Top 50 All-Time List - Shot Clock Era = #1

[dankok8]

This is the player pool:

https://i.postimg.cc/VN7jY7Zz/Top-10-Candidates.jpg

For a full player pool see the link (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ARaI3VCNauULLYL1Yu24HIRY768FYQdip56sp6uRFGk/edit?usp=sharing).

Everyone may post in this thread but only votes from serious contributors will be considered. Not everyone has to write an essay but there should be some justification or explanation and some coherent arguments being presented. I encourage people to be open-minded and willing to adjust their rankings in response to strong evidence. Debate and discussion is encouraged.

[dankok8]

I see the four main candidates for the #1 spot to be Jordan, Russell, Kareem and Lebron.

I will break down each player’s GOAT case as I see it but first of all let me talk about the major criteria and the way that I see the greatest player of all time so that people can understand my arguments better.

The purpose of playing basketball is to win championships. In the context of the greatest players ever though, the more specific purpose is not just to win but to lead teams to championships. Depending on how restrictive or loose one’s definition is of leading a title team, there have been anywhere between 20 and 30 players in NBA history that have led teams to championships.

However it isn’t quite that simple or else no one who hasn’t led their team to a title could crack the top 20 or top 30 and we know that isn’t the case. Other aspects such as dominance are considered, accolades (MVP for instance), and circumstances should be looked at as well. Some players may legitimately have been in better or worse situations to win because of the quality of teammates, quality of opponents, good/bad luck etc. However circumstances are also very subjective and I would only use broad brush strokes here and not try to precisely quantify these factors.

For me the most important criteria is how many championships the player in question has led their team to and also how many realistic shots at a championship did that player lead his team to. Titles won as supporting players are much much less valuable because there have been many players in NBA history that did that. We are going from an exclusive club of 20-30 to a club of 100+ players that have been second best players or simply all-star (not superstar) level contributors on title teams. Championships as the best player are by far the most important accomplishments to me in the context of the GOAT debate.

The second most important criteria for me and this one is kind of slippery and less tangible but it’s the level of dominance. Yes this guy led his team to that many titles but was he dominant? Was he clearly the best player in the league or was it a debate? Did his teams look unbeatable at times? How many times was he outplayed in his prime in the playoffs or how many times did he underperform?

Therefore my GOAT ideal player is the player who:
1 - led their team to the most championships
2 - was always unanimously the best player on the court in his prime

Of course no real player is ideal but my GOAT will be the guy closest to this ideal player. I make no effort to compare eras which is impossible to do objectively. Every candidate is judged relative to their own era.

Lebron James

Titles as Best Player: 3 (2012, 2013, 2016)
Titles as Co-Best Player: 1 (2020)

Lebron James’ GOAT case has been steadily growing in recent years to the point where he’s often compared to the other men on this list but in my opinion he isn’t there yet and we are grading him as if he is retired from basketball and will not play another game in the NBA. Even if given full credit for this 2020 title, he still led his team to only 4 championships and I don’t see an excuse for that. In fact, and this is where the dominance argument comes in, but Lebron lost the very winnable 2011 Finals and looked terrible in that series. He had other occasions like the 2006 ECSF, 2007 Finals, 2008 ECSF and 2010 ECSF and 2021 R1 series, all of which he didn’t play particularly well in.

Lebron’s case is built on the body of work as in “Lebron may not be as good as Jordan but he’s almost as good and given his longevity his expected championships won are higher.” To me that isn’t a good argument because like explained Lebron wasn’t good in the six series listed above. He also had a rookie year that was far below the level of his prime, a weak second year missing the playoffs and had a season lost to injury in 2019 where he missed the playoffs as well. That leaves him with nine great years (2009, 2012-2018, 2020) which isn’t enough top-level longevity to swing this argument because the other GOAT candidates had as many as if not more top-notch years. Thus, his longevity is being misused in my opinion and having a longer less dominant career is rarely better than a shorter, more dominant career when the latter also resulted in more championships. Given that he’s turning 37, he is unlikely to make much more of a boost to his case but he could. It’s possible.

[dankok8]

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Titles as Best Player: 2 (1971, 1980)
Titles as Co-Best Player: 2 (1982, 1985)
Titles as Supporting Player: 2 (1987, 1988)

Like Lebron before him, Kareem’s GOAT argument is centered on his remarkable longevity but again, in my eyes, that argument falls apart to scrutiny. 1981 was the last year of Kareem’s prime and from 1982 onwards he won all titles as either the co-best player or a supporting player. Titles as a supporting player in particular are just far far less valuable.

However, the reason I still rank Kareem slightly higher than Lebron is that for the first 12 years of his career from 1970 to 1981, Kareem was unanimously or almost unanimously the best player in the NBA every single year. He had a major disappointment in the 1973 playoffs but apart from that he played most of the 70’s either without an all-star teammate or with key injuries and he always performed really well in those losses. He thus gets a higher grade in dominance compared to Lebron. With better circumstances, Kareem could have realistically won more but given that he won only 2 championships as the clear-cut best player on his team, I still find his GOAT argument weaker than the other two left because he has a lot of ground to make up in that department. Even if he had 1-2 more titles as the best player he’d still probably be a little short. Kareem had ten elite years (minus the 1973 debacle and 1975 injury) which is great but it isn’t noticeably better than anyone.

Bill Russell

Titles as Best Player: 8 (1959 to 1966)
Titles as Co-Best Player: 3 (1957, 1968, 1969)

Russell is the only one that gets an A+ for leading teams to titles. As far as winning he’s the greatest ever. During Boston’s eight-peat (!!) from 1959 to 1996, Russell was the best player on his team and the biggest reason for their dominance. Since the purpose of the game is to win, I can’t argue with anyone who picks Russell. His case is arguably the strongest and I can admit it.

Here is the reason why if I had to choose, gun to my head, I would say he’s the second greatest player ever. It comes down to dominance. Russell was the best player on his team and a juggernaut on defense which we can hardly show on the stat sheet but he was arguably never or seldom the clear-cut best player in the world. From the moment Wilt Chamberlain came in the league in 1960 when Russell was going for his third title, Wilt was arguably the better basketball player. I am of the opinion that Russell was better for most of those years (1967 being the obvious exception) but it’s far from a consensus. And Russell did have weak individual series against Wilt in the playoffs where it was somewhat difficult to walk away thinking he was better.

Michael Jordan

Titles as Best Player: 6 (1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998)

MJ may be the most popular choice for GOAT and often for the wrong reasons. 6-0 in the finals is a poor argument for instance. But in my opinion, Jordan is the greatest ever because he led his teams to 6 championships which is more than anyone except Russell with the difference being that Jordan was the most consistently dominant player of all time as well. From 1987 to 1998 which is ten full seasons, Jordan was the most dominant player in NBA history. He was top 3 in MVP voting every season including 5 wins, top 5 in DPOY voting 7 times, and won 10 consecutive scoring titles. He was 1st Team All-NBA and 1st Team All-Defense for 9 consecutive seasons.

His overall longevity of 13 seasons (11 full seasons) with the Bulls doesn’t seem impressive but Jordan was efficient with those years. He was a monster every year in the playoffs. Never gave an inch, never showed any vulnerability. And not just him individually but his team was rarely ever challenged as soon as he Pippen became an all-star caliber player. On the route to winning 6 titles, the Bulls only ever faced two elimination games (both Game 7’s) and won one of them in a blowout. In 7 seasons of all-star Pippen, Jordan led the Bulls to 6 titles.

Jordan was the best at combining winning with individual dominance. Russell just wasn’t as dominant and Kareem and Lebron have a longevity edge that in the end didn’t amount to accomplishing more in terms of winning.

I vote for Michael Jordan and this is my top 4 right now:

#1 Michael Jordan
#2 Bill Russell
#3 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
#4 Lebron James

I look forward to reading other people’s posts.

[SouBeachTalents]

Jordan, don't really think he needs an explanation :lol

[coastalmarker99]

Wilt has a case for being the GOAT as the man has over 250 records to his name still to this very day.




Plus Wilt played on 12 winning teams in his 14 seasons, and in the two that he did not, he had a monumental season in 62-63, and that 64-65 playoff run.

where he carried a 40-40 team to within one point, in a game seven, of beating the 62-18 Celtics who featured 7 hall of fame players plus the GOAT coach in Red.

He went to 12 Conference Finals (by contrast Jordan went to nine or ten)

He played on six teams that went to the Finals. He played on six teams that were Conference champions.

He played on four teams that had the best record in the league.

He played on four teams that won 60+ games, including two that went 68-13 and 69-13 (and won 33 straight games.)

And he anchored two of the two top 5 teams in NBA history in the 1967 76ers and 72 Lakers.



Plus Wilt is arguably the greatest 7 foot defensive center in NBA history. The late, great Harvey Pollack did keep track of blocked shots when Wilt played for the Warriors/76ers, and despite the 76ers in the 1980s later discarding a good number of those statistics that Pollack kept in his notebooks.

He estimated that the Big Dipper averaged 8-10 blocks a game during his prime years.

In Chamberlain's last 2 seasons with the 76ers and his 5 years with Lakers, sportswriters (e.g., UPI, AP, Sixer/Laker beat writers) were being more diligent about keeping track of blocked shots. This was especially the case in the playoffs. Examples include...



1967 PLAYOFFS 21.7 PTS 29.1 REBS 9.0 ASTS 9.2 BLKS FG% 57.9


1968 PLAYOFFS 23.7 PTS 24.7 REBS 6.5 ASTS 9.7 BLKS FG% 53.4


1969 PLAYOFFS 13.9 PTS 24.7 REBS 2.6 ASTS 8.5 BLKS FG% 54.5


1971 PLAYOFFS 18.3 PTS 20.2 REBS 4.4 ASTS 6.0 BLKS FG% 45.5


1973 PLAYOFFS 10.4 PTS 22.5 REBS 3.5 ASTS 6.9 BLKS FG% 55.2


Also it should be noted that Wilt had five seasons in which his team lost game seven's to the eventual champions, and four of them were by razor-then margins... of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.

in series in which he generally played well, or was downright dominant. Think about that...Wilt was an eyelash away from winning a total of seven rings for his career.

[coastalmarker99]

For me personally

I really found this stat very interesting between Wilt and Kareem

First 10 seasons for each player:

Kareem's teams in POs: 9-7 in series, 44-34 in games 1 champ, 2 total Finals

Wilt's teams in POs: 10-8, 51-47 1 champ, 3 Finals



In Kareem’s 5 seasons without one of the 2 best point guards ever, which also should be 5 of, if not his 5 best seasons (ages 27-31) Kareem:

Missed the playoffs twice – Left a team that had the same exact record after he left with the same main pieces intact – Got swept once (With home court advantage) –

Won 2 MVPs (one of which he won without making the playoffs in 1976)

Won a grand total of 2 playoff series (one of which required 2 victories to win) – Beat 0 teams with 50+ wins (While playing alongside 3 HOF players along the way in Goodrich, Wilkes, and Dantley.



Keep in mind Jordan, Kobe, Duncan, and LeBron are a combined 48-1 vs sub-50 win teams

so it is an accurate cutoff in deciding whether a team is elite or not).





Now with Magic joining the Lakers in 1979...LA immediately won a title.


They averaged 59 wins per season in his 12 years...going to nine Finals (a Finals appearance in 75% of the seasons)...and five titles.

After Kareem retired ...the Lakers actually improved the very next season, going from a 57-25 record in Kareem's last year, to a league-leading 63-19 record the next year.

Then, Magic took a washed-up and injury-riddled cast to a 58-24 record and yet another final.

Then after Magic...the Lakers immediately plummetted to records of 43-39 and 39-43.

BTW, in their ten years playing together,

Magic held a 3-1 edge in MVPS, a 3-1 edge in Finals MVPs, and outvoted Kareem in the MVP voting in eight of those ten seasons (the last eight BTW.)

So it is very clear as to who had the most impact on the Lakers in those ten years between Magic and Kareem.


Also if we examine Kareem's only title without Magic in the 1971 season.

The Bucks were wiped out by the Knicks in the previous season, 4-1.



They subsequently acquired Oscar and ran roughshod over the NBA in '71. Kareem was magnificent that season (IMHO it was his greatest all-around season if you include the post-season.)

However, has any title team ever had an easier road to a title than Kareem's Bucks that year? They beat a 41-41 Warrior team in the first round of the playoffs.

Then, in the next round, they beat a 48-34 Laker team that was without their second and third best players in the entire post-season (West and Baylor.

And while an aged Wilt, only a year removed from major knee surgery battled Kareem to a statistical draw, the Bucks overwhelming edge in talent was just too much for LA to overcome.

Then, Kareem's Bucks swept a 42-40 Bullets team in the Finals.

[coastalmarker99]

However in defence of Kareem.




I do believe that Kareem would be acknowledged as the undisrupted GOAT nowadays with just a few historical changes.

Criteria:


Kareem stays the exact same quality as a player.

Make only minor changes by teammates/opponents


If ...
Kareem's teammates played decently in 1972 & 1974 (and possibly 1977 &1981) POs.


Kareem won the 1980 FMVP.

Magic hadn't been injured in 1981.

The Lakers won in 1984 as they should have





If all that had happened, Kareem would have:

6 MVPs

9-11 rings (instead of 6: including 1972, 74, 84, and possibly 1977, 81).

6 FMVPs (instead of 2: including 1972, 74, 80, 84)

3 Finals losses (instead of 4)

These numbers (along with his legendary stats) would make him the undisputed GOAT, IMO


Hell If Kareem's teammates had played decently in 1972 & 1974 POs then he would have had


In his first 5 seasons:

3 MVPs (plus one robbed)

3 rings

3 FMVPs

By 1974 (year 5), he'd be a strong 3rd place as GOAT.

[coastalmarker99]

Also, I fail to understand the logic behind you not including Lebron title in 2020 to his tally of winning titles as the best player on his team.


As Lebron finished second in MVP voting that season ahead of AD.


Plus Lebron in the postseason was three points away from leading the entire postseason in TRB AST and PTS which would have been an incredible achievement.

[Thenameless]

I would also like to make a case for Wilt Chamberlain as the #1 player of all time. I agree with the points above that it is a team sport and that the ultimate goal is to win a Championship, but that can sometimes cloud our judgement.

If it was only about winning Championships, then Russell would be considered the best, but most people don't consider him to be. Why? Because individual ability and statistics still have to come into play.

And in this realm, Chamberlain is without peer. At his peak and in his prime, he is the greatest scorer, rebounder, and shot blocker of all time.

When comparing the greatest defenders in history, I give an advantage to great post defenders over great perimeter defenders. The easiest shot to make is a dunk or a lay up, so being a strong post defender is more important. Apart from actual blocked shots, a strong post defender changes opponents' shots and even deters them from penetrating, sometimes forcing them into lower percentage outside shots.

His one weakness, free throws, was a league fabrication. Wilt was so athletic that he could dunk his free throws, so he'd be the only guy in history with a 99% FT% if they hadn't changed the rules BECAUSE of him.

Like he told Jordan, "they changed the rules to make it easier for you. They changed the rules to make it harder for me."

If you told me that I could have the best scorer and the best defender in one player, I'd take him without a second thought. Now add in things like superlative speed, strength, and athleticism. An ability to play 48 minutes in a fast paced era. And never once fouling out while playing dominant inside defense.

What do you get? A guy who basically owns the record book.

[Bankaii]

MJ.
Good analysis, however the “co-best player” aspect is extremely subjective and going to lead to arguments.

[dankok8]

Thank you for a detailed post coastalmarker99.

I will post my response regarding Wilt because he is a GOAT candidate to some. There is maybe 5% of fans who consider him the GOAT but the ones that do defend that opinion feverishly. The famous jlauber/LAZERUSS, CavsFTW, TeoTheGreek13 and others. However I will tell you where I think the mistake is with having Wilt as the greatest ever. Statistics and records are the by-product of greatness and not the measure of greatness. No team will say "I want to draft the biggest, strongest and most dominant player who will set scoring and rebounding records that will never be broken." but they will say "I want to draft a player who will help my team win the most." That is the major disconnect between who Wilt was and what the ultimate goal of the game of basketball was. For whatever reason, his own mentality, the makeup of the team around him, the stacked Celtics early in his career... honestly it was probably a combination of reasons but Wilt just didn't always or even often play winning basketball and managed to win a grand total of 2 titles in his career. And it's hard to look past the fact that most of his records are in the regular season. He has little or no postseason records apart from rebounding which was heavily inflated by pace.

I think there is and there was even in Wilt's time a major disconnect between how people perceived Wilt as a player and where Wilt really brought value to his team. The 50 ppg season did him a huge disservice in that everyone looked at him as an offensive juggernaut. He was a really good offensive player but poor free throw shooting and unwillingness to play a power game made him a slightly above average scorer in terms of efficiency. Against the likes of Russell and Thurmond in the playoffs, Wilt couldn't score at a high volume at good efficiency... Where Wilt brought real value is his defense where he really was a juggernaut and arguably the best defensive center ever with the exception of Bill Russell. Alex Hannum seemed to be Wilt's only coach during his prime that realized Wilt's strength... his huge size and scoring reputation down low can collapse the defense and give his teammates open shots and guess what Wilt was a willing passer but there was no need for him to score a lot. In addition, by being a decoy more and shooting much less, he exerted less energy on offense which kept his tank full to shut down the lane defensively. It's not a coincidence that Wilt's best defensive seasons/postseasons like 1964, 1967, 1968 (when healthy), 1972 and 1973 coincided with the most successful stretches for his team. There is one game from 1971 that I've seen on YT against the Atlanta Hawks IIRC where Wilt blocked like 12+ shots... at some point the other team's guards were shooting long 2's from 3pt range and wouldn't even come near the rim. That kind of impact simply guaranteed wins in the pre-3pt era. Wilt should have been a defensive anchor his entire career IMO.

I think some of your assessments of Kareem are a bit unfair (he was the best player in 1971 and 1980 pretty comfortably) but then you made a case for him being unlucky which I can agree with.

[coastalmarker99]

Thank you for a detailed post coastalmarker99.

I will post my response regarding Wilt because he is a GOAT candidate to some. There is maybe 5% of fans who consider him the GOAT but the ones that do defend that opinion feverishly. The famous jlauber/LAZERUSS, CavsFTW, TeoTheGreek13 and others.


However, I will tell you where I think the mistake is with having Wilt as the greatest ever. Statistics and records are the by-product of greatness and not the measure of greatness.



No team will say "I want to draft the biggest, strongest and most dominant player who will set scoring and rebounding records that will never be broken." but they will say "I want to draft a player who will help my team win the most." That is the major disconnect between who Wilt was and what the ultimate goal of the game of basketball was.



For whatever reason, his own mentality, the makeup of the team around him, the stacked Celtics early in his career... honestly it was probably a combination of reasons but Wilt just didn't always or even often play winning basketball and managed to win a grand total of 2 titles in his career.


And it's hard to look past the fact that most of his records are in the regular season. He has little or no postseason records apart from rebounding which was heavily inflated by pace.

I think there is and there was even in Wilt's time a major disconnect between how people perceived Wilt as a player and where Wilt really brought value to his team.




The 50 ppg season did him a huge disservice in that everyone looked at him as an offensive juggernaut.


He was a really good offensive player but poor free throw shooting and unwillingness to play a power game made him a slightly above average scorer in terms of efficiency.




Against the likes of Russell and Thurmond in the playoffs, Wilt couldn't score at a high volume at good efficiency... Where Wilt brought real value is his defence where he really was a juggernaut and arguably the best defensive center ever with the exception of Bill Russell.


Alex Hannum seemed to be Wilt's only coach during his prime that realized Wilt's strength... his huge size and scoring reputation down low can collapse the defence and give his teammates open shots and guess what Wilt was a willing passer but there was no need for him to score a lot.



In addition, by being a decoy more and shooting much less, he exerted less energy on offense which kept his tank full to shut down the lane defensively.


It's not a coincidence that Wilt's best defensive seasons/postseasons like 1964, 1967, 1968 (when healthy), 1972 and 1973 coincided with the most successful stretches for his team.


There is one game from 1971 that I've seen on YT against the Atlanta Hawks IIRC where Wilt blocked like 12+ shots... at some point the other team's guards were shooting long 2's from 3pt range and wouldn't even come near the rim. That kind of impact simply guaranteed wins in the pre-3pt era. Wilt should have been a defensive anchor his entire career IMO.

I think some of your assessments of Kareem are a bit unfair (he was the best player in 1971 and 1980 pretty comfortably) but then you made a case for him being unlucky which I can agree with.

Wilt's 1963-1964 season is one of the greatest single seasons in NBA history. As no other all-time great as had a weaker supporting cast around him in the NBA Finals than '64 Wilt.

The Warriors finished 3rd in SRS with a rookie Nate Thurmond and players like Wayne Hightower, Tom Meschery, and Guy Rodgers leading in shots. Wilt had a .325 WS/48 in the regular season (3rd all-time), and his .323 WS/48 playoff run is 4th all-time in the Shot Clock Era.

In the WDF, with his team playing poorly, Wilt put up 38.6 PPG on a +7.8 rTS%.

In the Finals, he finished with 29.2 PPG on a +2.4 rTS% against the greatest defense of all-time. Only one other player (Tom Meschery) shot above 35 FG% in that series.



Wilt's impact even went beyond his offence.

I believe it was Hannum who commented on Chamberlain's incredible 1964 season, where he took one of the worst rosters in NBA history, to the Finals...

"He has to play like Russell on the defensive end, and like Wilt on the offensive end." BTW, even Russell made the comment that Wilt could do a better job in his [Russell's] role, than Russell could do in Wilt's




The mixture of scoring, passing, rebounding, and defence that Wilt provides is so impactful to a team and it's why I don't understand the narrative that his value in his high scoring days was not as impactful as his 1967 to 1973 self.

[coastalmarker99]

When watching film of Wilt such as the 1964 Finals you can see that Wilt touches the ball 15 times on 47 possessions.



Compare this to 2000 Shaq in the triangle offence where he is getting 34 touches on 36 possessions and the difference is night and day.

Had he been regularly receiving post-ups this would have lead to more open shots and therefore assist opportunities for Wilt. It didn't help that guards back then initiated the offence and were getting a massive amount of the touches.

Besides 1962, early Wilt was not getting the ball anywhere near as much as people think due to many shots coming off offensive rebounds.

He certainly wasn't getting as much usage compared to a modern player. In the 1964 Finals film they are up with 2 minutes to go and Wilt doesn't even touch the ball once, let alone shoot because the guards are controlling the offence and shooting up abysmal jumpers.

It's no surprise to me that when Frank McGuire had Wilt shooting more than ever that the offence rose by over 3 points--because the ball was being fed to Wilt more as opposed to worse players.

Wilt's teammates were getting quite a bit of shots up for their role even with the number of shots he was taking himself.

This made it harder to impact an offence from his role in a significant way.

Guards dominated the ball and controlled a large portion of the touches for an offence (big men back then were not used for dribbling and running an offence.


That was the guard's job, making it harder for big men to receive meaningful usage in the halfcourt unless they were used as a passing hub off screens like in Auerbach's system.)

So, while Wilt could definitely still bring a positive aspect to an offence, he was basically at the mercy of his guards getting the ball to him so he could create.

This can be seen in -game film from '64 and even '67 (where his touches are still much lower than a modern player.)

Because of the high amount of rebounds available, bigs were less involved in the offence than the numbers lead you to believe.


They would have been getting more offensive rebounds back then and if they put them back up as shots it would make bigs seem more involved in the offence than they really were.

In reality, it was mainly the guards and wings controlling the flow of the offence while the best rebounding big men like Wilt and Bellamy put up big numbers with help from their ability to offensive rebound missed shots.


I believe this helped cap their teams offensive potential if their teammates were poor.

Wilt's era was more predicated on having a good, well-rounded team than any after it.

You needed a roster that could score efficiently because many different players would be shooting and the rules were slanted to help the defence more--this also made having a team full of defenders very successful as well.

This is why players like Rodgers and Sauldsberry have such awful TS Adds because they were allowed to take more shots than they should have been. Players like that could sink an offence and make it difficult to rank high in ORTG.

I think that looking at how players (especially bigs) impacted an offence by simply plugging them onto the roster and seeing how much better they were in ORTG the next season is not fully taking into account the playstyle and era of the 50s/60s.

In modern play, players can impact an offence drastically because they are touching the ball more.

In the halfcourt, bigs weren't getting the ball as often while guards and wings controlled the ball more from the perimeter due to the lack of spacing, antiquated offensive schemes, and no enforcement of the zone defence rule.

Essentially: impacting an offence as a big was harder in general in the 1960s due to a combination of teams spreading shots around, fewer touches in the halfcourt, and a defensively focused era.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Kawhi has led 7 different teams in VORP that were top 3 SRS teams (2014,2015, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021).

He takes time off or whatever but he still ends up outproducing, out working his teammates and destroying them in VORP, so it doesn't matter. They are always top 3 in SRS. I can't think of any other player who has led 7 different top 3 srs reg seasons in VORP since the stat was invented in 1973, not Jordan or LeBron did it.

Then you have his incredible title runs in 2014, 2019 and his incredible short playoff runs in 2017 and 2021. Sometimes, I don't even know if kawhi knows how damn good he is.

Easy top 10 and should be considered for top 5/3ish range in my opinion.

[Overdrive]

Kawhi has led 7 different teams in VORP that were top 3 SRS teams (2014,2015, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021).

He takes time off or whatever but he still ends up outproducing, out working his teammates and destroying them in VORP, so it doesn't matter. They are always top 3 in SRS. I can't think of any other player who has led 7 different top 3 srs reg seasons in VORP since the stat was invented in 1973, not Jordan or LeBron did it.

Then you have his incredible title runs in 2014, 2019 and his incredible short playoff runs in 2017 and 2021. Sometimes, I don't even know if kawhi knows how damn good he is.

Easy top 10 and should be considered for top 5/3ish range in my opinion.

This isn't about the 30th place AT.

[Overdrive]

Had a lengthy post about why MJ is #1, but it's useless tbh. So far he cumulated anything that made the other guys candidates except for longevity. That's why Kareem is in the mix and Lebron has a shot.

[dankok8]

@coastalmarker99

I read your posts. I completely agree that 1964 Wilt was fantastic including on defense. I actually had that year 1964 in my first reply. I said 1964, 1967, 1968, 1972 and 1973 were his teams' best years when Wilt was most effective and it coincided with his best defensive efforts. Good post on style of play and how a lot of Wilt's points came on the offensive glass. That's an impression I got by watching the now increasing amount of footage of young Wilt. Anyways it's hard to disagree that Wilt did not always play to his strengths and that's obviously not just his fault but his coaches'... And yes the 1964 team did not have a lot of talent and played against the most dominant of Russell's era Celtics. In fact that year was the biggest talent disparity between Russell's and Wilt's teams.

[dankok8]

Had a lengthy post about why MJ is #1, but it's useless tbh. So far he cumulated anything that made the other guys candidates except for longevity. That's why Kareem is in the mix and Lebron has a shot.

My post explained why the edge in longevity isn't that relevant. And at the end it didn't produce a tangible result. Despite longer careers, Kareem and Lebron led fewer teams to championships than Jordan who played less. But different people may see it differently. We all have different measuring sticks for greatness. That's why I wrote a long prelude explaining my criteria so that people could understand.

[Overdrive]

My post explained why the edge in longevity isn't that relevant. And at the end it didn't produce a tangible result. Despite longer careers, Kareem and Lebron led fewer teams to championships than Jordan who played less. But different people may see it differently. We all have different measuring sticks for greatness. That's why I wrote a long prelude explaining my criteria so that people could understand.

No need to argue. I have Jordan firmly as #1, but longevity matters when you still win late. Shaq's longevity was useless, he last was a decisive factor 6 years before retirement. Lebron still won last year as his team's best player and he still realisticly has another shot. Also has a shot at the AT scoring #1. It's not a sole factor, but it can tip the scale.

[Overdrive]

Kawhi has led 7 different teams in VORP that were top 3 SRS teams (2014,2015, 2016, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021).

He takes time off or whatever but he still ends up outproducing, out working his teammates and destroying them in VORP, so it doesn't matter. They are always top 3 in SRS. I can't think of any other player who has led 7 different top 3 srs reg seasons in VORP since the stat was invented in 1973, not Jordan or LeBron did it.

Then you have his incredible title runs in 2014, 2019 and his incredible short playoff runs in 2017 and 2021. Sometimes, I don't even know if kawhi knows how damn good he is.

Easy top 10 and should be considered for top 5/3ish range in my opinion.

On a more serious note: This shows how stupid advanced stats are, especially when it comes to RS. Kawhi won his 1st chip as a role player and his 2nd depended on a lucky bounce in a game 7.

No matter how good his VORP is, he isn't close to some contemporaries and especially past players. If he sat out 20 games a year, but dominated the playoffs year after year it would be argueable, but he sits and then still injures himself in the playoffs. He simply doesn't have the consistency to be on a higher tier.

[RRR3]

On a more serious note: This shows how stupid advanced stats are, especially when it comes to RS. Kawhi won his 1st chip as a role player and his 2nd depended on a lucky bounce in a game 7.

No matter how good his VORP is, he isn't close to some contemporaries and especially past players. If he sat out 20 games a year, but dominated the playoffs year after year it would be argueable, but he sits and then still injures himself in the playoffs. He simply doesn't have the consistency to be on a higher tier.
Just ignore him his vote isn’t being counted anyways as trolls aren’t allowed.

[SaintzFury13]

Lebron’s case is built on the body of work as in “Lebron may not be as good as Jordan but he’s almost as good and given his longevity his expected championships won are higher.” To me that isn’t a good argument because like explained Lebron wasn’t good in the six series listed above. He also had a rookie year that was far below the level of his prime, a weak second year missing the playoffs and had a season lost to injury in 2019 where he missed the playoffs as well. That leaves him with nine great years (2009, 2012-2018, 2020) which isn’t enough top-level longevity to swing this argument because the other GOAT candidates had as many as if not more top-notch years. Thus, his longevity is being misused in my opinion and having a longer less dominant career is rarely better than a shorter, more dominant career when the latter also resulted in more championships. Given that he’s turning 37, he is unlikely to make much more of a boost to his case but he could. It’s possible.

There's more to it than just his longevity.

For me it comes down to three simple factors (because I don't feel like writing an essay).

1. He's the greatest all around player of all time. I haven't really seen anything to refute this statement. We've never seen someone who at their peak was able to literally do everything in the type of fashion LeBron could. Score, run the offense, passing, rebounding, defense, posting up, shooting from deep, literally ANYTHING. We have never seen a man who was literally capable of doing just about anything you could imagine in the NBA before. Now, with that said, being a better all around player doesn't necessarily equate to being a better BASKETBALL player. But many have made the case that LeBron's all around game is at a level that no one has even come close to matching. You can try to think of who the second best all around player of all time is and they just don't come close to matching him. When you try to think of people who were elite in multiple areas, there was always at least one area that stood out as a weakness. LeBron at his best simply doesn't have those weaknesses.

2. His longevity, as you noted. And that deserves more praise than what it gets. We've never seen someone be able to still dominate the NBA at a level that LeBron has. He's going into year number 19 now in the league. Just the fact that we are having a conversation about whether or not he could win MVP again this year is outrageous. Let's talk about Kareem for a brief moment. One of his calling cards was how good he was for such a long period of time. LeBron hasn't reached the 20 year mark yet but he's already basically got Kareem beat. In Kareem's 15th year in the NBA, he was averaging 21 PPG, 7 RPG and 2 BPG. Those are pretty incredible stats for someone in their fifteenth year in the league, and we thought we'd never see anything as remarkable. But LeBron? In his 15th year? 27 PPG on 54% shooting, 8.6 RPG, 9 APG, while playing 37 MINUTES PER GAME. He led his team to the finals and dropped 51 on arguably the most stacked team in the history of the NBA and had it not been for George Hill choking and JR Smith being a moron, he would have stolen game 1 from Golden State in that series. Let's take it one step further shall we? Year number 17 in the league, Kareem averaged 23 PPG and 6 RPG. He was able to actually up his scoring. Pretty remarkable. LeBron on the other hand? 25 PPG, 10 APG. Yeah, in his 17th season in the NBA, he led the league in assists. Unbelievable. Oh and he also led his team to a championship that season and won Finals MVP, and holds the distinction of being the only man in NBA history to have won Finals MVP for three different teams. People are going to focus on the longevity, and they should, because we've never seen anyone, including Kareem, be this good for this long.

3. He has arguably the most storied career in the history of the NBA. There is so much about the mans career that has its own unique journey and story. Leading Cleveland to their first finals at such a young age, overcoming failure in Miami to redeem himself and have one of the greatest playoff runs of all time in 2012, overcoming the Spurs and handing them their first finals loss, winning a championship in LA the year of Kobe Bryant's death. But there's one story I chose to leave out, because this is going to probably be the one that he'll be remembered for the most. Returning to Cleveland, the team that many considered him destined to lead to a championship one day, and doing just that in the most dramatic fashion possible. There is no feat in the history of the NBA that is greater than LeBron taking this young, inexperienced and, in many ways, flawed Cavaliers team to an NBA Finals and leading them to victory over one of the greatest teams of all time while having arguably the greatest Finals series performance of all time. We all know what happened. Cavaliers are down 3-1 against a 73 win Warriors team, he leads the Cavaliers in all major statistics and has two straight 41 point performances to bring Cleveland back to game 7, where he has a triple double and the greatest defensive play in the history of the NBA to give Cleveland their championship, and thus breaking the curse that plagued the city for 53 years. LeBron didn't just come into a league with high expectations. He had a legitimate destiny. He was destined to be the man to one day put an end to Cleveland's misfortunes and he did just that. In all of sports (and I mean ALL sports), there are few stories out there that compare to this one. Is it a narrative? Sure. But so is Jordan's perfect finals record, which many use without context (most of the teams he faced had no real shot at beating him, you cannot say the same about LeBron's opponents). There is no greater single achievement out there in the history of the NBA than LeBron winning one for Cleveland. Dirk's win in Dallas, Jordan's first championship win against Magic, Russell's upset victory against the Lakers in 69 (I think? I can't remember which year that was), Magic's first title win as a rookie. None of these compare to LeBron's championship win in Cleveland, and I don't think there's anything out there that ever will.

These, along with a few others that don't really deserve as much focus, are the main driving factors behind LeBron being the GOAT. And honestly, they are good reasons for someone to want to go that direction.

[SaintzFury13]

With that said, my pick is still going to be Jordan, and it's for two simple reasons.

1. Jordan was still the better player on both ends of the floor. Yes, LeBron was elite in a lot more areas and there are certainly aspects of the game he was a better player than Jordan in. Shooting, playmaking, rebounding, defending multiple positions, these are all obviously LeBron (even though rebounding has a lot more to do with him simply being taller and stronger). But Jordan was still a much more effective scorer, in an era where hand checking was still a thing (but then again...zone defenses weren't a thing yet, so I do sometimes wonder if Jordan would have done as well if it was). Either way, to me Jordan was always the more effective offensive player. And defensively, it's not close. I am not taking away from anything LeBron did on the defensive end of the floor and I will more often than not defend his work on that end (no pun intended), but Jordan is still clearly the better defensive player and has the accolades, stats, and video evidence to back that statement up. I cannot justify putting LeBron over Jordan when at the end of the day, he still wasn't even a better BASKETBALL PLAYER than him.

2. The 2011 NBA Finals. This exists. We can't ignore it. Jordan had his failures, he had his shortcomings. He couldn't win without Scottie Pippen. He wasn't nearly as good at carrying a team as LeBron was. Hell he probably wouldn't even win without a Horace Grant or a Dennis Rodman on his team. But you know what? When he did have them, he won. I can't say the same about LeBron when he had something of that caliber. And granted, the only time he really did was in Miami. And while the 2011 Miami Heat don't come anywhere close to being on the same level talent wise as any of Jordan's championship teams, I can still make the case that the 2011 Dallas Mavericks weren't necessarily on Miami's level either. Now, let it be said that LeBron's offensive short comings in that series aren't entirely his fault. Dallas was extremely well coached, had multiple lengthy perimeter defenders who could bother LeBron, and had the perfect rim protecting center in Tyson Chandler to stop him from dominating in the paint. But here's the thing: Jordan would have found a way to get past all of that to still be effective. LeBron didn't. He recognized his shortcomings, but he couldn't think of a way to overcome them. Jordan did. He did it against Seattle (even though Dennis Rodman still should have won Finals MVP). So why couldn't LeBron do it here against Dallas? And even if you give a full on pass to LeBron for his performance on the offensive end, there is NO excuse that you can give to LeBron for his work on the defensive end. He was a first team all defense member that season. Two years ago, he was second in DPOY voting. But in the 2011 NBA Finals? He got lit up by EVERYONE, most notably Jason Terry, who had himself one hell of a series, but still. LeBron James got lit up by Jason Terry. He is never going to be able to escape that. You don't hear stories about how Michael Jordan got lit up by Dan Majerle, because he would have never allowed something like that to happen. The 2011 NBA Finals will always come back to haunt LeBron, and it should. It was a failure that he has ultimately no one but himself to blame for. And that, to me, will always prevent him from ever reaching true GOAT status.

[dankok8]

^ Great posts Saintzfury13! Sorry to tell you but that is an essay. You wrote 1627 words to my 1606 words. :oldlol:

You lost me on Lebron being a better shooter but otherwise it's a great post.

We only have 7 votes so far! Come on people.

If messaging wasn't disabled I would PM.

[SaintzFury13]

^ Great posts Saintzfury13! Sorry to tell you but that is an essay. You wrote 1627 words to my 1606 words. :oldlol:

You lost me on Lebron being a better shooter but otherwise it's a great post.

We only have 7 votes so far! Come on people.

If messaging wasn't disabled I would PM.

The essay part is in reference to the argument for LeBron being over Jordan. Could have went a lot longer if I wanted to but chose not to.

And regards to shooting, I probably should have said three point shooting. Because in regards to mid range and free throws, Jordan has him beat by a country mile.

[Dbrog]

I'm not necessarily going to write an essay but I personally have Bill Russell as my GOAT for basically the reasons you listed dankok. I don't see how it can be disputed he is the GOAT winner and leader...I mean he won 11 of his 13 seasons and 1 of those was literally as the head coach while he was playing. That's absolute insanity. Also just watching his interviews you can hear him talk about his methods vs Wilt (whom I do think was more talented and has an argument for GOAT if you value insane stats), he speaks about how he limited him in different ways that wouldn't necessarily show up on stats. Thinking Basketball's youtube vids speak of this some and show how absolutely dominant Russ made his teams defensively AND offensively in terms of positioning on the court as well as unselfishness.

I'm not really going to argue Jordan being #1 in someone's eyes though. He truly was dominant and has very few blemishes in his resume once in his prime. I personally can't put a guy #1 who retires because "there isn't anything left to prove." I know that's something technically outside of basketball, but it does factor in for me vs a guy who lived and breathed it...obsessed really.

Kareem was absolutely amazing and definitely in my top 3 but when you get up that high, the small things set you apart and he was neither as dominant as Jordan (in terms of Championship runs) nor as winning as Russ so he's basically on the outside looking in

Lebron has no argument for me for GOAT so I won't speak on that


Here's a little excerpt from Russell's biography "Second Wind" regarding limiting Wilt and ultimately shows how cerebral he was:
"He was by far the toughest center I ever played against. He was awesome, and no matter what anyone says about his lack of team play, his teams alwaysended up in the playoffs staring at us. He always outscored me by huge margins- 20 or 30 points a game- so I could never hope to compete with him in scoring duels any more than I could make twenty footers from outside. I couldn't allow myself to get suckered into a game within the game; I had to do whatever it took to help us win. One season (1962) Wilt was averaging over 50 points per game, while I was averaging sixteen or seventeen. In that same year his team averaged 112 points per game and the Celtics 110. So I figured if I knocked a few points off his average we'd win most of those games. So that's what I did and that's what happened. "

[SaintzFury13]

I'm not necessarily going to write an essay but I personally have Bill Russell as my GOAT for basically the reasons you listed dankok. I don't see how it can be disputed he is the GOAT winner and leader...I mean he won 11 of his 13 seasons and 1 of those was literally as the head coach while he was playing. That's absolute insanity. Also just watching his interviews you can hear him talk about his methods vs Wilt (whom I do think was more talented and has an argument for GOAT if you value insane stats), he speaks about how he limited him in different ways that wouldn't necessarily show up on stats. Thinking Basketball's youtube vids speak of this some and show how absolutely dominant Russ made his teams defensively AND offensively in terms of positioning on the court as well as unselfishness.

I'm not really going to argue Jordan being #1 in someone's eyes though. He truly was dominant and has very few blemishes in his resume once in his prime. I personally can't put a guy #1 who retires because "there isn't anything left to prove." I know that's something technically outside of basketball, but it does factor in for me vs a guy who lived and breathed it...obsessed really.

Kareem was absolutely amazing and definitely in my top 3 but when you get up that high, the small things set you apart and he was neither as dominant as Jordan (in terms of Championship runs) nor as winning as Russ so he's basically on the outside looking in

Lebron has no argument for me for GOAT so I won't speak on that


Here's a little excerpt from Russell's biography "Second Wind" regarding limiting Wilt and ultimately shows how cerebral he was:
"He was by far the toughest center I ever played against. He was awesome, and no matter what anyone says about his lack of team play, his teams alwaysended up in the playoffs staring at us. He always outscored me by huge margins- 20 or 30 points a game- so I could never hope to compete with him in scoring duels any more than I could make twenty footers from outside. I couldn't allow myself to get suckered into a game within the game; I had to do whatever it took to help us win. One season (1962) Wilt was averaging over 50 points per game, while I was averaging sixteen or seventeen. In that same year his team averaged 112 points per game and the Celtics 110. So I figured if I knocked a few points off his average we'd win most of those games. So that's what I did and that's what happened. "

Russell always had the greatest team surrounding him, even from the day he entered the league. I can't take any argument claiming he's the GOAT seriously.

[Dbrog]

Russell always had the greatest team surrounding him, even from the day he entered the league. I can't take any argument claiming he's the GOAT seriously.

66’ Celts went through Oscar, then Wilt, then West/Baylor. How is that not legitly one of the toughest runs to the chip ever?

Russell played alongside Bob Cousey, Frank Ramsey, Bill Sharman, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, John Havlicek, and Bailey Howell who are in the hall.

Take the Russell away and only Cousy, Sharman and Havlicek are in the Hall. Sam never becomes the player he was, same for Heinsohn. Howell doesn't have the resume and KC and Ramsey don't even get consideration. It's such a farce to me to insinuate Russell was always playing on the KD/Curry stacked warriors

Edit: I'll never understand how so many people can diss a guy like Russell, who comes to a franchise with no rings, wins his rookie year then 9 of the next 11 years, watches every player on the team when he got there leave and be replaced, then wins in his last season and then the next season his team misses the playoffs for the first time since he got there.

[SaintzFury13]

66’ Celts went through Oscar, then Wilt, then West/Baylor. How is that not legitly one of the toughest runs to the chip ever?

Because none of them had any realistic chance of beating the Celtics.

Edit: I actually take this statement back. Oscar's team didn't, but that 76ers team was legit and possibly could have dethroned the Celtics. But beating Boston at that time was very difficult, and being such a stacked team is one of the major reasons why.


Russell played alongside Bob Cousey, Frank Ramsey, Bill Sharman, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, John Havlicek, and Bailey Howell who are in the hall.

Take the Russell away and only Cousy, Sharman and Havlicek are in the Hall. Sam never becomes the player he was, same for Heinsohn. Howell doesn't have the resume and KC and Ramsey don't even get consideration. It's such a farce to me to insinuate Russell was always playing on the KD/Curry stacked warriors

Oh wow, so take away Russell and only THREE of those guys are for sure hall of famers. Wow, silly me. I guess Russell didn't have as stacked of a team as I thought. Only three legitimate hall of fame worthy teammates. I am clearly mistaken.

Buddy, think about the shit you are saying. This just further proves my point.


Edit: I'll never understand how so many people can diss a guy like Russell, who comes to a franchise with no rings, wins his rookie year then 9 of the next 11 years, watches every player on the team when he got there leave and be replaced, then wins in his last season and then the next season his team misses the playoffs for the first time since he got there.

No one is dissing Russell. I sure as hell ain't. Me saying he has no argument for GOAT isn't dissing him. It's being realistic. You cannot go entirely off of rings. That's one of the worst possible arguments you can make because at the end of the day, rings are a team accomplishment. Russell was always, and I mean ALWAYS a key part of every single one of those rings. He's the greatest defensive player in the history of the sport. But he wasn't even the best player in his own era (that would be Wilt). He wasn't even an elite offensive player. All said and done, the only thing I can say about Russell at that end was...yeah, he was good, maybe even great. But he was never good enough at that end to realistically deserve a spot in the GOAT conversation. Sometimes I have a hard time justifying putting him in the top ten. Take away Michael Jordan's rings and what do you have? The most dominant two way player in the history of the game with 10 scoring titles, 9 all defensive team selections, including a defensive player of the year award and a multitude of other accolades that no other player to this day holds. Take away Bill Russell's 11 championship rings and what do you have? You have arguably the greatest defensive player of all time but was constantly overshadowed by Wilt Chamberlin.

You see the difference here? You don't need to mention Jordan's 6 championship rings to argue that he's the GOAT. His play on the court and his accolades speak for themselves.

Russell's 11 championship rings are the only reason he's even in the top 10 conversation.

You don't want people dissing Russell? Then stop overrating him.

[coastalmarker99]

Russell always had the greatest team surrounding him, even from the day he entered the league. I can't take any argument claiming he's the GOAT seriously.

Russell was essentially traded to Boston for Ed Macauley. This was a 39-33 playoff team the year before Russell arrived.

And it already had Bob Cousy Frank Ramsey, and Bill Sharman, as well as Arnie Risen (remember him...I will bring him up again.)

And the Celtics actually drafted Tom Heinsohn before they drafted Russell. And Heinsohn would not disappoint, either, as he would go on to win ROY.

How did Russell not win ROY that season? He missed 24 games. This is where it gets interesting. In the 48 games that Russell played, Boston went 28-20.

In the 24 he missed, and with Risen playing center, the Celtics went 16-8...or an actual better record without Russell. That was the talent level that Russell enjoyed from day one.

And how about this?

In the 57-58 Finals, in which Russell was injured, ...the series was tied 1-1 when Russell injured his ankle in the third quarter of game three.

They lost that game by three points, but they actually outscored the Hawks in the 4th period, and without Russell, by five points.

Now, surely without Russell, Boston would have no chance, right? Well, without Russell in game four, Boston won handily, 109-98. And, while they did lose game five without him, it was by two points.

Russell finally returned for game six, but could only play 20 minutes. Boston would go on to lose that game by one point, but they outscored the Hawks in the second half, without Russell.

Not only that, but Boston would continue to add players every year. Sam Jones in '58. Havlicek in '63. Then, Auerbach would go out and steal players too.

How could the Celtics pick up Clyde Lovellette for their '64 title run, for nothing? Lovellette had averaged 21 ppg on .47.1 just the year before.

Later they added players like Wayne Embry (a multiple all-star), or Em Bryant (remember him in game seven of the '69 Finals) and Bailey Howell, a 20 ppg scorer on an very high efficiency for his era (.51.2.)

The 1960 Celtics always had by far, the deepest teams in the league, and aside from Russell, they could simply plug in another great player when they needed to.

[coastalmarker99]

Russell always had the greatest team surrounding him, even from the day he entered the league. I can't take any argument claiming he's the GOAT seriously.

People should remember that Auerbach was always adding great talent to Russell's teams. In Russell's rookie season, he not only joined with Cousy and Sharman, but he also had the ROY in Heinsohn.

The next year they added Sam Jones. By the '62-63 season, they were fielding nine HOFers, with Clyde Lovellette, who had averaged 20 ppg just the previous season, being their eighth-best player.

In the mid-60's they added bailey Howell, who was a 20+ ppg scorer before Russell, and a 20 ppg scorer with Russell.

And not only did they always have HOF-laden teams, but they were always the deepest teams in the league.


Furthermore, Russell played alongside those guys from between five to twelve seasons.

Even Russell, himself, admitted that Sam Jones saved the Celtic season six times with crucial game-winning shots. And Havlicek was a 20 ppg scorer, who exploded to a near 30 ppg scorer after Russell.

[coastalmarker99]

Russell always had the greatest team surrounding him, even from the day he entered the league. I can't take any argument claiming he's the GOAT seriously.

People have to remember that back in the 50s, Cousy really was considered among the best to ever play by coaches and players--I think this is important to note because they were seeing Cousy's play more than anyone back then


I think it's also notable that the greatest coach and GM of all-time consistently praised Cousy while relying on him even past his prime.

He certainly wasn't the only one praising Cousy, and it seems as though it was more likely to hear Bob Cousy's name in the same breath as George Mikan, rather than Bob Davies.

[coastalmarker99]

Because none of them had any realistic chance of beating the Celtics.

Edit: I actually take this statement back. Oscar's team didn't, but that 76ers team was legit and possibly could have dethroned the Celtics. But beating Boston at that time was very difficult, and being such a stacked team is one of the major reasons why.



Oh wow, so take away Russell and only THREE of those guys are for sure hall of famers. Wow, silly me. I guess Russell didn't have as stacked of a team as I thought. Only three legitimate hall of fame worthy teammates. I am clearly mistaken.

Buddy, think about the shit you are saying. This just further proves my point.



No one is dissing Russell. I sure as hell ain't. Me saying he has no argument for GOAT isn't dissing him. It's being realistic. You cannot go entirely off of rings. That's one of the worst possible arguments you can make because at the end of the day, rings are a team accomplishment. Russell was always, and I mean ALWAYS a key part of every single one of those rings. He's the greatest defensive player in the history of the sport.


But he wasn't even the best player in his own era (that would be Wilt). He wasn't even an elite offensive player. All said and done, the only thing I can say about Russell at that end was...yeah, he was good, maybe even great. But he was never good enough at that end to realistically deserve a spot in the GOAT conversation.


Sometimes I have a hard time justifying putting him in the top ten. Take away Michael Jordan's rings and what do you have? The most dominant two way player in the history of the game with 10 scoring titles, 9 all defensive team selections, including a defensive player of the year award and a multitude of other accolades that no other player to this day holds.




Take away Bill Russell's 11 championship rings and what do you have? You have arguably the greatest defensive player of all time but was constantly overshadowed by Wilt Chamberlin.

You see the difference here? You don't need to mention Jordan's 6 championship rings to argue that he's the GOAT. His play on the court and his accolades speak for themselves.

Russell's 11 championship rings are the only reason he's even in the top 10 conversation.

You don't want people dissing Russell? Then stop overrating him.




Russell was a system player--the ultimate system player to be sure, but I wonder if, as legendary, as he was, he would have been nearly as effective in another system and with worse teammates around him.





On the other hand, Wilt or Kareem or hell Lebron and Jordan with a team of pretty fair roleplayers--yet alone superior players like the ones that were the cogs in the well-oiled Celtic machine that supported Russell--is always going to make a team a serious contender.


I am not sure you can say that of Russell.

[coastalmarker99]

People in the last couple of years seem to want to downplay the other 1960's Celtics players to boost up Russell.

Just going off of awards the Celtics were overwhelmingly more talented than the other teams of the 1960's

1959 3 1st team All NBA players Russell, Cousy, and Sharman...when else has that ever happened?

1960 Cousy 1st team All NBA, Russell, Sharman 2nd team

1961 Cousy 1st team All NBA, Russell, Heinsohn 2nd team

1962 Cousy, Russell, Heinsohn 2nd team All NBA...4 Celtics made the All Star Team Cousy, Russell, Heinsohn, and Jones

1963 Russell 1st team All NBA, Cousy, Heinsohn 2nd team...Havlicek Rookie team

1964 Havlicek, Russell, Heinsohn All NBA 2nd team.... Sam Jones also made the All Star team

1965 Russell 1st team, Sam Jones 2nd team

1966 Russell, Jones, Havlicek All NBA 2nd team

1967 Russell, Jones All NBA 2nd team

1968 Russell, Havlicek All NBA 2nd team

1969 Havlicek All NBA 2nd team


That is an amazing run of ALL NBA team honours that I don't see being matched ever again. Russell was the constant but in that 10 year period he had 5 other players join him on the All NBA teams. Not one player in NBA history can say that.


And you can't underestimate the fact that Russell played with those guys for years:

Heinsohn for 7 years

Cousy 5 years

Sam Jones 11 years

KC Jones 9 years

Frank Ramsey 6 years

Tom Sanders 9 years

Havlicek 7 years

Then having Red Auerbach as his coach for 8 years.


Yes it is a fact that Wilt did have teammates as talented as the Boston group on some occasions. Not many--definitely 1967 through 1969.


That's 3 or 4 out of 10 seasons they played concurrently...a significant minority if not a majority.



We also have to keep in mind that Mendy Rudolph, phantom fouls, incredibly lucky bounces...things went Boston's way during that era that were unbelievable.


In any case, I don't believe anyone in their right mind would have favoured Russell's teams over Wilt's had they swapped rosters in their first seven seasons



As my God Russell's 1963 and 1964 teams had eight and even nine HOFers to Wilt's three and it should be noted that HOFer Nate Thurmond was a rookie when he played alongside Wilt in 1964.

[SaintzFury13]

So in other words, through the onslaught of posts by Coastal...basically Russell has no real argument of being the GOAT. His greatest achievement is due entirely to the fact that he always had a stacked team supporting him. I will personally be ashamed of this list that we are making if he makes the top 5. He doesn't belong there.

[coastalmarker99]

So in other words, through the onslaught of posts by Coastal...basically Russell has no real argument of being the GOAT. His greatest achievement is due entirely to the fact that he always had a stacked team supporting him. I will personally be ashamed of this list that we are making if he makes the top 5. He doesn't belong there.

Russell fans claim that Celtics 7-1 PO record shows Russ dominated and is better than Wilt as a player all time.

Wilt fans say he dominated Russ individually but that Russell's teammates outplayed Wilt’s.

This comment looks at the actual record, series by series and game by game and decides which side is right or not in their arguments.

I examined all 49 PO games. I tracked data in four categories: TS%, Pts, Reb, Ast.

The overall data showed this:

PTS: Wilt: 43-6 (Wilt had more points than BR in 43 games vs. 6 games for Russ.)

REB: Wilt: 32-18 (1 tie)

AST: BR: 27-15 (7 ties)

TS%: Wilt: 32-17


I figured out Russ/Wilt’s teammates’ data by subtracting Russ/Wilt’s stats from team stats.

PTS: BR's teammates: 40-9 (BR teammates had more points than Wilt's in 40 of those games, vs. 9 for Wilt's mates.)

REB: BR teammates, 33-15 (1 tie)

AST: BR teammates: 28-16-5

TS%: BR teammates, 26-23


Also, finally, we know that Wilt and Russell played H2H in 8 PO series.

But who led in each category:

PTS: 8-0 Wilt

REB: 8-0 Wilt

AST: 6-2 Russell

TS%: 8-0 Wilt


Teammates:

PTS: 8-0 Russell's teammates

REB: 7-1 Russell's

AST: 5-3 Russell's

TS%: 5-3 Russell's



Therefore we see with the data that Wilt bested Russ in 26 of 32 (81%) categories over 8 PO series.

And that Russ's 11 teammates bested Wilt's 11 teammates in 25 of 32 (78%)categories over 8 PO series

While many younger fans currently believe the myth that Bill Simmons created in his book of basketball that Wilt had equal teammates or rosters to Russell's throughout his career.

It seems that the data about each other's teammates in the playoffs disputes this narrative entirely

[coastalmarker99]

And I have read those that use the argument that Boston flopped the year after Russell retired.


The reality was, the Celtics had no idea that Russell was going to retire, and they didn't draft a center.




Furthermore, the 68-69 Celtics were on their last legs. Sam Jones retired right after the final game, too, which no one seems to remember.


This was a Celtic team that had slowly declined from its peak in the mid-'60s.

And yes, they fell to 34-48 (down from 48-34 in '69) in '70.

But here again, Henry Finkel was their center. They drafted Cowens in '71, and he immediately led them to a 44-38 record. In '72 Boston surged to 56-26.

In 1973 they set a new team record, which still stands, of 68-14 and if not for John's injury in the ECF against New York the Celtics very well could have won the title that year.



In '74 they won an NBA title. And they would go on to win one more in '76.

So the loss of Russell was really only felt for one season.


And had Boston been better prepared, who knows. In any case, they became an elite team within two years, a record-breaking team in three, and a two time champion in four.

[000]

Russell was a system player--the ultimate system player to be sure, but I wonder if, as legendary, as he was, he would have been nearly as effective in another system and with worse teammates around him.

What does that even mean? He had a really stacked team with scorers, so the Celtics were always the best offense and that's how they won?

[coastalmarker99]

So in other words, through the onslaught of posts by Coastal...basically Russell has no real argument of being the GOAT. His greatest achievement is due entirely to the fact that he always had a stacked team supporting him. I will personally be ashamed of this list that we are making if he makes the top 5. He doesn't belong there.


To Russell's credit, he was a legendary winner even in his college days, running off 56 straight wins at a relatively small school (USF) and winning two national championships.




His only real quality teammate in those years was K.C. Jones, and he didn't even have Jones during his second tournament run.

[dankok8]

There is some problems with saying "Russell had a stacked team." and just ending it at that.

First of all, let's assume for a second that the premise is perfectly true. His teams were stacked... but he still led Boston to 11 titles in 13 seasons. One of the two seasons they lost, it was with Russell injured in the finals. So basically this Russell guy won 11 titles in 12 years... That's insanely impressive. Magic and Kareem had a stacked Lakers team in the 80's. Compared to their Western Conference opposition (excludes Sixers and Celtics) they were just obscenely stacked and yet they only made 8 finals in 10 seasons. They got upset twice. Russell never got upset with his only (healthy) loss being against a juggernaut Sixers team. HIS ONLY LOSS...

Second of all, for the last four years of Russell's career, his teams weren't the most talented in the league. In 1966, 1967 and 1968 it was actually Wilt's Sixers that were the most talented and in 1969 it was the juggernaut Lakers with a Big 3 of Wilt, West and Baylor. All four of those years, the Celtics were actually underdogs and didn't have homecourt and Russell still managed to win 3 out of those 4 titles although I will concede that injuries played a major role in 1968.

And the third point is that despite such great teammates, the Celtics were terrible when Russell sat out games and before/after he left the team. coastalmarker99 already mentioned his rookie year but that was an aberration. For the entire rest of his career from 1958-1969, the Celtics played at a 35 win -1.9 SRS pace in games Russell didn't play and played at a 59-win +6.4 SRS pace in games Russell did play. And when Russell retired in 1969, the Celtics missed the playoffs the following season with 34 wins and -1.6 SRS with most of their core intact. When guys like Cousy, Heinsohn, and Sam Jones missed games and Russell played, the Celtics didn't miss a beat. The Celtics defense with Russell on the floor was historically great (4 out of 5 greatest defenses ever in rDRtg) but the offense was anywhere between league average and the very bottom. Ben Taylor is my source (https://backpicks.com/2018/04/02/backpicks-goat-3-bill-russell/).

Clearly Russell must be a lot better than you guys give him credit for.

[coastalmarker99]

There is some problems with saying "Russell had a stacked team." and just ending it at that.

First of all, let's assume for a second that the premise is perfectly true. His teams were stacked... but he still led Boston to 11 titles in 13 seasons. One of the two seasons they lost, it was with Russell injured in the finals. So basically this Russell guy won 11 titles in 12 years... That's insanely impressive. Magic and Kareem had a stacked Lakers team in the 80's. Compared to their Western Conference opposition (excludes Sixers and Celtics) they were just obscenely stacked and yet they only made 8 finals in 10 seasons. They got upset twice. Russell never got upset with his only (healthy) loss being against a juggernaut Sixers team. HIS ONLY LOSS...

Second of all, for the last four years of Russell's career, his teams weren't the most talented in the league. In 1966, 1967 and 1968 it was actually Wilt's Sixers that were the most talented and in 1969 it was the juggernaut Lakers with a Big 3 of Wilt, West and Baylor. All four of those years, the Celtics were actually underdogs and didn't have homecourt and Russell still managed to win 3 out of those 4 titles although I will concede that injuries played a major role in 1968.

And the third point is that despite such great teammates, the Celtics were terrible when Russell sat out games and before/after he left the team. coastalmarker99 already mentioned his rookie year but that was an aberration. For the entire rest of his career from 1958-1969, the Celtics played at a 35 win -1.9 SRS pace in games Russell didn't play and played at a 59-win +6.4 SRS pace in games Russell did play. And when Russell retired in 1969, the Celtics missed the playoffs the following season with 34 wins and -1.6 SRS with most of their core intact. When guys like Cousy, Heinsohn, and Sam Jones missed games and Russell played, the Celtics didn't miss a beat. The Celtics defense with Russell on the floor was historically great (4 out of 5 greatest defenses ever in rDRtg) but the offense was anywhere between league average and the very bottom. Ben Taylor is my source (https://backpicks.com/2018/04/02/backpicks-goat-3-bill-russell/).

Clearly Russell must be a lot better than you guys give him credit for.


The 1966 Sixers were not better than the Celtics.

They won 1 game more, but the Celtics had played some games without Russell, so, their 54-26 record isn't telling the whole truth.

They were coached by someone who, when he left the Sixers in that season, was never trusted again by any NBA team for the next 5 seasons




You'd expect from someone who won 55 games to have had a lot more demand in the market) and when he was, it was from the worst team in the league, for only a single season. Also Billy C was a rookie, played like absolute shit in the playoffs and even missed a game.


Not to mention the obvious vast difference in playoff experience.


1967 76ers Healthy team elite coach, destroyed the league and were far better than the Celtics who had won 8 straight titles up to that point.




The 1968 team was not the same as the 67 team

Here is the list of injuries the Sixers had that were recorded in an article by the Philly AP before Game 4 of that series:

-Wilt Chamberlain (partial tear of the calf muscle in his right leg, a strain in his right thigh and an injured right toe)

-Wally Jones (injured knee cartilage)

-Luke Jackson (pulled hamstring muscle)

-Hal Greer (bursitus in his right knee)

-Billy Cunningham (broken right wrist)

Cunningham didn't play at all. Philly was also missing Reid and Costello because of injuries.


The team managed one more win, but the rest of the team's injuries worsened as the series went on and Boston wore them out.

The Sixers were also only playing an 8-man rotation compared to Boston's 12.

Chamberlain was limping in every game and his leg had gotten so bad to the point that in Game 6 he could only shoot 6 for 21 from the field.

In-Game 7 coach Alex Hannum didn't make any offensive plays for Chamberlain and his teammates didn't pass to him while they themselves shot poorly.





1969 was a complete choke job and that is by far the biggest black mark on Wilt's career as had he shown up as he should have in games 4 or 6 the Lakers win the title in 5 or 6 games.

[Thenameless]

If someone has Russell over Chamberlain because of Championships, they should really ask themselves "if the supporting casts were reversed, would it still be 11-2 in favour of Russell?" Most reasonable people who are honest with themselves would say no.

I'm no Russell basher. As a longtime Lakers fan, the players I feared and respected the most were Bird and Russell. And when the Jordanites go on about 6-0, I'm the first to remind everyone that Russell has almost twice as many, also as the best player of his team. That's why they call it the Bill Russell award.

[coastalmarker99]

If someone has Russell over Chamberlain because of Championships, they should really ask themselves "if the supporting casts were reversed, would it still be 11-2 in favour of Russell?" Most reasonable people who are honest with themselves would say no.

I'm no Russell basher. As a longtime Lakers fan, the players I feared and respected the most were Bird and Russell. And when the Jordanites go on about 6-0, I'm the first to remind everyone that Russell has almost twice as many, also as the best player of his team. That's why they call it the Bill Russell award.



I actually do think Wilt would have an incredibly lopsided championship count over Russell if their supporting casts were reversed.

It would most likely be 10 to 3 in Wilt's favour.






While It's true that Wilt didn't have the consistent fire in the belly that Russell had--if he had Jordan (and to be fair, no one else either) would even be in the conversation as to who's the GOAT.


But I also don't think there would be a lot of competition in the 1960s if Wilt is on the Celtics in place of Russell.



Russell on the Warriors really doesn't scare me as a huge title threat.


I also doubt Russell is traded to make room for Thurmond since Russell is now in the Bay area where he went to college and won two national titles.


Thurmond if he gets traded to the 76ers doesn't strike me as a huge threat either.


That leaves Oscar and the Royals who are mismanaged and undersized.



Or the Lakers who are in worse shape having to guard Wilt with La Russo 6'7" instead of guarding Russell.


As If Russell could have a great series scoring-wise vs the Lakers in the finals imagine what Wilt would do.

[coastalmarker99]

If someone has Russell over Chamberlain because of Championships, they should really ask themselves "if the supporting casts were reversed, would it still be 11-2 in favour of Russell?" Most reasonable people who are honest with themselves would say no.

I'm no Russell basher. As a longtime Lakers fan, the players I feared and respected the most were Bird and Russell. And when the Jordanites go on about 6-0, I'm the first to remind everyone that Russell has almost twice as many, also as the best player of his team. That's why they call it the Bill Russell award.


The main question IMHO about swapping Russell and Wilt's supporting casts in a hypothetical scenario.


Is not if Wilt is good enough to take Russell's job but who is going to take Wilts job as the #1 enemy of the Celtics???


Who is good enough to single handily bring his team to a close 7th game vs the Celtics??

I think what we have to consider is the serious decline in Celtic competition.

With the moving of Wilt to Boston in place of Russell not only are you still keeping the Celtics dominant but you're hurting the Warriors, 76ers Lakers to the point that these teams simply can't compete with the Celtics.




I doubt Russell who is a Bay legend from his college days at (USF) would be traded to the 76ers so that team instead of having Wilt now has Luke Jackson at C.



That's a serious downgrade from having Wilt or Russell and that basically means the Celtics with Wilt have a much easier time in the playoffs.




Where Thurmond would play if Russell stays in the Bay area. I'm not sure but he's not going to lead an inferior starting cast to victory over Wilt and the Celtics.

W/O Wilt or Russell on the Lakers that team will always struggle to build a championship team around Baylor and West.


You see the fact that the Celtics with Russell beat Wilt who is the most talented player of all time is what's so impressive about their dynasty.



Taking Wilt away from the other teams and giving him to the Celtics would make them basically unbeatable up till 1970.

[Thenameless]

10 - 3 in Wilt's favour sounds about right to me.

In hockey, Wayne Gretzky is more or less the undisputed greatest. There are proponents of Howe, Orr, and Lemieux, but Gretzky gets the overwhelming amount of number 1 votes. No one penalizes him for only having won four Stanley Cups, while Henri Richard has eleven and Jean Beliveau has ten.

He's number 1 because he owns the record book. Wilt is the same but different. He doesn't have some of the career records that Gretzky has, but he proves to be more dominant in his peak seasons, and unlike Gretzky, he was also a monster on the defensive end (being best or second best all time).

[coastalmarker99]

10 - 3 in Wilt's favour sounds about right to me.

In hockey, Wayne Gretzky is more or less the undisputed greatest. There are proponents of Howe, Orr, and Lemieux, but Gretzky gets the overwhelming amount of number 1 votes. No one penalizes him for only having won four Stanley Cups, while Henri Richard has eleven and Jean Beliveau has ten.

He's number 1 because he owns the record book. Wilt is the same but different. He doesn't have some of the career records that Gretzky has, but he proves to be more dominant in his peak seasons, and unlike Gretzky, he was also a monster on the defensive end (being best or second best all time).


Hell after the Oilers traded Gretzky to the Kings they still managed to win a Stanley Cup without him and nobody I know penalizes him for that when talking about who the greatest player ever in hockey is.



Gretzky is always ranked number one by fans because he owns the record book in hockey to an insane degree.


And Stanley cups don't even come into the debate when talking about Gretzky as the GOAT.


Unlike Basketball in which rings utterly dominate the GOAT debate.

[coastalmarker99]

10 - 3 in Wilt's favour sounds about right to me.

In hockey, Wayne Gretzky is more or less the undisputed greatest. There are proponents of Howe, Orr, and Lemieux, but Gretzky gets the overwhelming amount of number 1 votes. No one penalizes him for only having won four Stanley Cups, while Henri Richard has eleven and Jean Beliveau has ten.

He's number 1 because he owns the record book. Wilt is the same but different. He doesn't have some of the career records that Gretzky has, but he proves to be more dominant in his peak seasons, and unlike Gretzky, he was also a monster on the defensive end (being best or second best all time).

I remember vividly in the early 70s, Wilt Chamberlain was known as the Babe Ruth of basketball….obviously meaning he was the GOAT. This is also what the national mainstream media said too.



I don’t remember anyone besides Red and journalists from Boston saying it was Bill Russell.


Russell had the titles, but everyone understood that if Wilt and Russell traded places, Wilt would have both the stats and the titles.



Russell was almost always surrounded by multiple HOFers. One of Russell’s teams had 8 or 9 future HOFers on it All-time greats coming off the bench even!!


People enjoy shitting on Wilt for being selfish but he took fewer shots in 1967, which resulted in a 68-win team that was thought to be one of the better teams of all time.


In fact, he was tied for third on the team in shot attempts, well below Hal Greer and just below Billy Cunningham, tied with the immortal Chet Walker. His shots stayed much lower after this season so he made his sacrifices, which I never seem to read about.


I think you can move Wilt anywhere and he produces. He's a complete player at center, and the greatest athlete in NBA history


Plug him in anywhere and you still get the greatest raw player of the time.


As Wilt was an oversized LeBron, which is even more amazing than it sounds when you think what happens to the body with that scaling.

The speed, the coordination, the sheer power, the stamina! I truly think Wilt is the best physical specimen to ever play basketball.

Shaq, David Robinson, Nate Thurmond, LeBron, Westbrook, Jordan...

All of them were one in a million guys, but Wilt was one in an entire species. Never seen anything like it.



Russell, on the other hand, is the more limited player so he needs the right situation to succeed to the best of his abilities.


I've long said that he's very lucky to have gone to the best-run organization in the league, not to mention the best coach/basketball mind of all time and hall of famer players crawling out of every season's roster like cockroaches.


Because I don't think he's the guy who makes you a contender by himself, whereas Chamberlain is.



Wilt vs Russell is one of those rare situations where if Wilt played him one on one in a game to 100, Russ might get 16 points. It's rare to see that huge of discrepancy in any sport. It would be total domination.


True there is a team aspect to be considered but nobody is comparing Draymond Green to Anthony Davis either.

Wilt was more skilled, more prolific, a better shooter, a better passer, a better dribbler, faster, taller, etc.


While Russell was great at rebounding, Wilt was better than him at that as well.


While Russ was great at blocking shots, Wilt said in front of Russ and Wilt naysayers that when he played Russ, he blocked 3 shots to every one of Russell and you could tell they weren't even thinking of contradicting Wilt.

[coastalmarker99]

Hell I even remember vividly


That



Oscar Robertson was once regarded as a top 5 to top 3 player of all time.

Here are some quotes that demonstrate his sometimes underrated greatness.

Praise from players, coaches


Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (2013)

“LeBron is awesome, MJ was awesome — but I think Oscar Robertson would have kicked them both in the behind,” said Abdul-Jabbar when asked about James and Jordan. “Absolutely. Oscar was awesome. He had brains. […] He had all the skills.”

Red Auerbach

“He Oscar is so great he scares me.”

Jerry Lucas

“He obviously was unbelievable, way ahead of his time. There is no more complete player than Oscar.”

Bill Russell

“Oscar was one of basketball’s great leaders, and his life is one of basketball’s great stories. He was unafraid, unabashed, and unmatched in everything he did. There will never be another like him.”

Rick Barry

“People just don’t have any idea how good Oscar was. The numbers are ridiculous. If you’re getting 30 points and double-figures in rebounds as a point guard and 10 assists a game, that’s sick. He is the greatest athlete in the history of sports in this country who has been overlooked in terms of his greatness.”

Jerry West

“Oscar Robertson was never a rookie. He was the measuring stick for how a player should play. He is a man for the ages.”

John Havlicek

"He Oscar is the best I've seen."

Jerry West

"Oscar Robertson was the greatest player I played against, period."

Magic Johnson

"I never knew how good Oscar was until I tried to do it."

Wayne Embry

“Oscar knew you were open before you knew you were open. [...] He was the greatest player I have ever seen, period.”

Pete Newell

"Oscar Robertson was the most fundamentally flawless player I ever saw."

Bob Boozer

“He played the game like he invented it. Oscar was James Naismith in tennis shoes. He did what he wanted to do.”

John Wooden
"I've always considered Oscar Robertson to be the best player in the game," says John Wooden. "Now I'm not so sure that Larry Bird isn't."

John Salley (on what Michael Jordan told him)

Interviewer: "Who did Jordan tell you is the greatest player ever?"

Salley: "He would say Oscar Robertson."


Praise from media & notable awards

AP Basketball Player of the Century (1999)

Michael Jordan (49)

Oscar Robertson (44)

Wilt Chamberlain (42)

Bill Russell (41)

Earvin Johnson (36)

Larry Bird (34)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (25)

Elgin Baylor (19)

Jerry West (16)

Julius Erving (12)

Karl Malone (6)

Bob Pettit (4)

Bob Cousy (1)

John Havlicek (1)

Selection Panel of Marv Albert, Chick Hearn, Fuzzy Levane, Harvey Pollack, Bill Russell, and Lenny Wilkens


SLAM Magazine Top 75 NBA Players of All-Time (2003)

Michael Jordan

Wilt Chamberlain

Oscar Robertson

Bill Russell

Magic Johnson

Larry Bird

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Jerry West

Shaquille O'Neal

Julius Erving



National Association of Basketball Coaches' Player of the Century

PLAYERS OF THE CENTURY

Larry Bird (Indiana State)

Kareem Abdul Jabbar (UCLA)

Earvin "Magic" Johnson (Michigan State)

Michael Jordan (North Carolina)

Oscar Robertson (Cincinnati)

Bill Russell (San Francisco)

Bill Walton (UCLA)

PLAYER OF THE CENTURY

Oscar Robertson Cincinnati
New York Times (2009

[coastalmarker99]

The GOAT debate is interesting.





Today there seems to be a forcing of Kareem's name higher in GOAT talk (as #1 or 2), but in the Slam 50 Greatest Players from 1996, he was ranked 6 all time.



And in AP Basketball Player of the Century (1999) he was ranked 7th alltime.





That was only 7 and 10 years after his retirement so there were a ton of older people including myself who saw all or most of his career...

in a quarter-century what exactly has Kareem done to leap from outside of Top 5 to consensus Top 3, seeing as he's never played a minute and was already 7 years into retirement?


I think his legacy is immensely helped by the Showtime Lakers run in the 1980s.


I wanna clarify, I'm not implying Showtime isn't his legacy like he didn't help drive it.


But he was 1 title in 10 years without Magic. 2 titles in 12 years as the best player on a championship team until Magic matured into that role.



And again the primary era he played in where he was at his most dominant, the 70s, was a parity-driven era where he and the results of his talent underwhelmed.



There was no 60s Celtics, 90s Bulls, 10s Warriors standing in his way in the 70s that impeded greater success.


That's an indictment on Kareem...




And all I do think think people lose sight of the fact that everybody in that time period at the time was arguing newer players such as Bird as the Goat or Magic or hell even Jordan, not Kareem.

[1987_Lakers]

I remember vividly in the early 70s, Wilt Chamberlain was known as the Babe Ruth of basketball….obviously meaning he was the GOAT. This is also what the national mainstream media said too.



I don’t remember anyone besides Red and journalists from Boston saying it was Bill Russell.


For what it's worth the NBA crowned Russell the GOAT in 1980.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_35th_Anniversary_Team

[coastalmarker99]

For what it's worth the NBA crowned Russell the GOAT in 1980.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_35th_Anniversary_Team

:applause:



And funny enough the NBA at the time crowned The 1966-67 Philadelphia 76ers that Wilt led as the greatest individual team of all time.

[coastalmarker99]

What's alarming to me about Kareem is that in the second weakest decade ever in NBA history.


in Kareem’s 5 seasons without one of the 2 best point guards ever, which also should be 5 of, if not his 5 best seasons (ages 27-31) Kareem:



Missed the playoffs twice – Left a team that had the same exact record after he left with the same main pieces intact – Got swept once (With home-court advantage)



Won a grand total of 2 playoff series (one of which required 2 victories to win)


Beat 0 teams with 50+ wins (While playing alongside 3 HOF players along the way in Goodrich, Wilkes, and Dantley.


Keep in mind Jordan, Kobe, Duncan, and LeBron are a combined 48-1 vs sub-50 win teams, so it is an accurate cutoff in deciding whether a team is elite or not).


Won 2 MVPs (one of which he won without making the playoffs in 1976)




My thing with Kareem is I don't doubt that he's one of the GOAT's.


But for some time now I've questioned whether his longevity should put him over Magic when everybody acknowledges Magic was the best player 8/10 years they were together and the driving force behind the dynasty that was Showtime.

[1987_Lakers]

:applause:



And funny enough the NBA at the time crowned The 1966-67 Philadelphia 76ers that Wilt led as the greatest individual team of all time.

Hard to go against a team that had a 68-13 record and a peak Wilt, I'm certain the '72 Lakers were right there in the discussion as well for GOAT team, but Wilt himself said numerous times that the '67 Sixers were the better team.

[iamgine]

People's definition of greatness are always changing for variety of reasons. Before the stats era, people might rely on stories, testaments, eye test. Now people consider stats as one of the main part. And the stories we hear are no longer from 1st person source, but from wikipedia and the likes. After the 3pt boom, people start subconsciously deducting points if someone couldn't shoot 3s, especially guards.

Not saying it's good or bad, but the greatness metric will always change and evolve.

[coastalmarker99]

Hard to go against a team that had a 68-13 record and a peak Wilt, I'm certain the '72 Lakers were right there in the discussion as well for GOAT team, but Wilt himself said numerous times that the '67 Sixers were the better team.


The 72 Lakers would have given the 1967 76ers all that they could handle as West and Goodrich would have done well against the 76er's guards of Wally Jones and Hal Geer.



But a peak Wilt and Luke Jackson along with Billy Cunningham on the boards would have just physically murdered that undersized and old Lakers team.

[1987_Lakers]

The 72 Lakers would have given the 1967 76ers all that they could handle as West and Goodrich would have done well against the 76er's guards of Wally Jones and Hal Geer.



But a peak Wilt and Luke Jackson along with Billy Cunningham on the boards would have just physically murdered that undersized and old Lakers team.

As far as single season teams are concerned, the consensus was that those were the two best teams ever by a comfortable margin up until the mid 80's came around.

I do wonder if Wilt picked the Sixers as the better team because he was at his absolute peak in '67 compared to past his prime in '72. Kareem for example has stated that the '85 Lakers were the best Lakers team of the showtime era, he won Finals MVP that year while Magic & Worthy have said the '87 team was their best version, by that time Kareem had a lesser role on the team.

[coastalmarker99]

As far as single season teams are concerned, the consensus was that those were the two best teams ever by a comfortable margin up until the mid 80's came around.

I do wonder if Wilt picked the Sixers as the better team because he was at his absolute peak in '67 compared to past his prime in '72. Kareem for example has stated that the '85 Lakers were the best Lakers team of the showtime era, he won Finals MVP that year while Magic & Worthy have said the '87 team was their best version, by that time Kareem had a lesser role on the team.


Wilt picked the 76ers as the better team because he along with everyone else on that team was at their absolute peaks.


That starting five of Jones--Walker--Greer--Wilt--Jackson with Billy C. as the 6th man was just unreal.


Had Luke Jackson not gone down with basically a career-ending injury after Wilt left the team to join the Lakers.


Then the 1967 76ers would have ended up with 5 Hall of fame players all of which were basically at their peaks at the same time.



Wilt made a huge mistake leaving the 76ers for an old Lakers team as he left 3 to 4 rings on the table.


Losing the 1968 ECF to the Celtics was a fluke.


No disrespect to the Celtics, but Philly was a far better team.

The injury to Billy C. and other key Sixers, including Chamberlain who played with a pulled thigh muscle, a torn calf muscle, and a sprained right toe (all injuries on the same leg) doomed the Sixers.




With a fully healthy squad, the Sixers with Wilt were going to be the best team after 1968 for three to five more years.






Now the 1972 Lakers had a past his prime Wilt and West and a prime Goodrich and happy Hairston along with a weak bench.



While those 72 and 73 Laker teams were special as they overachieved.



And also what is perhaps forgotten about the 1973 Lakers is that they were down a man.


Happy Hairston, who had put up 13ppg and 13rpg as their starting PF during their title-winning 1972 season.


Had gone down 28 games into the 72-73 season with a knee injury, having averaged 16ppg and 13rpg to that point.



He missed the remainder of the regular season and most of the post-season.

he returned for limited minutes in the last game of the conference finals and two games in the finals, but he wasn't himself.



In the 28 RS games with Hairston, that 1973 Lakers team had gone 24-4(.85.7) with a MOV of +9.679.



While without him they went 36-18(.66.6) with a MOV of +7.388.




You have to wonder, given three of the Lakers' four losses in the finals that season were by a margin of only 4-5 points, if the Lakers would've won back to titles in 1972 and 1973 had Hairston been 100%.

[coastalmarker99]

As far as single season teams are concerned, the consensus was that those were the two best teams ever by a comfortable margin up until the mid 80's came around.

I do wonder if Wilt picked the Sixers as the better team because he was at his absolute peak in '67 compared to past his prime in '72. Kareem for example has stated that the '85 Lakers were the best Lakers team of the showtime era, he won Finals MVP that year while Magic & Worthy have said the '87 team was their best version, by that time Kareem had a lesser role on the team.




The 85 Lakers were a better team than the 87 Lakers.


The 1987 team had the easiest post-season situation you can imagine that year:

In the pitiful Western Conference, they beat the 37-45 Nuggets, 42-40 Warriors, and 39-43 Sonics on the way to the Finals.


And in the 1987 finals, the Celtics were mega-hurt (5 of their top-7 were out or playing injured, including McHale playing on a broken foot that the Pistons kept stepping on in the ECF, which only made life easier for the Lakers in the finals.



Those banged-up Celtics if not for Magic's iconic game-winner in game 4 would have taken the 87 team to a Game 7 despite the fact that the 87 Lakers were the most well-rested Finals team ever.




For me the fact that the 1985 Lakers team played with such anger and the desire to destroy everyone in their path after choking to the Celtics the year prior in the finals.


And the fact they won the title at the Garden which had tormented so many past Laker teams going back to the West and Baylor days was such a ****ing sweet feeling as a Lakers fan and it's why I rank the 85 team over the 87 team.

[dankok8]

We need more votes!!

A few people actually posted on this thread without saying who their vote is.

[Dbrog]

Russell was a system player--the ultimate system player to be sure, but I wonder if, as legendary, as he was, he would have been nearly as effective in another system and with worse teammates around him.





On the other hand, Wilt or Kareem or hell Lebron and Jordan with a team of pretty fair roleplayers--yet alone superior players like the ones that were the cogs in the well-oiled Celtic machine that supported Russell--is always going to make a team a serious contender.


I am not sure you can say that of Russell.

I see this thread has turned into a coastalmarker aka jlauber spam thread...the bolded above is a great example of ISH drivel and hilarious...never change ISH.

There's really no point for me to post anything in response to this as this thread's point wasn't ever to convince anyone...at least I wasn't. I thought we were just stating our opinion on GOAT criteria and TBH, there's an argument to be had for most people in the top10, which is why they're in the top 10 ever. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just an insecure kid who for some reason ties their self worth to people validating their favorite player as #1. Grow the **** up

[jlip]

I am burned out with debates which is why I rarely ever post lengthy rebuttals anymore, but the disrespect to Russell I'm seeing in this thread is hilarious. The older posters such as G.O.A.T. and ThaRegul8r especially, would easily tear several of the anti- Russell arguments to shreds. With that being said, I don't really do rankings anymore. I have tiers, and anybody on my tier 1 has a legitimate case for GOAT.

[dankok8]

I am burned out with debates which is why I rarely ever post lengthy rebuttals anymore, but the disrespect to Russell I'm seeing in this thread is hilarious. The older posters such as G.O.A.T. and ThaRegul8r especially, would easily tear several of the anti- Russell arguments to shreds. With that being said, I don't really do rankings anymore. I have tiers, and anybody on my tier 1 has a legitimate case for GOAT.

Who is in your tier 1? Who would you vote for if you had to pick one?

[SaintzFury13]

I am burned out with debates which is why I rarely ever post lengthy rebuttals anymore, but the disrespect to Russell I'm seeing in this thread is hilarious. The older posters such as G.O.A.T. and ThaRegul8r especially, would easily tear several of the anti- Russell arguments to shreds. With that being said, I don't really do rankings anymore. I have tiers, and anybody on my tier 1 has a legitimate case for GOAT.

I wasn't aware that pointing out how stacked Russell's teams always were is disrespectful. No one's out here claiming he's not a great player. He absolutely was. But he has no legitimate case for being a GOAT, at least not based on the body of work being presented to us.

[coastalmarker99]

I will ask you this question dankok8.


If you put Kareem on Russell's teams from 1957 to 1969 how many rings do you think he wins.


Kareem was unreal defensively in his first 5 years in the NBA as he led the Bucks to basically being the NBA's best defence for four straight years from 71 to 74.

[coastalmarker99]

66’ Celts went through Oscar, then Wilt, then West/Baylor. How is that not legitly one of the toughest runs to the chip ever?

Russell played alongside Bob Cousey, Frank Ramsey, Bill Sharman, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, John Havlicek, and Bailey Howell who are in the hall.

Take the Russell away and only Cousy, Sharman and Havlicek are in the Hall. Sam never becomes the player he was, same for Heinsohn. Howell doesn't have the resume and KC and Ramsey don't even get consideration. It's such a farce to me to insinuate Russell was always playing on the KD/Curry stacked warriors

Edit: I'll never understand how so many people can diss a guy like Russell, who comes to a franchise with no rings, wins his rookie year then 9 of the next 11 years, watches every player on the team when he got there leave and be replaced, then wins in his last season and then the next season his team misses the playoffs for the first time since he got there.


Heinson finished between 10th and 14th in the league in PPG 7 times and when it came to FT's, he was great, finishing top-5 in FT% 2 times, and top-12 in FT% 5 times.





He could really shoot for his era & he was a quite versatile scorer (long-range jumpers, driving lay-ups, great hook shots with both hands, etc.




Heinson also won the '57 Rookie Of The Year over teammate Bill Russell and as a rookie, Heinsohn lead the Celtics in post-season scoring with 22.9 ppg (in Game 7 of the '57 Finals, he had 37 points and 23 rebounds),





Becoming the only rookie to ever lead a championship team in scoring in either the regular or post-season.


He lead 4 more Boston champions in scoring (in the regular or post-season); only Jordan topped the 5 times that Heinsohn accomplished this (6).

[coastalmarker99]

66’ Celts went through Oscar, then Wilt, then West/Baylor. How is that not legitly one of the toughest runs to the chip ever?

Russell played alongside Bob Cousey, Frank Ramsey, Bill Sharman, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, John Havlicek, and Bailey Howell who are in the hall.

Take the Russell away and only Cousy, Sharman and Havlicek are in the Hall. Sam never becomes the player he was, same for Heinsohn. Howell doesn't have the resume and KC and Ramsey don't even get consideration. It's such a farce to me to insinuate Russell was always playing on the KD/Curry stacked warriors

Edit: I'll never understand how so many people can diss a guy like Russell, who comes to a franchise with no rings, wins his rookie year then 9 of the next 11 years, watches every player on the team when he got there leave and be replaced, then wins in his last season and then the next season his team misses the playoffs for the first time since he got there.


Sam Jones doesn't get enough respect.


At the time he was considered a top ten player, only Oscar and Jerry would have been rated above him at guard and the consensus was that he would have been an even bigger star had he not been on the Celtics super team.



While Sam Jones didn't average more than 15 ppg in a season until he was 28 years old.




It should be noted that the Celtics of that era spread the scoring around and didn't really have or want a top-scorer, so his scoring doesn't look that great but the context is important.




And then he blew up from '65-67 when he was in his 30's (those were the 3 top scoring seasons for any Celtics player in the 1960s); he was 2nd-team All-NBA all 3 years, his only All-NBA selections.



Similarly, he sacrificed his scoring/focus so much so he only played in 5 ASG's. He was much better than just a 5x All-Star.



But the context is so important as If he played today his team would make sure he's featured as a 25 ppg scorer within a few years and up around 30 ppg for a long time due to his profound skills/abilities, something he wasn't really comfortable with (being featured as "the man") -- the team-over-stats Celtics was the perfect place for him.



Sam Jones career highlights & game-winners.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8qMgF5M84U

[jlip]

Who is in your tier 1? Who would you vote for if you had to pick one?

Tier 1- Russell, Kareem, MJ, and LeBron

I only included four players on tier 1 based on the principle of "Mt. Rushmore" which has four presidents. Honestly, I kept vacillating between Wilt and Lebron as the 4th player in that tier but gave the edge to LeBron after his 2020 title and the MVP like season that he was having at age 36 before he got injured.

I honestly haven't given much time recently to contemplating on that one player who should be #1, but when I did, it was more often than not, between Russell and MJ. But depending on the day and whatever criteria I'm factoring in that day, Kareem's and LeBron's longevity mixed with their individual dominance pulls them back into the conversation. So sorry, I can't give a simple, definitive answer.

[nayte]

Tier 1- Russell, Kareem, MJ, and LeBron

I only included four players on tier 1 based on the principle of "Mt. Rushmore" which has four presidents. Honestly, I kept vacillating between Wilt and Lebron as the 4th player in that tier but gave the edge to LeBron after his 2020 title and the MVP like season that he was having at age 36 before he got injured.

I honestly haven't given much time recently to contemplating on that one player who should be #1, but when I did, it was more often than not, between Russell and MJ. But depending on the day and whatever criteria I'm factoring in that day, Kareem's and LeBron's longevity mixed with their individual dominance pulls them back into the conversation. So sorry, I can't give a simple, definitive answer.

I add Wilt to that tier one. And I'm the same couldn't be bothered arguing about goats. They were all great players in their respective times.

[000]

Does coastalmarker plan on answering my question at some point? What does it mean that Ruseel was a "system player"? That he was the 2017 draymond green of the 60s?

[coastalmarker99]

Does coastalmarker plan on answering my question at some point? What does it mean that Ruseel was a "system player"? That he was the 2017 draymond green of the 60s?


I mean that you can plug Kareem Wilt Jordan and Lebron onto any team and they would still produce the same and provide a massive impact on both sides of the court.


Russell, on the other hand, is the more limited player so he needs the right situation to succeed to the best of his abilities.

I've long said that he's very lucky to have gone to the best-run organization in the league, not to mention the best coach/basketball mind of all time.


And hall of fame players crawling out of every season's roster like cockroaches because I don't think he's the guy who makes you a contender by himself, whereas the other guys are.


Russell has said that he wouldn't have even come close to the career that he had if Red hadn't coached him.


Auerbach had the entire Celtics team playing hard on defence, that's why they were the best team in the league before Russell arrived.


Auerbach's coaching also significantly improved the defensive abilities of his players, it seems.


KC Jones praises him in his own book and mentions how Tom Sanders didn't join the team as a defensive player but Auerbach helped mold him into one.


Auerbach also treated a minority like anyone else, thereby telling the person that he isn't a minority.



Race was a very open subject on those Celtic teams.


They could say things to each other that the outside world probably would find offensive because they knew and trusted each other.


John Havlicek: Bill was comfortable on the Celtics because he knew that Red was the first coach to draft a black player and that the Celtics were the first team to consistently start five black players. Our roommates were integrated.


Jim Loscutoff: On a lot of teams, the black players went one way, the whites another. On our team, we made a point of everyone hanging around together.

At such a racially divisive time and in such a racially charged city, this environment created by Red Auerbach was crucial to Russell's success as a player and his ability to withstand the abuses he faced outside the Celtic circle.

[8Ball]

Russell had very little offensive talent, couldn't shoot free throws.


Today's GM would use him like Dwight's Howard. Just get rebounds, defend, catch lobs.


Wilt would be picked first in every single draft besides 4-5 years. I am convinced Wilt could play in any era. His free throw deficiencies would be exploited, but he'd be a Gannis level player.

[coastalmarker99]

Does coastalmarker plan on answering my question at some point? What does it mean that Ruseel was a "system player"? That he was the 2017 draymond green of the 60s?

Russell found an ideal home on the Celtics. They were an up-tempo team with shooters and scorers, so he wasn't needed to carry any significant offensive load, but he could still contribute by scoring on offensive rebounds and running the break, which played to his strengths in rebounding and athleticism.



Defensively, the Celtics had been aching for someone who could block shots, control the paint, rebound, and start the fast break, and that again was exactly what Russell was best at.



Within the Celtics, Russell found a sanctuary where he could let down the walls he built to protect himself from the outside world, and he became part of a close-knit family that allowed him to express himself to his fullest potential on the court.



Auerbach appreciated his talents, needed exactly what he offered, and provided an ideal environment for him to succeed.


On top of all that, he had a personality that lent itself to being obsessed with team goals at the expense of individual achievement.

A perfect fit for Russell, a perfect fit for the Celtics.



If Russell had played somewhere else, we might still recognize him as one of the best to ever play the game, but I doubt we would to the extent that we do now.

How many other teams would be satisfied to let him contribute so little in a set offence?


How many coaches would recognize and encourage his revolutionary approach to defence?


How many coaches would have given Russell the freedom to do whatever he wanted on the court as Red did?



Maybe he would've done just as well if he'd joined the Hawks and been coached by Alex Hannum who was the second-best coach of that era but there's no possible way that he would have found a situation better than Auerbach's Celtics.

[coastalmarker99]

Russell had very little offensive talent, couldn't shoot free throws.


Today's GM would use him like Dwight's Howard. Just get rebounds, defend, catch lobs.


Wilt would be picked first in every single draft besides 4-5 years. I am convinced Wilt could play in any era. His free throw deficiencies would be exploited, but he'd be a Gannis level player.

What should make people think Wilt would be dominating today's NBA too is that he's a freak athlete in this era as well.

Height: 7'2

Weight: 290-320 pounds (depends on which year)


7'8 wingspan (he was only officiated measured in a suit however. Legend has it that it's likely 2 inches more)

9'7.5 standing reach.

Imagine somebody of that physical profile, that is also a track star, ridiculous vertical leap, gifted passer (lead the league in assists one year) and with a gifted touch around the rim on the offensive end.


Not only that but on defence, a center that is truly capable of guarding 1-5 with his size, length and speed combined.


The only current NBA player that could rival him in terms of athleticism is Giannis. Yet physically, he even towers over him.

Giannis in comparison:

Height: 6'11

Weight: 242 pounds

Wingspan: 7'3

Standing reach: 9'2

I have yet to see any player at his position to come along with his combined strength, size and athleticism. Let alone the skills Wilt had on offence and defence.

[coastalmarker99]

Russell had very little offensive talent, couldn't shoot free throws.


Today's GM would use him like Dwight's Howard. Just get rebounds, defend, catch lobs.


Wilt would be picked first in every single draft besides 4-5 years. I am convinced Wilt could play in any era. His free throw deficiencies would be exploited, but he'd be a Gannis level player.


I've participated in track and field for a long time as I love it.



I have never seen an athlete in my entire life with Wilt's combination of size, agility, and speed, never.


To see that old film of him 3-Step Straddling (high jump technique) 6'6", landing in sawdust, Triple Jumping way over 40' ft with minimal real technique, then his speed on the court and hearing that he could legitimately run 440 yds in 48 sec;



There's not one 7 footer in the league now that could do that!! not one!!


I know that Wilt also put the 16lb shot in college over 50 ft, again without real good technique!!

Wilt was probably as close to a real mutant as we may ever see in the NBA



But the main thing that set him apart though was his mind!!



Listen to him talk, look at his work ethic, watch how he conceptualized things, he simply saw stuff that other people couldn't



He ran cross-country in high school!! You can't get a basketball kid now to do anything like that; because they (and their parents) can't see the benefits; but he did!!


He was lifting weights before almost anybody else was!!

His post-basketball sport was volleyball, which he started playing when he was rehabbing his knee in 1970

[000]

I mean that you can plug Kareem Wilt Jordan and Lebron onto any team and they would still produce the same and provide massive impact on both sides of the court.





Russell, on the other hand, is the more limited player so he needs the right situation to succeed to the best of his abilities.




I've long said that he's very lucky to have gone to the best-run organization in the league, not to mention the best coach/basketball mind of all time and hall of fame players crawling out of every season's roster like cockroaches because I don't think he's the guy who makes you a contender by himself, whereas the other guys are.
That makes no sense. Here's the celtics defensive rankings from 1953 to 1970:
8th
8th
8th (of 8)
6th
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
2nd
1st
8th (of 14)

[dankok8]

Lots of good insightful posts here but we need actual votes in order to make a list. :lol

Let's get some votes in here! We gotta close this thread soon and move on.

[000]

https://backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Russell-era-rDRtg-for-Bos.png

[coastalmarker99]

Lots of good insightful posts here but we need actual votes in order to make a list. :lol

Let's get some votes in here! We gotta close this thread soon and move on.



Alright, my vote is Wilt for the reasons that I have already discussed in this thread.



Also just for fun.


I will ask you this question dankok8.


If you put Kareem on Russell's teams from 1957 to 1969 how many rings do you think he wins.

[RRR3]

Lots of good insightful posts here but we need actual votes in order to make a list. :lol

Let's get some votes in here! We gotta close this thread soon and move on.
Jordan.

[Dbrog]

Imagine thinking Russell was a "limited" player who had to "get lucky" to succeed :roll: or is just "Dwight Howard"... you can't write this stuff :lol

He's only the dude the NBA picked to have the fMVP award named after lmao

Edit: btw coastal, Kareem doesn't win shit in those time periods once Wilt enters cause wilt owned his ass. Also going off of ACTUAL HISTORY Kareems resume shows he doesn't necessarily win the chip in years he's supposed to. He had the easiest decade to win em in

[L.Kizzle]

Lots of good insightful posts here but we need actual votes in order to make a list. :lol

Let's get some votes in here! We gotta close this thread soon and move on.
Wilt Chamberlain.

[8Ball]

Imagine thinking Russell was a "limited" player who had to "get lucky" to succeed :roll: or is just "Dwight Howard"... you can't write this stuff :lol

He's only the dude the NBA picked to have the fMVP award named after lmao

Edit: btw coastal, Kareem doesn't win shit in those time periods once Wilt enters cause wilt owned his ass. Also going off of ACTUAL HISTORY Kareems resume shows he doesn't necessarily win the chip in years he's supposed to. He had the easiest decade to win em in

If you were to pick a player in next year's draft. Would you take 20 year old Wilt or 20 year old Russell?

I am taking Wilt everytime. Throw a competent guard around him like Dru Holiday and a Middleton type player and that's a dominant championship contending team.


20 year old Russell, Dru Holiday, and Middleton are not winning the championship in 2021. Russell ain't walking through the door and dropping 50 to close a game out.

[coastalmarker99]

If you were to pick a player in next year's draft. Would you take 20 year old Wilt or 20 year old Russell?

I am taking Wilt everytime. Throw a competent guard around him like Dru Holiday and a Middleton type player and that's a dominant championship contending team.


20 year old Russell, Dru Holiday, and Middleton are not winning the championship in 2021. Russell ain't walking through the door and dropping 50 to close a game out.


If you are a GM in this era and you take Russell over Wilt in the draft you won't have a job by the next morning.


Russell averaged 15 points per game on 44 percent shooting for his entire career despite having a massive athletic advantage over his opponents not named Wilt Chamberlain.



His defence also wouldn't be as impactful as it was in the 1960s due to the three-point line and the rules of today favouring the offensive player over the defensive player.



With the way the game is played now, it’s not possible for one person to have the impact Russell did on the defensive end.

All shots during the 1960's and 1950's were two-pointers meaning Russell’s primary direct defensive impact against shots around the rim could be as effective and impactful as any defence in a game relative to shots taken away from the rim, i.e., perimeter shots

[dankok8]

If you were to pick a player in next year's draft. Would you take 20 year old Wilt or 20 year old Russell?

I am taking Wilt everytime. Throw a competent guard around him like Dru Holiday and a Middleton type player and that's a dominant championship contending team.


20 year old Russell, Dru Holiday, and Middleton are not winning the championship in 2021. Russell ain't walking through the door and dropping 50 to close a game out.

Who is your GOAT?

[8Ball]

Russell found an ideal home on the Celtics. They were an up-tempo team with shooters and scorers, so he wasn't needed to carry any significant offensive load, but he could still contribute by scoring on offensive rebounds and running the break, which played to his strengths in rebounding and athleticism.



Defensively, the Celtics had been aching for someone who could block shots, control the paint, rebound, and start the fast break, and that again was exactly what Russell was best at.



Within the Celtics, Russell found a sanctuary where he could let down the walls he built to protect himself from the outside world, and he became part of a close-knit family that allowed him to express himself to his fullest potential on the court.



Auerbach appreciated his talents, needed exactly what he offered, and provided an ideal environment for him to succeed.


On top of all that, he had a personality that lent itself to being obsessed with team goals at the expense of individual achievement.

A perfect fit for Russell, a perfect fit for the Celtics.



If Russell had played somewhere else, we might still recognize him as one of the best to ever play the game, but I doubt we would to the extent that we do now.

How many other teams would be satisfied to let him contribute so little in a set offence?


How many coaches would recognize and encourage his revolutionary approach to defence?


How many coaches would have given Russell the freedom to do whatever he wanted on the court as Red did?



Maybe he would've done just as well if he'd joined the Hawks and been coached by Alex Hannum who was the second-best coach of that era but there's no possible way that he would have found a situation better than Auerbach's Celtics.

Wilt's problem was that he was so talented for his time he also had to play with a bunch of bums. Which pissed him off and was labelled a team cancer. He probably looked at his teammates funny because they weren't anywhere close to his ability. Like playing with kids. 50ppg?


If Wilt played in this era, he would have actual NBA level talent around him and he would fit in a lot better.

[nayte]

Jordan for me.thanks op.

[8Ball]

Who is your GOAT?

LeBron.

Jordan close 2nd. I had Jordan #1 before 2020 finals.

[8Ball]

Imagine thinking Russell was a "limited" player who had to "get lucky" to succeed :roll: or is just "Dwight Howard"... you can't write this stuff :lol

He's only the dude the NBA picked to have the fMVP award named after lmao

Edit: btw coastal, Kareem doesn't win shit in those time periods once Wilt enters cause wilt owned his ass. Also going off of ACTUAL HISTORY Kareems resume shows he doesn't necessarily win the chip in years he's supposed to. He had the easiest decade to win em in

No trolling response from me.


If you could swap a top 15 player today with 21 year old Russell, does that team get better? Name me the team that gets better.


Would LeBron ever say yes to trading Anthony Davis for Bill Russell? Never.
Bucks would get worse with Russell vs Giannis.
Philly would not trade Embiid for Russell.
Denver would not trade Jokic for Russell.

Lakers would arguably be better if you swapped prime 24 year old Wilt for AD.


Now repeat this exercise going back the last 30 years, most of the time your answer would be Wilt.


Wilt is just a better basketball player than Russell. Wilt was much more moody but I can understand it.

[coastalmarker99]

Wilt's problem was that he was so talented for his time he also had to play with a bunch of bums. Which pissed him off and was labelled a team cancer. He probably looked at his teammates funny because they weren't anywhere close to his ability. Like playing with kids. 50ppg?


If Wilt played in this era, he would have actual NBA level talent around him and he would fit in a lot better.

In-game one of the 1965 ECF

Wilt destroyed Russell. He scored 33 points and blocked 11 shots while grabbing 31 rebounds on 13-25 FG/FGA or 63 TS%

while Russell had 16 points and 32 rebounds on 7-22 shooting.


Wilt's teammates? They collectively shot...get this... 20-85 from the field, or .23.5 percent.



Also here are Wilt's playoff FG%'s, his teammates (collectively and without Wilt), and the post-season league averages.

59-60:

Wilt: .49.6

Team: .38.0

League: .40.2

60-61:

Wilt: .46.9

Team: .33.2

League: .40.3

61-62:

Wilt: .46.7

Team: .35.4

League: .41.1

63-64:

Wilt: .54.3

Team: .38.3

League: .42.0



It should be noted that the Warrior's offensive rating relative to the league was 100% positively correlated with Wilt taking more shots during his six years there.

[8Ball]

If you are a GM in this era and you take Russell over Wilt in the draft you won't have a job by the next morning.


Russell averaged 15 points per game on 44 percent shooting for his entire career despite having a massive athletic advantage over his opponents not named Wilt Chamberlain.



His defence also wouldn't be as impactful as it was in the 1960s due to the three-point line and the rules of today favouring the offensive player over the defensive player.



With the way the game is played now, it’s not possible for one person to have the impact Russell did on the defensive end.

All shots during the 1960's and 1950's were two-pointers meaning Russell’s primary direct defensive impact against shots around the rim could be as effective and impactful as any defence in a game relative to shots taken away from the rim, i.e., perimeter shots

That's my point. Forget historical achievements and titles.


There is not 1 GM today that would take Wilt over Russell in a draft. Their job is to build the best competing team.

Not 1 GM today would trade a top 15 player for prime Russell.


Would you trade Tatum of Russell? No.
Would you trade Jaylen Brown for Russell? Maybe, I am leaning no.



In today's game, if you can't inflict damage as a center, you are marginalized and turned into a Dwight Howard role. Jokic and embiid are not great perimeter defenders off pick and rolls, but they brutalize the other team offensively. Same with Shaq, Wilt. They would have an immediate mismatch offensively against today's bigs.


Russell would not have 1 mismatch.

[coastalmarker99]

No trolling response from me.


If you could swap a top 15 player today with 21 year old Russell, does that team get better? Name me the team that gets better.


Would LeBron ever say yes to trading Anthony Davis for Bill Russell? Never.
Bucks would get worse with Russell vs Giannis.
Philly would not trade Embiid for Russell.
Denver would not trade Jokic for Russell.

Lakers would arguably be better if you swapped prime 24 year old Wilt for AD.


Now repeat this exercise going back the last 30 years, most of the time your answer would be Wilt.


Wilt is just a better basketball player than Russell. Wilt was much more moody but I can understand it.


Look at the terrible spacing and dumb teammates that Wilt had to deal with.


This incredibly dumb Warriors player decided to park himself and his defender right in front of Wilt.


People say that Wilt wouldn’t be good today when he was putting up 50 points a game and leading the NBA in FG% with this spacing around him.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ey4-1d-WUAkS6b4?format=jpg&name=900x900



If You want to know how talented Wilt was as a player? Take a look at the 63-64 Warriors.


Before the season even started, the Warrior's new coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a scrimmage, sans Wilt, between the veterans, and a team comprised of rookies and rejects. To his horror, the rejects won.


Wilt then took basically that same roster, which may have been the worst roster ever surrounding a GOAT player in his prime to the finals and while it might be true that his team lost in five games to the Celtics and their eight HOFers.



Wilt somehow managed to keep his team in most of the games with only one other player (Tom Meschery) shooting above 35 FG% in those finals.


As in those Finals, he finished with 29.2 PPG on a +2.4 rTS% against the greatest defense of all-time


There is no way in my mind people think that Wilt should’ve been passing it to these utter scrubs on his team instead of putting up 30 shots a game.


https://twitter.com/StokesIsland/status/1381997079933882372



Don't judge the entire era based off this clip btw as most players weren't nearly as incompetent as Wilt's teammates.

[dankok8]

No trolling response from me.


If you could swap a top 15 player today with 21 year old Russell, does that team get better? Name me the team that gets better.


Would LeBron ever say yes to trading Anthony Davis for Bill Russell? Never.
Bucks would get worse with Russell vs Giannis.
Philly would not trade Embiid for Russell.
Denver would not trade Jokic for Russell.

Lakers would arguably be better if you swapped prime 24 year old Wilt for AD.


Now repeat this exercise going back the last 30 years, most of the time your answer would be Wilt.


Wilt is just a better basketball player than Russell. Wilt was much more moody but I can understand it.

Even if we assume that's true that no team today gets better replacing a top 15 player for Russell, that still means nothing.

We are evaluating Russell and all other players according to what they did in THEIR ERA. Of course a defensive center that blocked 8-10 shots a game and closed down the paint in an era with almost no outside shooting where all efficient shots were at the rim would have his impact greatly diminished in an era of 3pt shooters. Obviously... but that does not take anything away from Russell. I can say that Curry playing in the 60's NBA being hit hard by defenders, not being allowed to palm the ball and with no 3pt line would struggle mightily. This talk is irrelevant over what the player in question actually did. Russell led his teams to 4 out of 5 best defenses in terms of rDRtg (defensive rating relative to league average) in NBA history. That's what he should be judged on. That's at least how I see it.

[8Ball]

Imagine having Wilt, 7'2", 300 lbs. Strongest player in the league. With 4 shooters around him.

That's already a good modern team that any fanbase would be happy with.


Russell and 4 shooters doesn't go very far in today's league.


If I am wrong show me the arguments.

[coastalmarker99]

Even if we assume that's true that no team today gets better replacing a top 15 player for Russell, that still means nothing.

We are evaluating Russell and all other players according to what they did in THEIR ERA. Of course a defensive center that blocked 8-10 shots a game and closed down the paint in an era with almost no outside shooting where all efficient shots were at the rim would have his impact greatly diminished in an era of 3pt shooters. Obviously... but that does not take anything away from Russell. I can say that Curry playing in the 60's NBA being hit hard by defenders, not being allowed to palm the ball and with no 3pt line would struggle mightily. This talk is irrelevant over what the player in question actually did. Russell led his teams to 4 out of 5 best defenses in terms of rDRtg (defensive rating relative to league average) in NBA history. That's what he should be judged on. That's at least how I see it.

The 10 best playoff defenses in NBA history (Relative to Opponent) *7+ Games*

1. 1964 Celtics: -12.4

2. 2004 DET: -10.7

3. 1996 Knicks: -9.9

4. 1971 Bucks: -9.5

5. 2019 Bucks: -9.2

6. 1972 Bucks: -9.0

7. 2016 Spurs: -8.9

8. 2019 Raps: -8.6

9. 2000 Heat: -8.4

10. 1996 Bulls: -8.3



Kareem was a defensive monster from 1970 to 1974.



How those 1971 to 1974 Bucks teams came away with only one ring in those four years I will never know as they should have at least gotten two titles in that time fame.

[8Ball]

Even if we assume that's true that no team today gets better replacing a top 15 player for Russell, that still means nothing.

We are evaluating Russell and all other players according to what they did in THEIR ERA. Of course a defensive center that blocked 8-10 shots a game and closed down the paint in an era with almost no outside shooting where all efficient shots were at the rim would have his impact greatly diminished in an era of 3pt shooters. Obviously... but that does not take anything away from Russell. I can say that Curry playing in the 60's NBA being hit hard by defenders, not being allowed to palm the ball and with no 3pt line would struggle mightily. This talk is irrelevant over what the player in question actually did. Russell led his teams to 4 out of 5 best defenses in terms of rDRtg (defensive rating relative to league average) in NBA history. That's what he should be judged on. That's at least how I see it.

I agree that GOAT talks include discussion with what they accomplished in their era. And Curry would not be as great in the 60s.

Russell still is in my top 10. But Wilt is ranked higher than him for me.


For GOAT talks being a better basketball player vs your other GOAT candidates matter to me.

[coastalmarker99]

I agree that GOAT talks include discussion with what they accomplished in their era. And Curry would not be as great in the 60s.

Russell still is in my top 10. But Wilt is ranked higher than him for me.


For GOAT talks being a better basketball player vs your other GOAT candidates matter to me.

Russell vs. Wilt full H2H stats against each other year-By-year.


1959-1960 regular season in 11 H2H's

Russell: 19.8 ppg, 23.7 rpg 3.5 APG 39.3 FG%

Wilt: 39.1 ppg, 29.7 rpg 46.5 FG%, 1.3 apg.


1960 ECF in six postseason H2H's

Russell: 20.7 ppg, 27.0 rpg, 44.6 FG%, and 2.8 APG.

Wilt: 30.5 ppg, 27.5 rpg,.50.0 FG% and 2.0 APG



1960-1961 in 13 H2H matchups

Russell: 18.8 ppg, 25.4 rpg, 39.8 FG%, and 3.6 APG

Wilt: 35.5 ppg, 30.6 rpg, 49.2 FG%, and 1.8 apg.


1961-62 in 10 regular season H2H's:

Russell: 18.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, 38.3 FG%, and 4.4 APG.

Wilt: 39.7 ppg, 28.8 rpg, 46.8 FG%, and 2.1 apg.


1962 ECF in seven postseason H2H's

Russell: 22.0 ppg, 25.9 rpg, 39.9. FG%, and 4.6 APG.

Wilt: 33.6 ppg, 26.9 rpg, 46.8 FG%, and 2.9 apg.


1962 -1963 in 9 regular season H2H's:

Russell: 15.3 ppg, 27.8 rpg, 38.14 FG%

Wilt: 38.1 ppg, 28.9 rpg, 51.1 FG%


1963-1964 in 8 regular season H2H

Russell 14.3 ppg, 25.3 rpg , 5 APG 39.81 FG%

Wilt 29.1 ppg ,26.8 rpg, 3.6 APG 53.9 FG%


1964 finals in five postseason H2H's

Russell 11.2 ppg, 25.2 rpg, 5.0 APG 38.6 FG%

Wilt 29.2 ppg 27,6 rpg, 2.4 APG 51.7 FG%


1964 - 1965 in 11 regular season H2H

Russell 12.6 ppg, 22.2 rpg 4.6 APG, 28.1 FG%

Wilt 25.4 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 4.2 APG, 47.3 FG%



1965 ECF in seven postseason H2H's

Russell 15.6 ppg, 25.1 rpg, 6.7 APG,44.7 FG%.

Wilt 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, 3.3 APG 55.5 FG%.



1965 -1966 in 9 regular season H2H

Russell vs Wilt in 9 regular season H2H's:

Russell: 9.4 ppg, 21.2 rpg, 4.9 APG, .30.1 FG%

Wilt: 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, 4.1 APG 47.3 FG%



1966 ECF in five postseason H2H's

Russell: 14.0 ppg, 26.2 rpg, 5.6 APG, 42.4 FG%

Wilt: 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, 3.0 APG 50.9 FG%


1966 -1967 in 9 regular season H2H

Russell: 12.2 ppg, 21.1 rpg, 4.1 APG .44.7 FG%

Wilt: 20.3 ppg, 26.7 rpg, 6.3 APG, .54.9 FG%



1967 ECF in five postseason H2H's

Russell: 11.4 ppg, 23.4 rpg, 6.0 APG, 35.8 FG%

Wilt: 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, 55.6 FG%



1967-1968 in 8 regular season H2H

Russell: 7.8 ppg, 17.5 rpg, 5.1 APG 29.1 FG%

Wilt: 17.1 ppg, 26.1 rpg, 8.5 APG, .46.1 FG%



1968 ECF in seven postseason H2H's


Russell: 13.7 ppg, 23.9 rpg, 4.1 APG, 44.0 FG%.

Wilt: 22.1 ppg, 25.1 rpg, 6.7 APG, 48.7 FG%.



1968-69: in six regular-season H2H

Russell: 6.7 ppg, 15.8 rpg, 5.8 APG on 34.0 %FG

Wilt: 16.3 ppg, 24.0 rpg, 4.8 APG on 50.7 %FG


1969 finals in seven postseason H2H's

Russell: 9.1 ppg, 21.1 rpg, 5.1 apg on 39.7 %FG

Wilt: 11.7 ppg, 25.0 rpg, 3.0 apg on 50.0 %FG

[8Ball]

Coastalmarker,


Jordan was the biggest asshole to players he felt couldn't contribute the way Jordan wanted them to. Would bully them off the team.
LeBron gets players traded ASAP if they can't contribute the way he feels they should.

Meanwhile Wilt is called a team cancer.

[000]

Who cares about winning? Stats is where it's really at.

[coastalmarker99]

Coastalmarker,


Jordan was the biggest asshole to players he felt couldn't contribute the way Jordan wanted them to. Would bully them off the team.
LeBron gets players traded ASAP if they can't contribute the way he feels they should.

Meanwhile Wilt is called a team cancer.



Wilt had every right to feel angry with his teammates.


"When my teams played against Boston," Chamberlain said, "I'd play my heart out against Russell, and someone else on my team would blow the game."


Here is an example of this statement being true.

In-game one of the 1965 ECF

Wilt destroyed Russell. He scored 33 points and blocked 11 shots while grabbing 31 rebounds on 13-25 FG/FGA or 63 TS%

while Russell had 16 points and 32 rebounds on 7-22 shooting.


Wilt's teammates? They collectively shot...get this... 20-85 from the field, or .23.5 percent and they ended up losing the game.


In-game 5 of the '65-66 EDF'



Wilt shelled Russell with a 46 point and 34 rebound game along with 8 blocks on 55 per cent shooting.


Wilt's teammates? They collectively shot...get this... 24 out of 79 from the field, or 30.38 percent and they ended up losing the game.


In other words, people should understand that winning or losing is decided by teams.

We are comparing 2 individual GOAT candidates here.

Winning/losing should count too, but that should not be the basis for the argument about who is better as individual players.



If you swap the rosters between Russell and Wilt we all know it would have been Wilt holding all those rings as the great John Wooden said.

[coastalmarker99]

Who cares about winning? Stats is where it's really at.

Basketball is a team game and one player doesn't win and one player doesn't lose. In the end, the best team usually wins.




I think fans and media make too much of winning. The mere fact of winning doesn't make you great.



If you put Duncan in place of KG on those Wolves teams with bad management and horrible teammates.



Do you think he still gets viewed the same way as he does nowadays by fans and media?

[000]

Basketball is a team game and one player doesn't win and one player doesn't lose. In the end, the best team usually wins.




I think fans and media make too much of winning. The mere fact of winning doesn't make you great.



If you put Duncan in place of KG on those Wolves teams with bad management and horrible teammates.



Do you think he still gets viewed the same way as he does nowadays by fans and media?
I agree, personally. Turning your mediocre team into an insane defensive dynasty is meaningless. It's much more important to get stats and then blame your teammates when you lose.

[coastalmarker99]

Who cares about winning? Stats is where it's really at.

I look back at my career...and there were five 7th games in playoff series. Five times I lost four of them by a total of nine points.


Now think about that. Nine points going the other way, and I might have had four or five more championship rings.


So I sometimes get a little frustrated when I hear people talk about,

"Yeah, well you only won two Wilt." I could have won seven rings but I would have been the same player.

When (John) Paxson goes out and shoots a 3-point shot that wins the game for Chicago (in 1993).

No one takes anything away from Jordan because he just won the championship.

But if Paxson missed that shot, they would have lost that championship. Well, that has happened to me five times... and that's frustrating.

You know you're playing as well as those guys who won. I remember one series exactly: I scored the last ten points, we were behind, within one, with a few seconds to go.

And one of the other guys on my team threw the ball inbounds and it's the famous, "Havlicek stole the ball!"

It was just one of those things that happened. The ball slips out of his hand, he throws it right to Havlicek, and we lose a game that we could have won.

It was the seventh game so you know that you had the ability, but the end result was that we lost. And that's the way it goes.

The worst was in 1968 when I was playing with the 76ers and we lost to the Celtics in the famous 7th game and they blamed me for not shooting the ball because I only took two shots in the second half.
Well, during those years, I was passing off a lot. I won the assist title.

The Celtics were smart, they put all four guys on me and let the rest of the guys shoot.


Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer, Chet Walker and Wali Jones -- all fantastic shots -- had a bad, bad day. 8-for-24, 8-for-25 and 8-for-22 and I am giving them the ball.


So when the game is over people say, "Why didn't you shoot, Wilt?" Well, I got four guys on me and here are four of the best shooters in NBA history -- we had just won 62 games that year -- but they were missing that night.

I was accused of not doing my job, not putting the ball in the basket, even though I had 34 rebounds, 13 blocked shots to go along with 14 points for the game.

But because I only took two shots in the second half, I get blamed. I think that sometimes that's a little bit unfair.

[coastalmarker99]

Coastalmarker,


Jordan was the biggest asshole to players he felt couldn't contribute the way Jordan wanted them to. Would bully them off the team.
LeBron gets players traded ASAP if they can't contribute the way he feels they should.

Meanwhile Wilt is called a team cancer.

Examples of Wilt getting let down by his teammates in the playoffs.


Game 1, 1960 ECF vs Boston

Wilt scores 42 points and grabs 29 rebounds and disses out 1 assist on 17-35 FG/FGA.


While Russell had 19 points and 30 rebounds plus 1 assist on 9-17 shooting


The difference was for this game


Was that Woody Sauldsberry went 3-21 and Wilt's teammates shoot 30% from the field in a 6 point loss in a series they lost in 6 games.



Game 1, 1961 ECSF vs Syracuse

Wilts teammates shoot 28.8% from the field after Wilt drops 46 and 32


Wilts teammates shot 33.2% from the field this series (8.3% below league average) and they were swept



Game 1, 1962 ECF vs Boston

Wilt scores 33 points and grabs 31 rebounds and disses out 3 assists on 13-25 FG/FGA.


While Russell had 16 points and 30 rebounds plus 4 assists on 7-22 shooting


Yet the difference in this game was that Wilts teammates shoot 23.5% from the field.



Game 4, 1964 Finals vs Boston

Wilt scores 27 points and grabs 38 rebounds on 52 percent shooting.


While Russell had 8 points and 19 rebounds plus 3 assists on 33 percent shooting.


Yet the difference in this game was that Wilt's teammates shoot 27.7% from the field in a 3 point loss.



Game 1 1965 ECF

Wilt scores 33 points and blocked 11 shots while grabbing 31 rebounds on 13-25 FG/FGA or 63 TS%


While Russell had 16 points and 32 rebounds on 7-22 shooting.


Yet the difference in this game was that Wilt's teammates shoot 23.5% from the field in a 10 point loss.



Game 5 1966 ECF.

Wilt scores 46 points and grabbed 34 rebounds along with 8 blocks on 19-34 FG/FGA


While Russell had 18 points and 31 rebounds plus 6 assists on 4-7 FG/FGA


Yet the difference in this game was that Wilt's teammates shoot 30.8% from the field in a 6 point loss in a series they lost in 5 games.

[Dbrog]

No trolling response from me.


If you could swap a top 15 player today with 21 year old Russell, does that team get better? Name me the team that gets better.


Would LeBron ever say yes to trading Anthony Davis for Bill Russell? Never.
Bucks would get worse with Russell vs Giannis.
Philly would not trade Embiid for Russell.
Denver would not trade Jokic for Russell.

Lakers would arguably be better if you swapped prime 24 year old Wilt for AD.


Now repeat this exercise going back the last 30 years, most of the time your answer would be Wilt.


Wilt is just a better basketball player than Russell. Wilt was much more moody but I can understand it.

I love how you say your response is not trolling and you proceed to clearly troll. I 100% guarantee you if you ask GMs about if they could trade embiid or jokic for russell, they would laugh at how ridiculously easy the answer is.

To answer the bold, literally every team would get better. Again, Russell showed he's a championship player even when his entire team around him changed to different players over the years. He's basically a richman's Tim Duncan which is saying something just like Wilt is a richman's Shaq. I also take Duncan over Shaq but again, that's based on what I've seen from their actual careers and what I personally value in what makes a player great. You can disagree and that's fine. Neither of us are wrong because there's no way to definitively prove any of it.

Anyway, I'm done commenting in this thread and think Dankock is probably going nuts. This thread's purpose is literally just to list your GOAT and your reasoning behind it. Not to debate other people or play out hypotheticals.

[coastalmarker99]

The greatest example I can use to say that basketball is a team game and that you shouldn't judge players on winning alone.


Is that in Lebron's three best postseasons of his career in 2009 2017 and 2018.


Lebron didn't come away with a single ring despite the fact that his play was GOAT tier in all three of those playoff runs.




In the two best postseasons of Kareem's career in 1977 and 1974, he also didn't end up with a single ring despite the fact that his play was GOAT tier.



Hell Hakeem Olajuwon put up (49 points, 25 rebounds, six blocks in a playoff game and yet he still lost the series against the Sonics in 1987.



That was only Hakeem's third season in the league at 24 years old and he averaged 29 ppg, 11 rpg, 1.3 spg, and 4.3 BPG for the 10 game playoff run in 1987



Just insane numbers and he kept doing that every single season and he kept losing in the first round because he had no help whatsoever around him.

[iamgine]

has this become a wilt thread :lol

[coastalmarker99]

Alright, let's look at the voting so far.


L.Kizzle myself and Thenameless voted for Wilt.


That's 3 votes in Wilt's favour.








SouBeachTalents Bankaii Overdrive RRR3 nayte dankok8 voted for Jordan


That's 6 votes in Jordan's favour.



Dbrog voted for Russell.


That's one vote in Russell's favour.



8ball voted for Lebron.


That's one vote in Lebron's favour.



Zero people, so far I think have voted for Kareem.

[dankok8]

Compare Bill Russell's offensive numbers in the playoffs to someone like Kevin Garnett...

Russell's best stretch was 1960-1966 so let's compare that to KG's best 7 postseasons:

1960-1966 Russell: 18.7 rpg, 26.2 rpg (? o), 4.8 apg on 49.8 %TS (+1.9 rTS)

1999-2008 Garnett: 22.3 ppg, 12.7 rpg (2.7 o), 4.5 apg on 52.3 %TS (-0.2 rTS)

Garnett scored 3.6 ppg more but Russell surely had a higher offensive rebound rate when correcting for pace and had better efficiency relative to league average. Plus this doesn't account for the fact that Russell elevated his production in the finals and other key games. