if your point is that modern day players are better than the players from the past. It is the same as saying that Muhamad Ali and Rocky Marciano doesn't belong to the Top10 GOAT boxing list.




And if you said that someone is unrankable in any sport because of overhelming team success/stats and numbers is ... like stating that Earth is flat and doesn't spin because you can't see it and therefore can't believe it.

The problem is its practically impossible to compare across eras. Things just change so much between them. That's why I think it's better to make a top 10 list for every era

[oarabbus]

Anyone who says Russell or wilt doesn't belong in the top 10 loses ALL credibility

[Alan Ogg]

Taking out Wilt and Russell from my top 10. I'd go with (list different depending on the day):

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Duncan
5. Bird
6. Shaq
7. Kobe
8. LeBron
9. Hakeem
10. Moses

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Maybe around 11-20? I don't know much about him though. :oldlol:

Dunno if I can put him in top 10.

I agree that he could find a place in the top 20. Though I haven't included him in lists past, it's more because I forgot about him than it was a purposeful snub. :oldlol:

Wilt/Russell are still widely remembered/respected, the same can't really be said for Mikan. I don't think that people purposefully exclude him, he just doesn't immediately come to mind when the majority of fans make their player lists. More a statement on the media than anything else; if he had the exposure that other older ATGs had I think that he'd be more relevant in lists.

[jongib369]

As I seem to always say recently, this will be rushed /all over. Apologies in advance

Rings come down to way too many other factors to penalize an individual for not winning more. Unless, it's SOULY their fault. Same goes for the other waybaround, you can't prop someone up too high for it, unless they won because of that individuals play more so than the overall performance of the their team, the other team, health of each team, depth etc.


While there were only 8 teams at the time, there was also other pro leagues that had quite a bit of talent as well. The NBA was the premier league... While I'll admit the talent pool they were drawing from was smaller(not by much imo, especially big men. They aren't a dime a dozen), it's not as if basketball was some new sport. The college game was very popular, high school games were important for small towns....Even highschool GIRLS basketball was big in some small areas, with family generations of basketball players going against "rival" teams/families.

Take this into consideration

Kareem is not only in your top 10, he's #2 on your list. Nate Thurmond, someone who played highschool ball in the 50s, and college starting in 1960 played against not only Wilt, and Russell...But Kareem also. From your logic Kareem, someone who was able to light up the likes of Hakeem, Ewing and a host of others who played in then90s, or slightly earlier in the 80s should of DESTROYED Wilt, and Thurmond. But, Thurmond AND Wilt held Kareem below 50%....Not one other person to my knowledge was able to hold Kareem below that % despite in your opinion playing superior competition.

Many people who saw these guys play will say that while Wilt and Kareem may be close offensively...Athletically, and in terms of rebounding, passing, and defense Wilt outclassed Kareem.

Going back to Thurmond, it's not as if he was having his way with those centers of that day either. I haven't had time to read the entire thread and don't know if Lazarus has had the time to make the list for you, but they weren't scrubs. Maybe not ALL of them would be starters....But Thurmond, Bellamy, Unseld, Gilmore, Lucas, Beaty, Embry, Hayes, Reed etc etc

One last point for the moment
WILT games VS


Russell- 142

Bellamy- 108

reed 74

Nate- 64

Kareem- 28

unseld- 20

Lanier 16


Totat= 452




SHAQ games VS

Duncan 62

Robinson- 40

Mutombo-29

Hakeem- 28

Ewing- 26

Ming 18

Mourning 16


Total Games= 219


https://youtu.be/L2U4JSrpO78

https://youtu.be/G94iJr8ZbzM

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Um, everyone else in the top 10 back then fell out. You've had 40+ years of great players climb into the top 10 pushing others out, and yet Wilt and Russell barely budge. Kareem as well, but he retired a lot later. Still, Kareem is closing in on 30 years in the top 5.

How often does a potential top 5 all-time talent come along, anyway? Once a generation? Lebron might make it, and then ...? Wilt and Russell are going to remain there for a long time along with Kareem and Jordan.

My issue with those 3 guys is how many MVP's, titles, records, etc would the other top 10'ers have if they had played in those eras? You can even use playing in those eras as a double-edged sword for Wilt and Kareem in looking at Wilt only having 2 titles and Kareem having only 1 title in the 70's. The 70's was by far the weakest era with almost no other top 10's and Kareem still managed to win just one single title during that time. Then you got true GOAT's like Duncan playing against prime Shaq/Kobe 2 top 10's of all time and winning multiple chips with not even another All-NBA teammate. It never ceases to amaze me how no one ever looks at any semblance of context when making these lists.

[jongib369]

My issue with those 3 guys is how many MVP's, titles, records, etc would the other top 10'ers have if they had played in those eras? You can even use playing in those eras as a double-edged sword for Wilt and Kareem in looking at Wilt only having 2 titles and Kareem having only 1 title in the 70's. The 70's was by far the weakest era with almost no other top 10's and Kareem still managed to win just one single title during that time. Then you got true GOAT's like Duncan playing against prime Shaq/Kobe 2 top 10's of all time and winning multiple chips with not even another All-NBA teammate. It never ceases to amaze me how no one ever looks at any semblance of context when making these lists.
Team game, Duncan would agree

[LAZERUSS]

Just for the record, Russell played in an era that had eight, then nine, then 10, then 12, then 14 teams. He won a title all of those years, including the 14 team league without having HCA in all three of his playoff series.

[LAZERUSS]

As I seem to always say recently, this will be rushed /all over. Apologies in advance

Rings come down to way too many other factors to penalize an individual for not winning more. Unless, it's SOULY their fault. Same goes for the other waybaround, you can't prop someone up too high for it, unless they won because of that individuals play more so than the overall performance of the their team, the other team, health of each team, depth etc.


While there were only 8 teams at the time, there was also other pro leagues that had quite a bit of talent as well. The NBA was the premier league... While I'll admit the talent pool they were drawing from was smaller(not by much imo, especially big men. They aren't a dime a dozen), it's not as if basketball was some new sport. The college game was very popular, high school games were important for small towns....Even highschool GIRLS basketball was big in some small areas, with family generations of basketball players going against "rival" teams/families.

Take this into consideration

Kareem is not only in your top 10, he's #2 on your list. Nate Thurmond, someone who played highschool ball in the 50s, and college starting in 1960 played against not only Wilt, and Russell...But Kareem also. From your logic Kareem, someone who was able to light up the likes of Hakeem, Ewing and a host of others who played in then90s, or slightly earlier in the 80s should of DESTROYED Wilt, and Thurmond. But, Thurmond AND Wilt held Kareem below 50%....Not one other person to my knowledge was able to hold Kareem below that % despite in your opinion playing superior competition.

