Question to members ranking Russell or/and Wilt in their top 5

[nba_55]

How many full games of them have you watched and at what time of their career were those games?

[nba_55]

No answer? It is a genuine question.

[Dbrog]

Full games, probably 7-10 on NBA classic (some were allstar-games). In truth, there aren't many more out there. It's true with both that the more you read about them and the more you hear from people actually in the era, the more impressive both of these men become. My question would be for people who have them in their top 10 but not top5. Under what criteria are you judging your GOATs? If its numbers, Wilt is the best, if it's winning, Bill is the best. If you are going to say, well they just dominated because "it wasn't modern basketball," then how is it that they are on your list at all?

[nba_55]

Full games, probably 7-10 on NBA classic (some were allstar-games). In truth, there aren't many more out there. It's true with both that the more you read about them and the more you hear from people actually in the era, the more impressive both of these men become. My question would be for people who have them in their top 10 but not top5. Under what criteria are you judging your GOATs? If its numbers, Wilt is the best, if it's winning, Bill is the best. If you are going to say, well they just dominated because "it wasn't modern basketball," then how is it that they are on your list at all?

That's another great question, I actually don't rank them, so they are not in my top10.

[kshutts1]

That's another great question, I actually don't rank them, so they are not in my top10.
What is your top 10?

And I have never watched a single game of theirs, or Oscar's. But I rank all 3 in my first tier. I do so based on eye-witness accounts, stats and accolades and, most importantly, performance relative to peers. There have been very, very few individuals that performed as well, relative to their peers, as those 3 have.

[kshutts1]

Full games, probably 7-10 on NBA classic (some were allstar-games). In truth, there aren't many more out there. It's true with both that the more you read about them and the more you hear from people actually in the era, the more impressive both of these men become. My question would be for people who have them in their top 10 but not top5. Under what criteria are you judging your GOATs? If its numbers, Wilt is the best, if it's winning, Bill is the best. If you are going to say, well they just dominated because "it wasn't modern basketball," then how is it that they are on your list at all?
I don't know a single person that ranks players based on just one factor.

[Dbrog]

That's another great question, I actually don't rank them, so they are not in my top10.

This is much more sound logic than some people on this board. The biggest problem that I see with all the top10 lists is the inconsistent logic.

[Marchesk]

How many full games of them have you watched and at what time of their career were those games?

I wasn't alive then, so I've only seen highlights and parts of games online. Doesn't matter. Their accomplishments speak for themselves. One can legitimately ask why Mikan doesn't get the same respect, and maybe he is getting the shaft, but that was pre shot clock and pre integration era. The league fully integrated during Wilt and Russell's careers. Also, there were other HOF bigs in the 60s, and Wilt got to play against Kareem for 4 years.

I don't think you can do GOAT lists based on the eye test, or whether you think a certain era is stronger or weaker. It should be based solely on a player's accomplishments. You can't time travel guys, and you can't have them raised in other eras. Maybe Lebron and Kobe put up ridiculous numbers in the 60s, but then again if they grew up back then, they wouldn't have the same advantages that players have today. More likely, they would have been in the category of West, Oscar, Baylor. But who knows how Lebron plays in the 60s. Is he still a point forward?

I think we can say that certain players transcend eras and would be great no matter what.

[AirFederer]

ATG, but his stats cannot be looked at w/o denoting the fact that the L was a "bush league" then (Wilt's own words)
Great i the RS, known PO choker.
Larger than life character, to say the least.
Great athlete. Even greater in self promoting, myth production :lol

I have him around 18 in my top 20.

[choppermagic]

I don't know a single person that ranks players based on just one factor.

Im pretty sure EPSN only ranks Lebron according to PER LOL

As for the implication of OP's question, you dont always need to see the game for yourself to know something happened. How many of us personally saw Hitler kill someone, but we all pretty much agree the guy was a bad dude...

[nba_55]

What is your top 10?

And I have never watched a single game of theirs, or Oscar's. But I rank all 3 in my first tier. I do so based on eye-witness accounts, stats and accolades and, most importantly, performance relative to peers. There have been very, very few individuals that performed as well, relative to their peers, as those 3 have.

I am not sure of my actual top 10 right now, I still have to see more games of some of the older guys like Kareem, Magic, Bird. But i guess we all have different ways of doing our list. I personally can't rank players I have never seen play a full game. Since it's my own top 10 list, I have to judge them from my own perspective, my own eyes.

[Dbrog]

I don't know a single person that ranks players based on just one factor.

Of course. However, people CERTAINLY value numbers or winning in higher %s in their GOAT formulas. For instance, I take winning as significantly more valuable than numbers, but of course numbers still play a part.

[DonDadda59]

Here's a full game of Wilt vs Russell in the finals (1964) both in their primes:

Part I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti2Ncll2K64)

Part II (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wEzEHPZi3w)

Part III (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Daeb0pi2M)

Russell in '66 ECSF Game 4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3UrnXXKKvQ)

Wilt in '71 on the Lakers WCSF Game 6 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN6VrlUnVAc)

Just for fun- '62 All Star Game (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09xvhy9paR0)

[Dbrog]

Repped don. People need to see these games (I haven't seen the 1966 one before).

[Marchesk]

Of course. However, people CERTAINLY value numbers or winning in higher %s in their GOAT formulas. For instance, I take winning as significantly more valuable than numbers, but of course numbers still play a part.

Does that mean you rate Hondo over West or Oscar? Winning matters, but so does having the right team around you.

For example, I wonder where Kareem would be ranked if Magic hadn't demanded to play for the Lakers.

[kshutts1]

Of course. However, people CERTAINLY value numbers or winning in higher %s in their GOAT formulas. For instance, I take winning as significantly more valuable than numbers, but of course numbers still play a part.
Of course people value different things more highly than others. Everyone has their own criteria, which is why almost no list can be considered "bad" or "wrong", but rather "different".

You say you value winning as "significantly more valuable than numbers", and my criteria barely includes winning. Everyone is different, which is what makes it so much fun.

[Dbrog]

Does that mean you rate Hondo over West or Oscar? Winning matters, but so does having the right team around you.

For example, I wonder where Kareem would be ranked if Magic hadn't demanded to play for the Lakers.

Oh context definitely matters. Hondo's J was wet as f@ck but realistically he wasn't "the man" on most of those teams. Still, he's definitely in my top 50, probably top 25. Oscars actually one of the hardest to rate for me since he didn't really win anything as the man, and yet his numbers are just insane. It kinda comes down to a Karl Malone type thing I suppose. As for the Lakers, I wonder where Magic would be rated if he didn't have Kareem? There are too many instances of this so I decide not to look at them. All we know is what actually happened. Why not base things on that?

[kshutts1]

Oh context definitely matters. Hondo's J was wet as f@ck but realistically he wasn't "the man" on most of those teams. Still, he's definitely in my top 50, probably top 25. Oscars actually one of the hardest to rate for me since he didn't really win anything as the man, and yet his numbers are just insane. It kinda comes down to a Karl Malone type thing I suppose. As for the Lakers, I wonder where Magic would be rated if he didn't have Kareem? There are too many instances of this so I decide not to look at them. All we know is what actually happened. Why not base things on that?
I believe that context is one of the most important pieces.

If someone from the year 2065 were to look at the NBA as it is right now, there would be a historical debate about whether Curry was better than Durant. Do you think Curry is a better historical player than Durant? A better current player?

[Dbrog]

I believe that context is one of the most important pieces.

If someone from the year 2065 were to look at the NBA as it is right now, there would be a historical debate about whether Curry was better than Durant. Do you think Curry is a better historical player than Durant? A better current player?

Oh, definitely guarantee people in 2065 won't remember either of these players. I don't see either being dominant or winning enough to warrant that. However, lets say hypothetically Curry gets 2 more chips and KD gets 1, Curry will most certainly be seen as the greater player. Hell, right now he's the "greater" player. He's won more in less time. Who knows maybe KD will have a reggie miller career (with better scoring).

[FKAri]

Oh, definitely guarantee people in 2065 won't remember either of these players. I don't see either being dominant or winning enough to warrant that. However, lets say hypothetically Curry gets 2 more chips and KD gets 1, Curry will most certainly be seen as the greater player. Hell, right now he's the "greater" player. He's won more in less time. Who knows maybe KD will have a reggie miller career (with better scoring).

They'll be debating about how Curry couldn't play in today's league :lol

[RoundMoundOfReb]

They deserve high rankings due to the fact that they are pioneers (Russell mainly) not because they are actually top10 all time in playing ability. Mikan deserves a high ranking as well.

[nba_55]

Of course people value different things more highly than others. Everyone has their own criteria, which is why almost no list can be considered "bad" or "wrong", but rather "different".

You say you value winning as "significantly more valuable than numbers", and my criteria barely includes winning. Everyone is different, which is what makes it so much fun.

Well said. Many in here act like there's an official GOAT list and do everything to get their favorite players higher in that ''official'' GOAT list. This summarises 95% of the discussions in this forum.

[K Xerxes]

I don't think there's anything wrong with people ranking players they haven't seen, but it needs to be qualified. You can't possibly apply the same criteria to ranking Wilt as you have to ranking LeBron when you've followed the latter since he came into the league, but only read accounts of the former or watched highlights.

Personally, I'm most comfortable ranking the players I've seen, starting with Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq and so on. That doesn't mean that Wilt, Russell, Oscar etc weren't as great, but I couldn't apply the same robust criteria to all the players I'm ranking. I've seen more of Magic and Bird, but still not enough IMO.

[K Xerxes]

Oh, definitely guarantee people in 2065 won't remember either of these players. I don't see either being dominant or winning enough to warrant that. However, lets say hypothetically Curry gets 2 more chips and KD gets 1, Curry will most certainly be seen as the greater player. Hell, right now he's the "greater" player. He's won more in less time. Who knows maybe KD will have a reggie miller career (with better scoring).

Then you'd have old timers saying 'I was there to watch both Durant and Curry, and Durant was easily better!!!'. Then the youngsters will come back with 'But Curry won more ships, so Durant was a choker... Curry > Durant'

[sdot_thadon]

How many full games of them have you watched and at what time of their career were those games?
No full games, I've seen what was available previously. Also done lots of reading, that's how you get a feel for the climate at the time they played. I can't rank anyone highly without some data. I used to rank russell fairly low because I didn't know anything about him. Through reading you really get a good understanding of how good he was.

On a side note some people ranking Mj as goat haven't watched him play much either, what's your point?

[Marchesk]

The real question is whether the server gets upgraded by 2065.

[Kblaze8855]

I'd be shocked if more than 10% of the thousands of people here remember watching prime Jordan at an age they had a real understanding of what they were seeing.

Even less for Magic and Bird. Hell anyone short of 32 was a child when Shaq was at his best. The way people here behave I'd bet anything half of us aren't 32.

A couple of the biggest Kobe supporters here I know for a fact were 8 years old when the Lakers first 3 peat ended. There are people here well over 10,000 posts who were eleven or twelve when Kobe started falling off and hate on him everyday as if they watched his whole career.

ISH is filled to bursting with people who have half of their top 10 list full of people they know from highlights and ESPN Classic.

Most of us don't really know our top 10 as well as we know Russell Westbrook and it's always been that way.

But its a problem when two of the most decorated players in the history of athletics slide into prominent positions when we know maybe 15% of what they did as opposed to 25% for someone else who accomplished less?

[nba_55]

I'd be shocked if more than 10% of the thousands of people here remember watching prime Jordan at an age they had a real understanding of what they were seeing.

Even less for Magic and Bird. Hell anyone short of 32 was a child when Shaq was at his best. The way people here behave I'd bet anything half of us aren't 32.

A couple of the biggest Kobe supporters here I know for a fact were 8 years old when the Lakers first 3 peat ended. There are people here well over 10,000 posts who were eleven or twelve when Kobe started falling off and hate on him everyday as if they watched his whole career.

ISH is filled to bursting with people who have half of their top 10 list full of people they know from highlights and ESPN Classic.

Most of us don't really know our top 10 as well as we know Russell Westbrook and it's always been that way.

But its a problem when two of the most decorated players in the history of athletics slide into prominent positions when we know maybe 15% of what they did as opposed to 25% for someone else who accomplished less?

I don't take those people and their lists seriously. The difference between MJ/ Bird/Magic and Wilt/Russell is we can access MJ and company's games easily and it's almost impossible to access Wilt and Russell's games.

[nba_55]

No full games, I've seen what was available previously. Also done lots of reading, that's how you get a feel for the climate at the time they played. I can't rank anyone highly without some data. I used to rank russell fairly low because I didn't know anything about him. Through reading you really get a good understanding of how good he was.

On a side note some people ranking Mj as goat haven't watched him play much either, what's your point?

My point is basketball is much more than stats. You really need to watch the players play full games to really judge them. box scores are not enough. Those who rank MJ as GOAT and haven't seen him play are not taken seriously by me.

[nba_55]

No full games, I've seen what was available previously. Also done lots of reading, that's how you get a feel for the climate at the time they played. I can't rank anyone highly without some data. I used to rank russell fairly low because I didn't know anything about him. Through reading you really get a good understanding of how good he was.

On a side note some people ranking Mj as goat haven't watched him play much either, what's your point?

When I look at your GOAT list, I want to know who the best players are from your perspective, not from an old guy who wrote an article about wilt/russell from his own perspective.

[HOoopCityJones]

I'd be shocked if more than 10% of the thousands of people here remember watching prime Jordan at an age they had a real understanding of what they were seeing.

Even less for Magic and Bird. Hell anyone short of 32 was a child when Shaq was at his best. The way people here behave I'd bet anything half of us aren't 32.

A couple of the biggest Kobe supporters here I know for a fact were 8 years old when the Lakers first 3 peat ended. There are people here well over 10,000 posts who were eleven or twelve when Kobe started falling off and hate on him everyday as if they watched his whole career.

ISH is filled to bursting with people who have half of their top 10 list full of people they know from highlights and ESPN Classic.

Most of us don't really know our top 10 as well as we know Russell Westbrook and it's always been that way.

But its a problem when two of the most decorated players in the history of athletics slide into prominent positions when we know maybe 15% of what they did as opposed to 25% for someone else who accomplished less?


Ive been watching the Lakers since 96, mind you I was only 6 when I started, but on account of my parents being mad Laker heads I was always in the loop where it pertained to the history of our Team, Mom's favorite player was Kareem, she wore # 33 on her High School Team, Pops came to America at the height of the Showtime Lakers.

I wont pretend I knew much about other Teams around the league aside from obviously Chicago during that time, but hey there was no League pass in the 90's. Even though I grew up watching Shaq, Nick Van Exel and Eddie Jones, I don't consider that my era of Basketball. 1998 is when shit got real for me and Basketball, Kobe was emerging, Shaq just kept getting better and better, Duncan and The Spurs took the title in 99, AI was doing some great things as well and Vince Carter and Kevin Garnett were beasts. 2000's is really my Era, it's not so much I didn't understand as a 6 yr old, it's just once that investment in a Team and it's players has accumulated you start to feel the wins and losses more as you get older, that impressionable age where you're just absorbing history as it unfolds.

So yes, I laugh when people say Shaq carried Kobe during the 3peat, because Ive witnessed when Shaq, Eddie , and Nick were carrying Kobe and it was from 96-98, after that the Kid was the legit second option and perennial closer for The Lakers and even out shined Shaq on some nights.

[Kblaze8855]

I don't take those people and their lists seriously. The difference between MJ/ Bird/Magic and Wilt/Russell is we can access MJ and company's games easily and it's almost impossible to access Wilt and Russell's games.


It being possible doesn't mean people do it. The way people around here talk its obvious most aren't putting in the leg work. They care enough to argue not enough to spend hours forming an opinion with all available data.

People online aren't arguing because they know they are right because they looked into it. They argue because the belief that they are right is stronger than any evidence that says otherwise.

These dudes don't know the truth and have no real interest in finding it. They just want to put how many times someone won something in front of how many times they lost it and post a ****ing emoticon.

Is not about what's rational. They aren't forming their opinions through a rational process.

They're online acting like dickheads because they find it funny to see someone get upset about it or more often they are just bored sitting at a computer with nothing to do for a few minutes and post something about a game they love but aren't going to deeply investigate.

Even here on a place designed to draw hardcore fans most of us just don't care that much. But call one out on it they aren't going to admit it. Admitting you don't know what the **** you're talking about and don't even care enough to attempt to investigate your claims or how they came to be just isn't something likely to happen no matter how true it may be.

[sdot_thadon]

When I look at your GOAT list, I want to know who the best players are from your perspective, not from an old guy who wrote an article about wilt/russell from his own perspective.
I get that, but it's not entirely possible for anyone to have a credible goat list by those standards, for any subject. You can only use what's available, when I say read I don't mean just an article from an old guy. These guys are legends and have books written about them. Articles from the actual time period are especially gems. Like kblaze said, you have to be willing to do the homework. Most of my research was in my teens when I was absolutely obsessed with basketball. That said there is so much more available to learn now than when I was younger, so I still come across new info every so often.

It's amazing when you put it in perspective how hard some of you here argue against players you know nothing about.

[JellyBean]

How many full games of them have you watched and at what time of their career were those games?

None. But I have talked with coaches and family members from that era, as well as read books on Russell and Wilt, and putting up those kinds of numbers that those two did considering the level of travel and number of back to back games, allows me the latitude to place them among my top 5 GOAT list.