Many people who saw these guys play will say that while Wilt and Kareem may be close offensively...Athletically, and in terms of rebounding, passing, and defense Wilt outclassed Kareem.

Going back to Thurmond, it's not as if he was having his way with those centers of that day either. I haven't had time to read the entire thread and don't know if Lazarus has had the time to make the list for you, but they weren't scrubs. Maybe not ALL of them would be starters....But Thurmond, Bellamy, Unseld, Gilmore, Lucas, Beaty, Embry, Hayes, Reed etc etc

One last point for the moment
WILT games VS


Russell- 142

Bellamy- 108

reed 74

Nate- 64

Kareem- 28

unseld- 20

Lanier 16


Totat= 452




SHAQ games VS

Duncan 62

Robinson- 40

Mutombo-29

Hakeem- 28

Ewing- 26

Ming 18

Mourning 16


Total Games= 219


https://youtu.be/L2U4JSrpO78

https://youtu.be/G94iJr8ZbzM

Nothing needs to be added.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[Dbrog]

WILT games VS


Russell- 142

Bellamy- 108

reed 74

Nate- 64

Kareem- 28

unseld- 20

Lanier 16


Totat= 452




SHAQ games VS

Duncan 62

Robinson- 40

Mutombo-29

Hakeem- 28

Ewing- 26

Ming 18

Mourning 16


Total Games= 219


This is an incredibly powerful stat and honestly needs to be spread more through this forum. I don't think many people realize exactly what a smaller league means.

[3ball]

The only thing Wilt has over Shaq is stats. Shaq has better everything else.


name 1 thing Shaq did better than Wilt

[ClipperRevival]

As I seem to always say recently, this will be rushed /all over. Apologies in advance

Rings come down to way too many other factors to penalize an individual for not winning more. Unless, it's SOULY their fault. Same goes for the other waybaround, you can't prop someone up too high for it, unless they won because of that individuals play more so than the overall performance of the their team, the other team, health of each team, depth etc.


While there were only 8 teams at the time, there was also other pro leagues that had quite a bit of talent as well. The NBA was the premier league... While I'll admit the talent pool they were drawing from was smaller(not by much imo, especially big men. They aren't a dime a dozen), it's not as if basketball was some new sport. The college game was very popular, high school games were important for small towns....Even highschool GIRLS basketball was big in some small areas, with family generations of basketball players going against "rival" teams/families.

Take this into consideration

Kareem is not only in your top 10, he's #2 on your list. Nate Thurmond, someone who played highschool ball in the 50s, and college starting in 1960 played against not only Wilt, and Russell...But Kareem also. From your logic Kareem, someone who was able to light up the likes of Hakeem, Ewing and a host of others who played in then90s, or slightly earlier in the 80s should of DESTROYED Wilt, and Thurmond. But, Thurmond AND Wilt held Kareem below 50%....Not one other person to my knowledge was able to hold Kareem below that % despite in your opinion playing superior competition.

Many people who saw these guys play will say that while Wilt and Kareem may be close offensively...Athletically, and in terms of rebounding, passing, and defense Wilt outclassed Kareem.

Going back to Thurmond, it's not as if he was having his way with those centers of that day either. I haven't had time to read the entire thread and don't know if Lazarus has had the time to make the list for you, but they weren't scrubs. Maybe not ALL of them would be starters....But Thurmond, Bellamy, Unseld, Gilmore, Lucas, Beaty, Embry, Hayes, Reed etc etc

One last point for the moment
WILT games VS


Russell- 142

Bellamy- 108

reed 74

Nate- 64

Kareem- 28

unseld- 20

Lanier 16


Totat= 452




SHAQ games VS

Duncan 62

Robinson- 40

Mutombo-29

Hakeem- 28

Ewing- 26

Ming 18

Mourning 16


Total Games= 219


https://youtu.be/L2U4JSrpO78

https://youtu.be/G94iJr8ZbzM

I don't know about the part in red. There is no other team sport where one player can impose his will on the outcome of games like basketball. That's why rings are a huge criteria for judging great players, and rightfully so.

Of course context is important and some players don't have help. But I think people so easily brush off the dominance of "the man" on a championship winning team as if it was expected. Nothing is given to you at this level. You have to earn everything. I think it's safe to say that every one of MJ's opponent's in the Finals wanted to dethrone him. But MJ imposed his will on the game and decided outcomes. It's competition and you have to give a lot of weight to the alpha player who dominates in the playoffs and comes through on top. Sure, the role players are important too but there is nothing as important as the guy who carries the load and still dominates.

[Young X]

Mikan should be grouped with both of them. He was THE pioneer of the game and his career resume is right there with both players. I don't understand how Russell and Wilt are on every list while Mikan is always left off.

[funnystuff]

Lol, Kobe is not top 5. You can easily argue him not being top 10 either.

[MavsSuperFan]

You are correct about what you are saying, but the 1960s cultists around here believe that factors like

Racial quotas in selecting teams
Montary compensation
Lack of international participation
Nature advancement of the game and athleticism of the players and the training and medical practices of teams

Have had zero impact and the NBA today is the equal of the 1960s

The 1960s cultist would have you believe the players in the 1960s were better than they are today or that level of competition should not be factored in when evaluating talent

[nba_55]

Nobody should put Wilt and Russell in their top 10 unless they have seen them play live. Basketball is much more than stats. You can't rank players by only looking at stats and reading articles.

[StrongLurk]

"Greatness is a concept of a state of superiority affecting a person or object. Greatness can also be referred to individuals who possess a natural ability to be better than all others. The concept carries the implication that the particular person or object, when compared to others of a similar type, has clear advantage over others."

By deniying entry of Wilt and Russell in TOP10 you deny the history of basketball. In the sense of your post you should better use the term "best" instead of "great" if your point is that modern day players are better than the players from the past. It is the same as saying that Muhamad Ali and Rocky Marciano doesn't belong to the Top10 GOAT boxing list.




And if you said that someone is unrankable in any sport because of overhelming team success/stats and numbers is ... like stating that Earth is flat and doesn't spin because you can't see it and therefore can't believe it.

I'm not denying their greatness, I'm saying you can't compare their era to any other era. Basically you are saying they can NEVER be taken out of the Top 10, which is ridiculous.

[StrongLurk]

Taking out Wilt and Russell from my top 10. I'd go with (list different depending on the day):

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Duncan
5. Bird
6. Shaq
7. Kobe
8. LeBron
9. Hakeem
10. Moses

Duncan and Shaq are better than Bird and Magic. Factor in defense and longevity. Career success is roughly the same for championships and MVP's. Peaks are Shaq>Bird>Duncan>Magic

[StrongLurk]

The problem is its practically impossible to compare across eras. Things just change so much between them. That's why I think it's better to make a top 10 list for every era

This is exactly my point. Whatever criteria you use to measure players, Wilt and Russell are so extreme and the era so unique that they can never leave the top 10, which is ridiculous.

[Legends66NBA7]

Nobody should put Wilt and Russell in their top 10 unless they have seen them play live. Basketball is much more than stats. You can't rank players by only looking at stats and reading articles.

Might as well throw out Kareem, Magic, and Bird too. I doubt many here have watched them "play live".

[StrongLurk]

As I seem to always say recently, this will be rushed /all over. Apologies in advance

Rings come down to way too many other factors to penalize an individual for not winning more. Unless, it's SOULY their fault. Same goes for the other waybaround, you can't prop someone up too high for it, unless they won because of that individuals play more so than the overall performance of the their team, the other team, health of each team, depth etc.


While there were only 8 teams at the time, there was also other pro leagues that had quite a bit of talent as well. The NBA was the premier league... While I'll admit the talent pool they were drawing from was smaller(not by much imo, especially big men. They aren't a dime a dozen), it's not as if basketball was some new sport. The college game was very popular, high school games were important for small towns....Even highschool GIRLS basketball was big in some small areas, with family generations of basketball players going against "rival" teams/families.

Take this into consideration

Kareem is not only in your top 10, he's #2 on your list. Nate Thurmond, someone who played highschool ball in the 50s, and college starting in 1960 played against not only Wilt, and Russell...But Kareem also. From your logic Kareem, someone who was able to light up the likes of Hakeem, Ewing and a host of others who played in then90s, or slightly earlier in the 80s should of DESTROYED Wilt, and Thurmond. But, Thurmond AND Wilt held Kareem below 50%....Not one other person to my knowledge was able to hold Kareem below that % despite in your opinion playing superior competition.

Many people who saw these guys play will say that while Wilt and Kareem may be close offensively...Athletically, and in terms of rebounding, passing, and defense Wilt outclassed Kareem.

Going back to Thurmond, it's not as if he was having his way with those centers of that day either. I haven't had time to read the entire thread and don't know if Lazarus has had the time to make the list for you, but they weren't scrubs. Maybe not ALL of them would be starters....But Thurmond, Bellamy, Unseld, Gilmore, Lucas, Beaty, Embry, Hayes, Reed etc etc

One last point for the moment
WILT games VS


Russell- 142

Bellamy- 108

reed 74

Nate- 64

Kareem- 28

unseld- 20

Lanier 16


Totat= 452




SHAQ games VS

Duncan 62

Robinson- 40

Mutombo-29

Hakeem- 28

Ewing- 26

Ming 18

Mourning 16


Total Games= 219


https://youtu.be/L2U4JSrpO78

https://youtu.be/G94iJr8ZbzM

This is a solid post, but Kareem is ranked highly because he played well into the modern era.

[StrongLurk]

name 1 thing Shaq did better than Wilt

This goes nicely with the point I'm making. How can you actually compare the two since the eras are so different?

[Legends66NBA7]

2 separate lists might be the way to go. A list for that era, call it the 'classic' top 10 with Russell, Wilt, Mikan, West, Baylor, etc. Then have a 'modern' top 10 list from the '80's era on.

Jordan
Duncan
Bird
Magic
Kareem
Kobe
Shaq
Hakeem
LeBron
Moses

I've said this before in an old thread. I can't find it right now, but the Top 10 I had looked like...(no order)

Shaq
Duncan
Magic
Kobe
Hakeem
Bird
LeBron
Moses
Dirk
Wade

HM: KG, Durant, K.Malone, Barkley, Nash, D-Rob, Paul, etc... you can swap some of these guys, doesn't really matter.

I didn't include Kareem because most of his individual dominance came pre-80.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

Russell does, Wilt doesnt

[La Frescobaldi]

This is a solid post, but Kareem is ranked highly because he played well into the modern era.

Then try your best to apply some logic.

Kareem often dominated the so-called modern era........ but Chamberlain, even though he was 35+ and had horrifical bad knees, often dominated Kareem and his Bucks.

I don't blame ya for completely missing the boat, since you probably weren't even born when Wilt was retired for like 15 years and still getting calls from NBA owners to come play ball for them.
So you can't possibly know what it was like to see Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's skyhook get blocked, over and over, straight into the hands of Gail Goodrich or Jimmy McMillian sprinting down court.

But you should really just look into what Wilt Chamberlain was before you make these kinds of statements, OP.

I mean, you can say them if you want; it's a free country......... but they just make you look bad.

There's thousands of ish-threads about him, so you don't have any excuse. I'll just give you one to get you started.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=257667

[StrongLurk]

Then try your best to apply some logic.

Kareem often dominated the so-called modern era........ but Chamberlain, even though he was 35+ and had horrifical bad knees, often dominated Kareem and his Bucks.

I don't blame ya for completely missing the boat, since you probably weren't even born when Wilt was retired for like 15 years and still getting calls from NBA owners to come play ball for them.
So you can't possibly know what it was like to see Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's skyhook get blocked, over and over, straight into the hands of Gail Goodrich or Jimmy McMillian sprinting down court.

But you should really just look into what Wilt Chamberlain was before you make these kinds of statements, OP.

I mean, you can say them if you want; it's a free country......... but they just make you look bad.

There's thousands of ish-threads about him, so you don't have any excuse. I'll just give you one to get you started.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=257667

Where do you rank them? And what criteria do you use? And how does that logic apply to the rest of the top 10?

[WillC]

Any rankings of all-time greats has to be done purely on a) achievements or b) significance. You can't compare talent across eras. Clearly someone like Mikan or even Russell wouldn't be the same player in today's NBA. They might not even be NBA calibre. So ranking players by talent/ability would have to omit such players, in my opinion. But doing so would be to overlook the pioneers and legends of the NBA. So, instead, I prefer to rank players by achievements and significance.

[StrongLurk]

Kareem is only justified because he played up until 1989.

I mean, you used to not even be able to DUNK the ball in the 60's in college basketball. And in the NBA, block and steals weren't even recorded until 1974. And the 3 point line didn't come until a decade after Wilt and Russell retired.
It's just so primitive I can't compare them to the eras after.

[WillC]

Kareem is only justified because he played up until 1989.

I mean, you used to not even be able to DUNK the ball in the 60's in college basketball. And in the NBA, block and steals weren't even recorded until 1974. And the 3 point line didn't come until a decade after Wilt and Russell retired.
It's just so primitive I can't compare them to the eras after.

It depends what you're trying to achieve by comparing them.

Are you trying to compare their basketball ability? If so, I agree, it's pointless.

Are you trying to compare their accomplishments and impact on the game? Then it's totally achievable.

[FKAri]

I honestly think Wilt would translate to the modern era better than Russell. Simply because of his size. A guy with his size and athleticism would be the most dominant physical presence in the game today. An 18 year old Wilt developed in today's college program would be a monster. At the minimum and at his most raw he is at least an NBA starter. I hope Lazerrus/cavsftw of whomever more knowledgeable than I can comment on this assertion.

[La Frescobaldi]

Where do you rank them? And what criteria do you use? And how does that logic apply to the rest of the top 10?

The criteria I use is I had to see them play. I can't speak about guys from the '50s, like Mikan or Cousy or Pettit, because I never saw them in real time. Looking at film is incredibly valuable; but it doesn't come close to seeing it as it happened. The game changes, the rules change, the view changes with hindsight.

Kareem, Jordan, and Chamberlain are in their own, unique, circle of 3 players who played at a higher level than anyone else who's ever played basketball.

Everyone else is on some lower tier.

I exclude players currently in the NBA because we can't say what they are all about, until their careers are finished. Shaq, for example, didn't help himself any by dragging on and on, a fat old man who stumbled over his own feet, until he finally couldn't even dunk a ball. Disgusting spectacle.

I only watched Russell in his last years, when his legs were shot, so I leave him out; but several of my older friends - who I have great respect for their basketball knowledge - saw most or all of his career and they ALL absolutely insist he was as great as the other 3 in his early years.

I'll tell you this, you put 1967 or 1968 Bill Russell in today's NBA and without a doubt in my mind he is instantly the best center and the smartest player on any court in America. The man was as close to a basketball genius as anyone I ever saw and that includes Bill Sharman, Alex Hannum, Phil Jackson and any other coach you wanna name.

But that's it for me, Wilt, Mike, and Kareem are above all others, and that's it really. Nobody else ever did what they did.

[nba_55]

Might as well throw out Kareem, Magic, and Bird too. I doubt many here have watched them "play live".

I said ''live'' for Wilt and Russell because their games are not really available on video, that's not the case for Magic, Kareem and Bird. You can easily find their games on youtube and see how they played, you wouldn't be basing your ranking on stats and articles.

[nba_55]

name 1 thing Shaq did better than Wilt

hard to answer because not even 1% of people in here has watched a full prime Wilt game.

[nba_55]

Kareem is only justified because he played up until 1989.

I mean, you used to not even be able to DUNK the ball in the 60's in college basketball. And in the NBA, block and steals weren't even recorded until 1974. And the 3 point line didn't come until a decade after Wilt and Russell retired.
It's just so primitive I can't compare them to the eras after.

People rank Russell and Wilt and they haven't even watched one full game of them in their prime. :lol :lol

[Legends66NBA7]

I said ''live'' for Wilt and Russell because their games are not really available on video, that's not the case for Magic, Kareem and Bird. You can easily find their games on youtube and see how they played, you wouldn't be basing your ranking on stats and articles.

There's more footage being found on past eras as time goes by. Even Wilt has footage been shown from the early 70's playing pretty well and that was him past his prime.

[nba_55]

There's more footage being found on past eras as time goes by. Even Wilt has footage been shown from the early 70's playing pretty well and that was him past his prime.

That's not enough. You atleast need a full game to judge a player, basketball is more than stats.

[Legends66NBA7]

That's not enough. You atleast need a full game to judge a player, basketball is more than stats.

That's what I'm saying, he's does have full games. There's hardwood classic of the Lakers vs Bucks where Wilt is facing a young Lew Alcindor during the Lakers 33 game win streak. Some of his finals games are available too.

[iamgine]

This is exactly my point. Whatever criteria you use to measure players, Wilt and Russell are so extreme and the era so unique that they can never leave the top 10, which is ridiculous.
Well most people don't put Wilt and Russell at #1 or #2. Commonly at the #3 - #7 range. If you say it's ridiculous they can never leave the top 10, then how about the ones above them in ranking? Clearly it's even harder for them to leave the top 10. Is that not even more ridiculous?

[LAZERUSS]

I don't know about the part in red. There is no other team sport where one player can impose his will on the outcome of games like basketball. That's why rings are a huge criteria for judging great players, and rightfully so.

Of course context is important and some players don't have help. But I think people so easily brush off the dominance of "the man" on a championship winning team as if it was expected. Nothing is given to you at this level. You have to earn everything. I think it's safe to say that every one of MJ's opponent's in the Finals wanted to dethrone him. But MJ imposed his will on the game and decided outcomes. It's competition and you have to give a lot of weight to the alpha player who dominates in the playoffs and comes through on top. Sure, the role players are important too but there is nothing as important as the guy who carries the load and still dominates.

First of all, if these "GOATs" all started out each season with the same healthy rosters, and coaches, it would be no problem determining a "GOAT." Unfortunately, it has NEVER been that way.

Chamberlain is, BY FAR, the best example to the contrary of your take. Just compare his rosters in his first six seasons, with those of Russell. It was considerably more one-sided than what Lebron just went thru in the '15 Finals. Russell had supporting casts with as many as EIGHT HOF teammates. Take a look at his '64 roster. EIGHT HOFers, with one of them being Clyde Lovellette. Lovellette had averaged 20 ppg just the year before. Guess where Clyde's rank was on this the '64 Celtics... their EIGHTH best player.

Then, just using that '64 season as an example...Wilt took essentially the same supporting cast he had in '63, that had gone 31-49, to a 48-32 record. Then, he single-handedly carried them past a 46-36 Hawks team in a seven game WDF's, that was much better, players 2-6, than what Wilt had. In the Finals, Chamberlain just crushed Russell in every facet of the game, but his team lost the series, 4-1 (albeit, the lat two games came down to the waning seconds.)

And yet "the bashers" will count this as one of Wilt's "2/6."

Hell, the very next season, an ailing Wilt is traded at mid-season, for three players and a boatload of cash, to a Sixers team that had gone 34-46 the year before. His Sixers finish the season at 40-40. Meanwhile, Russell with his stacked roster goes to an all-time Celtic best mark (at the time) of 62-18, and were massive favorites to win their seventh title in a row.

Chamberlain again single-handedly carried what was a bottom-feeding roster, to a first round romp over Oscar's stacked 48-32 Royals team, and then into the EDF's against the Celtics at the peak of their dynasty. Wilt destroys Russell in that series, and takes his team to a seventh game, one point loss, in which he butchered Russell in every facet of the game, including a monster game seven, in which he scored eight of Philly's last 10 points, and nearly pulled off the greatest upset in NBA history.

Yet, the "bashers" will just add that series to Russell's 9-1 edge in rings in the decade of the 60's.

You can go right down the line. Wilt had FAR inferior rosters in his first six seasons, and yet took the heavily-favored Celtics down to two game seven's, and with losses by margins of 2, and 1 point. Then, in two more series, in his rookie season in '60, and that Finals in '64, he murdered Russell, and actually made both series very competitive. And overall, Wilt played brilliantly, but his massively inferior supporting casts generally played even worse in the post-season.

In their last four seasons in the league together, and with equal rosters, Russell still went 3-1. BUT, NONE of them were Wilt's fault (you could argue the '69 Finals, except that Wilt's COACH cost them the series, and in a series in which Chamberlain still outplayed Russell.)

In his '66 season, Wilt's Sixers edged Russell's Celtics out by one game in the regular season. However, if you took the time to research that season, you would find that the Celtics key players missed a ton of games. Here is what was most interesting about that series, though. In the regular season, the Sixers held a 6-4 H2H record against the Celtics...albeit it was 6-3 when Wilt played (he missed one game, and Boston won in a rout.) And during that regular season, Wilt averaged 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, and shot .473 against Boston.

In the '66 EDF's, Wilt averaged 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, and shot .509 from the field. Using the regular season, that should have been enough for a Sixers romp. However, they were easily beaten by Russell's Celtics, 4-1. What happened? Wilt's TEAMMATES collectively shot ... get this... .352 from the floor.

Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

Again, in their first seven seasons in the league together, Russell had a massive edge in surrounding talent in six of them, and a slight edge in the seventh. And Chamberlain had significantly outplayed Russell in all five of their post-season H2H series. A couple were by landslide margins.

There is simply no way that Chamberlain should have won any rings in that period, and he didn't. However, he single-handedly gave Russell, and his Celtics, all they could handle in those five H2H series.

BTW, in that same span, from '60 thru '66, the Lakers had BOTH West and Baylor, and they lost to Boston in the Finals in '62, '63, '65, and '66.

In Wilt's '67 season, he FINALLY had a supporting cast that was the EQUAL of Russell's, and healthy. And guess what...from their first H2H game of the regular season, when they annihilated Boston by a 138-96 margin, thru the clinching game five of the EDF's, when they erased and early 17 point deficit, exploded to a 27 point lead, and then coasted to a 24 point win...Wilt and his Sixers just DEMOLISHED Russell and his Celtics. And the reality was...Russell was waving the white flag in the EDF's. Chamberlain overwhelmed him in every facet, scoring, rebounding, efficiency, passing, defense, and blocked shots. The worst beatdown ever administered by one GOAT on another GOAT.

And '68 was well on it's way to a repeat. Chamberlain's Sixers ran away with the best record in the league, and were overwhelming favorites to repeat in the playoffs. Unfortunately for Wilt, and his teammates, they were decimated by injuries (including Wilt, himself, who still played every minute of the seven game EDF's.) Boston won a game seven, by four points. Had Wilt and his teammates been healthy, there was no question that would have blown out Russell's Celtics. Hell, even without HOFer Billy Cunningham, they jumped out to a 3-1 series lead. But the injuries just mounted after that, and Boston eked out yet another win.

The ONLY season in that ten year span, in which you could make the claim that Wilt should have won, was in '69. However, Wilt's supposed edge in surrounding talent was actually nonexistent. Elgin Baylor was just horrific in that Finals, and couldn't hit a shot to save his life. And THE biggest reason that LA lost that seven game series (with the game seven loss by two points) was the Laker's coach, Butch "the Butcher" Van Breda Kolff, whose incompetence would lead his team down the drain, and his subsequent immediate firing. As it was, the Lakers were ONE PLAY away from taking a 3-1 series lead, and with their convincing game five win, they would have romped to a 4-1 series win.

Now, just think about those 10 seasons. Russell's Celtics went 9-1 in titles (and 7-1 in H2H wins over Wilt's teams.) However, ONLY in '69 could you make a claim that Wilt SHOULD have one a ring that he didn't.

Furthermore, swap rosters, and no one in their right mind would have given Russell a prayer (except perhaps, in '69.) IMHO, had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters (and coaches) in those 10 years, and at a MINIMUM, Wilt would have won six rings, and possibly as many as all TEN.

Where would a Wilt, with SEVEN to 11 rings, be ranked in an all-time list?

[LAZERUSS]

Kareem is only justified because he played up until 1989.

I mean, you used to not even be able to DUNK the ball in the 60's in college basketball. And in the NBA, block and steals weren't even recorded until 1974. And the 3 point line didn't come until a decade after Wilt and Russell retired.
It's just so primitive I can't compare them to the eras after.

Let's examine that Kareem "justification" a little closer, shall we?

Jongib369 already did an outstanding take on this, but i will expand it further.

First of all, the "Wilt-bashers" almost always point to his '62 season in which he just blew the NBA, and the Record Books, away. He not only won the scoring title with an all-time, and eye-popping, 50.4 ppg, he ran away with it. The next highest fulltime player was Walt Bellamy, at 31.6. Essentially, Chamberlain won the scoring title by nealy 20.0 ppg (+18.8 ppg.) BTW, that +18.8 was margin was nearly the exact same margin in which in which Wilt outscored Bellamy in their 10 regular season H2H's... +18.0 ppg.

The "bashers" will just scoff at Wilt's numbers in that '62 season, and claim that it was an abomination. Of course, Chamberlain would run away with the scoring title the very next season, as well, winning it by +10.8 ppg (44.8 ppg to Baylor's 34.0 ppg.) And he would continue to dominate his peers the entire decade.

BTW, Rick Barry had the highest full-time non-Wilt scoring season in the Wilt-ra, in his '66-67 season, at 35.6 ppg. But, even Barry was on record as claiming that he (Barry) won that scoring title, simply because Wilt didn't care about it.

And Chamberlain just didn't dominate in scoring, either. In his entire 14 season career, he won 11 rpg titles. And the reality was, he was miles ahead of the next guy in his '69-70 season, in which he shredded his knee early in the season.

He also won nine FG% titles in those 14 seasons (and again, it likely would have been 10 in his '70 season had he not been injured.)

But it wasn't just the number of statistical titles, but the staggering margins in which he was winning them. Again, he won a scoring title by 19 ppg over his nearest competitor; a rpg title by +4.8 rpg over his nearest competitor; and a FG% title by an eye-popping .162 margin (.683 to Bellamy's .521), and in his last season, by a .157 margin (.727 to .570.)

Hell, he even took time to win an assists title. And think about this...his 8.6 apg is light years better than the next best mark by a center in NBA history (5.8.) Oh, and he also averaged 7.8 apg in his '67 season, as well.

Continued...

[Asukal]

Who the hell reads that fcking wall of text. Grandpa got nothing to do nowadays. :whatever:

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

Back to Kareem.

Again, the "bashers" will rip Chamberlain's statistical marvels as something that was accomplished in "the Stone Ages."

BUT, then Kareem is often ranked as high as #2 all-time in these "All-Time" lists. And usually because of the argument that he played into '89, and was still slaughtering centers like Hakeem and Ewing in his late 30's, and even at age 40.

However, this is THE interesting season in these Wilt statistical discussions...his '69-70 season. Why is that important, you ask? Because that was Kareem's (Alcindor's) rookie season.

But before we get into that '70 season, let's go back just one year, and in Wilt's 68-69 season. Chamberlain had an incompetent coach that season, who had asked Wilt to sacrifice his offense, so that Baylor could continue to roam the baseline and get his shots.

And, as always, Wilt obliged. And it got so bad, that by late January, Wilt was averaging a then career-low of 17.5 ppg. Not only that, but suddenly there were whispers that Wilt could no longer score. And I suspect that Wilt got wind of these "rumors", because SI was getting ready to run an article that would hit the newstands on January 27th, in which they basically claimed that Wilt could no longer score.

However, the night before that article would hit the public, Chamberlain exploded for a 60 point game. And a few days later he would put up his last 60+ point game (66 points on a mind-numbing 29-35 from the field.) In fact, in a span of 17 straight games, Wilt averaged 31.1 ppg, which included those two 60+ point games, and a 35 point game against Russell (his highest point game against Russell since his clinching game five performance in the '66 EDF's.)

Of course, VBK put an end to that in the '69 post-season, and instead preferred Baylor taking considerably more shots, and then shooting .385 in that post-season.

Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

I am incapable of reading that fcking wall of text. I am used to reading my coloring books and putting together my eight-piece puzzle sets...which can take hours.

Fixed.

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

Back to Wilt's 69-70 season.

Again, this was Kareem's (Alcindor's) rookie season. And in that rookie season, Alcindor averaged 28.8 ppg, 14.5 rpg, and shot .518 from the field.

Ok, Wilt's new coach, Joe Mullaney, who had replaced the incompetent VBK (whose coaching career would go completely south), had seen what a handcuffed Wilt meant in the Finals, and came to Wilt before the start of that 69-70 season, and asked Wilt to become the focal point of the offense.

Wilt, whose last "scoring" season came four years earlier, in his 65-66 season (33.5 ppg on a .540 FG%), relished his new role.

And going into his ninth game of the '69-70 season, he was leading the league in scoring (32.2 ppg on a .579 FG%...as well as 20.6 rpg.) BTW, his teammate, Jerry West, was right behind him at 30.8 ppg in that same span.

And that average was not inflated by one, or two, big games. Instead, Wilt put up games of 33, 35, 37 (against 7-0 Tom Boerwinkle), 38 (against reigning MVP Wes Unseld), 42 (against Bob Rule...go ahead and look him up), and 43 points (against Connie Dierking...and remember this game.)

Oh, and in his one H2H with rookie Alcindor, he outscored him, 25-23; outrebounded him, 25-20; outassisted him, 5-2; outblocked him 3-2 (including TWO skyhooks), and outshot him from the field by a 9-14 to 9-21 margin. Basically dominated him.

Unfortunately, in that ninth game...and a game in which Chamberlain was his best game of the season, having scored 33 points on 13-14 shooting, and in only 28 minutes...Wilt, without contact, shredded his knee.

He would never be the same offensive force again...albeit, he came back from major knee surgery WAY before even the most optomistic medical opinion had anticipated...and put up the only 20-20 .600+ FG% Finals in NBA history (in that seven game Finals, and on one leg, he averaged 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and shot .625 from the field.)


Now, here is why all of that was interesting. Kareem played FOUR years IN the Wilt-era, and never approached Wilt's record, NOR, his domination. As an example, a PEAK Kareem averaged 34.8 ppg (on a .574 FG%.) A 33 year old Wilt, and past his peak, was on his way to a 32.2 ppg season (and on a .579 FG%) just two years earlier. Oh, and in his 20 seasons in the NBA...Kareem's HIGH game was 55 points. Hell, Wilt had his last TWO 60+ point games, of his 32 career games, just the season before Kareem came into the NBA.

And it gets better. A peak Kareem faced several of the same centers that a prime Wilt had faced a few years earlier...and was NOWHERE NEAR as dominant as a prime Wilt had been against them.

I mentioned Wilt's 43 point game against Connie Dierking, which came in Kareem's rookie season. Kareem would face Dierking in ten H2H's...and his high game... 41 points. BTW, a prime Wilt hung games of 59 and 63 on Dierking.

Kareem faced Darrell Imhoff in 16 H2H's, and his high game... 46 points. Almost everyone here should know by now, that Imhoff was part of Wilt's 100 point game. And a couple of nights later, Imhoff received a standing ovation for "holding" Wilt to 58 points. Chamberlain probably averaged 60 ppg against Imhoff in that same season.

Wilt also hung a 66 point game on Jim Fox, just a year before Kareem's rookie season. Kareem would face Fox 37 times, and his high game against him... 40 points.

Kareem faced Willis Reed many times, and his high game against Willis was 41 points. Wilt had an entire SEASON, covering 12 H2H games, in which he averaged 38.6 ppg against Reed (on a .532 FG% BTW), which included massacres by margins of 41-9, 46-25, 52-23, and even 58-28.

How about Nate Thurmond? Kareem battled an aging, full-time, Thurmond in 35 career H2H's. He had a TOTAL of FIVE 30+ point games against Nate, with a HIGH of 34 points. A prime "scoring" Wilt faced Thurmond in 13 games from the '64-65 season, thru the first game of the '66-67 season, and had SIX 30+ point games against him. Furthermore, Wilt murdered Nate by 38-15 and even a 45-13 margin in those H2H's. Oh, and Kareem shot a career .447 against a full-time Nate. Wilt... not only shot .542 against Thurmond, he held Nate to a .360 FG% in their career H2H's.

Finally...6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy. Kareem faced an aging Bellamy in 25 career H2H's...and his three high games were 41, 39, and 35 points. How about a prime Wilt vs. Bellamy? Chamberlain had an incredible span of TWENTY STRAIGHT H2H's, in which he averaged 48.2 ppg (yes, a 48.2 ppg average in a span of 20 straight H2H games.) Included were three games of 60+, with a high game of 73! Wilt had a staggering number of 50+ point games against Bellamy, and was still pasting him with those games as late as his 65-66 season.


Now, a 38-40 year old Kareem just SHELLED a 22-24 year old Hakeem. In fact, a 38-39 year old Kareem, in a span of TEN straight H2H's, averaged 32 ppg on a .630 FG% against Hakeem...which included THREE games of 40+, and a high of 46 points (on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.) And, in the same week that Kareem plastered Hakeem with that 46 point outburst, he crushed Patrick Ewing in a game by a 40-9 margin (and outshot Ewing by a margin of 15-22 to 3-17.)


THAT should you a better indication of just how dominant a prime Wilt was.

[Lakers Legend#32]

No more cocaine for you.

[Poochymama]

:roll: :roll: :roll: at Laz

dude is legit insane.

[ClipperRevival]

Jesus Christ Laz. Anytime someone gives the slightest opening for you to bombard the board with Chamberlain stuff, you jump right in.

[ClipperRevival]

No more cocaine for you.

He's probably on some high grade meth to type that much stuff. If he was on cocaine, he would've wrote one sentence.

[Fowl]

The NBA was so primitive at that time it's pointless to rank these players in the top 10. I keep seeing them thrown in super random places in the top 10 like top 3 or 9-10 without an explanation for where they are ranked.

Bill Russell wins 11 championships, and his teammates have 8 or 9, yet you never hear about them.

Also the NBA had 8 teams in the NBA...Which means you win one series and you're in the finals.

Wilt is impossible to rank too because of his stats. Both Russell and Wilt are the extremes (rings for Russell/stats for Wilt) that no criteria can be consistent for them and the rest of the all time greats. Wilt and Russell are either the two best players ever...or unrankable.

Top 10 should look like this:
1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Shaq
4. Duncan
5. Kobe
6. Magic
7. Bird
8. Lebron
9. Olajuwon
10. Karl Malone (Career numbers - Points:36,928 Rebounds:14,968 Assists 5,248) (Here are Jordan's Points:32,292 Rebound:6,672 Assists: 5,633)

So Malone has more points, way more rebounds, and almost as many assists as Jordan, only thing you can say is he didn't win a finals...which he lost to the GOAT so not really a negative.
Putting LeBron over Hakeem is criminal.

[Soundwave]

GOAT list is kinda different from who you actually think are the best players in their peak. Like if you put all 10 players on the court at their peak (~5 years) ... IMO

1. Jordan
2. Shaq
3. Kareem
4. Olajuwon
5. LeBron
6. Kobe
7. Chamberlain
8. Bird
9. Duncan
10. Magic

It would go in that order from best to (no.1) on down.

Though so Kobe stans don't kill me I will say Kobe and LeBron (pure peak) are closer than people think.

[Asukal]

Fixed.

Fix your brain first you old ass weirdo. :whatever:

[Timmy D for MVP]

Some of ya'll should pick up a book. Like... idk about you but my hometown has a nice library and I go there and check out books on basketball and learn my basketball history. Then you can start to put things into context.

And in context Wilt and Russell are top 5 all time.

[Psileas]

Some of ya'll should pick up a book. Like... idk about you but my hometown has a nice library and I go there and check out books on basketball and learn my basketball history. Then you can start to put things into context.

Or, simply, they can ask their dads or their elders in general. I wonder, do these "Wilt and Russell don't belong to the top 10" guys live in a cave or in some place totally separated from people who have watched Wilt or Russell play? Avoiding discussions with them is stupid, especially if you're of the opinion that someone has to have watched a player in order to rate him, and these guys are the ones that have. Once you lose them...hope for a time machine.

[StrongLurk]

The criteria I use is I had to see them play. I can't speak about guys from the '50s, like Mikan or Cousy or Pettit, because I never saw them in real time. Looking at film is incredibly valuable; but it doesn't come close to seeing it as it happened. The game changes, the rules change, the view changes with hindsight.

Kareem, Jordan, and Chamberlain are in their own, unique, circle of 3 players who played at a higher level than anyone else who's ever played basketball.

Everyone else is on some lower tier.

I exclude players currently in the NBA because we can't say what they are all about, until their careers are finished. Shaq, for example, didn't help himself any by dragging on and on, a fat old man who stumbled over his own feet, until he finally couldn't even dunk a ball. Disgusting spectacle.

I only watched Russell in his last years, when his legs were shot, so I leave him out; but several of my older friends - who I have great respect for their basketball knowledge - saw most or all of his career and they ALL absolutely insist he was as great as the other 3 in his early years.

I'll tell you this, you put 1967 or 1968 Bill Russell in today's NBA and without a doubt in my mind he is instantly the best center and the smartest player on any court in America. The man was as close to a basketball genius as anyone I ever saw and that includes Bill Sharman, Alex Hannum, Phil Jackson and any other coach you wanna name.

But that's it for me, Wilt, Mike, and Kareem are above all others, and that's it really. Nobody else ever did what they did.

You wouldn't include Shaq with Wilt?

[StrongLurk]

Putting LeBron over Hakeem is criminal.

Uhhh okay...it's odd that it's such a guarantee in your mind that Hakeem should be ranked just one spot ahead of Lebron, instead of behind.

So where do you rank Hakeem?

[LAZERUSS]

Putting LeBron over Hakeem is criminal.

The only area in which Hakeem has over Lebron is in that Hakeem couldn't get his team's to the Finals as often as Lebron, and lost less often, and therefore, according to ISH, he is less of a "loser."

The REALITY?

Just look at where these players finished in the MVP balloting each year they were in the league will tell just who was considered the greater player.

[La Frescobaldi]

You wouldn't include Shaq with Wilt?

What for? Being the biggest guy in the league? Being the worst free-throw shooter?
They have little in common.

Chamberlain was a finesse player; could score to 15 feet with a literally unstoppable turnaround fade-away; had the widest offensive arsenal all the way around the paint of any center who's ever played.

Shaq had very fine quality footwork, better, in my opinion, than anybody... maybe even including Olajuwon, believe it or not. Shaq from the knee down was poetry in motion. But nobody ever claimed Shaq had any finesse. It's a pretty widespread belief that O'Neal wouldn't have been able to commit his endless charging fouls in any other era than post-Jordan, when the league was desperately trying to keep ratings up so they just let him loose.
Nor did Shaq have any kind of jump shot, unless you want to count his 3 foot jump-hook/shot put.

Chamberlain led the league in rebounds 11 times (the all-time record). He holds probably 95% of the NBA's rebounding records. He was an astoundingly great rebounder, at the level of Dennis Rodman or Bill Russell.
Rebounds Per Game
1959-60 NBA 27.0 (1)
1960-61 NBA 27.2 (1)
1961-62 NBA 25.6 (1)
1962-63 NBA 24.3 (1)
1963-64 NBA 22.3 (2)
1964-65 NBA 22.9 (2)
1965-66 NBA 24.6 (1)
1966-67 NBA 24.2 (1)
1967-68 NBA 23.8 (1)
1968-69 NBA 21.1 (1)
1970-71 NBA 18.2 (1)
1971-72 NBA 19.2 (1)
1972-73 NBA 18.6 (1)
Career NBA 22.9 (1)
Career 22.9 (1)
The only seasons he missed leading the league was when his doctors told his team he had a heart condition and they traded him to another team. Do you think that would have an effect on a player's activity? Apparently it did, since he came in second...... to Bill Russell.

Shaq never led the NBA in rebounding.

But at the same time Chamberlain was displaying the fact, year in and year out that he was at least as great as the best rebounding specialists who ever played (in my opinion, better than Rodman who was frequently-but-not-always a pure specialist)........ Wilt was one of the two or three greatest scoring forces the league has ever seen. This is a guy stopped shooting halfway through his career and STILL ties Jordan at 30 ppg over his career.
If he had kept scoring just at his 1968 pace, he would have over 40,000 points.
Shaq led the league 3 times, all in seasons where Jordan was MIA.

So what we're talking about here, is not only the greatest rebounder in history, but the greatest scorer, too. Shaq had some seasons where he rose to Moses Malone's elite level which is very high indeed. But Chamberlain was there every year except '70 when he jacked his knee.


Chamberlain was one of the greatest passing centers the league has seen; I disagree with Laz, because Walton is the best, in my opinion; but either way, Shaq, while a great passer........... well, he never led the NBA in assists like Wilt did, we'll just put it like that.
Chamberlain was a triple double monster; had 9 TD games in a row which is still the record. He's top 10 in triple doubles AS A CENTER.
Shaq..... wasn't.

Shaq never even remotely had the stamina that Chamberlain had... after he broke his knee. His first four or five seasons Shaq showed a lot of activity on the court, but he never came close to #13 when he was on the Sixers. Not close at all. Chamberlain was sprinting with the guards, man, game after game.
Chamberlain must have had incredible endurance when he was a Warrior. I can't even imagine what that must have been like.

At his best, Chamberlain's defense was as great as any paint man I've seen; up there with Bill Walton and Tim Duncan.
Shaq was a fine defensive player, pretty underrated as far as I'm concerned; but that's about it.

Why are we comparing them again?

[LAZERUSS]

What for? Being the biggest guy in the league? Being the worst free-throw shooter?
They have little in common.

Chamberlain was a finesse player; could score to 15 feet with a literally unstoppable turnaround fade-away; had the widest offensive arsenal all the way around the paint of any center who's ever played.

Shaq had very fine quality footwork, better, in my opinion, than anybody... maybe even including Olajuwon, believe it or not. Shaq from the knee down was poetry in motion. But nobody ever claimed Shaq had any finesse. It's a pretty widespread belief that O'Neal wouldn't have been able to commit his endless charging fouls in any other era than post-Jordan, when the league was desperately trying to keep ratings up so they just let him loose.
Nor did Shaq have any kind of jump shot, unless you want to count his 3 foot jump-hook/shot put.

Chamberlain led the league in rebounds 11 times (the all-time record). He holds probably 95% of the NBA's rebounding records. He was an astoundingly great rebounder, at the level of Dennis Rodman or Bill Russell.
Rebounds Per Game
1959-60 NBA 27.0 (1)
1960-61 NBA 27.2 (1)
1961-62 NBA 25.6 (1)
1962-63 NBA 24.3 (1)
1963-64 NBA 22.3 (2)
1964-65 NBA 22.9 (2)
1965-66 NBA 24.6 (1)
1966-67 NBA 24.2 (1)
1967-68 NBA 23.8 (1)
1968-69 NBA 21.1 (1)
1970-71 NBA 18.2 (1)
1971-72 NBA 19.2 (1)
1972-73 NBA 18.6 (1)
Career NBA 22.9 (1)
Career 22.9 (1)
The only seasons he missed leading the league was when his doctors told his team he had a heart condition and they traded him to another team. Do you think that would have an effect on a player's activity? Apparently it did, since he came in second...... to Bill Russell.

Shaq never led the NBA in rebounding.

But at the same time Chamberlain was displaying the fact, year in and year out that he was at least as great as the best rebounding specialists who ever played (in my opinion, better than Rodman who was frequently-but-not-always a pure specialist)........ Wilt was one of the two or three greatest scoring forces the league has ever seen. This is a guy stopped shooting halfway through his career and STILL ties Jordan at 30 ppg over his career.
If he had kept scoring just at his 1968 pace, he would have over 40,000 points.
Shaq led the league 3 times, all in seasons where Jordan was MIA.

Chamberlain was one of the greatest passing centers the league has seen; I disagree with Laz, because Walton is the best, in my opinion; but either way, Shaq, while a great passer........... well, he never led the NBA in assists like Wilt did, we'll just put it like that.
Chamberlain was a triple double monster; had 9 TD games in a row which is still the record. He's top 10 in triple doubles AS A CENTER.
Shaq..... wasn't.

Shaq never even remotely had the stamina that Chamberlain had... after he broke his knee. His first four or five seasons Shaq showed a lot of activity on the court, but he never came close to #13 when he was on the Sixers. Not close at all. Chamberlain was sprinting with the guards, man, game after game.
Chamberlain must have had incredible endurance when he was a Warrior. I can't even imagine what that must have been like.

At his best, Chamberlain's defense was as great as any paint man I've seen; up there with Bill Walton and Tim Duncan.
Shaq was a fine defensive player, pretty underrated as far as I'm concerned; but that's about it.

Why are we comparing them again?

One of the best posters on this forum...

:applause: :applause: :applause:

I would like to add to Wilt's rebounding...

Chamberlain played in 29 post-season series, and he outrebounded his opposing starting center in EVERY ONE of them. In the ONLY series in which he did not lead both teams in rebounding, he grabbed 20.0 rpg, and PF Jerry Lucas averaged 21.0 rpg. HOWEVER, when the two met as starting CENTERS, in the 71-72 Finals, a 35 year old Wilt, playing 47 mpg in that series, outrebounded the 31 year old Lucas, who played 46 mpg in that series, by a 23.2 rpg to 9.8 rpg margin.

The REALITY...Chamberlain just SLAUGHTERED ALL of his peers, and even moreso in the POST-SASON.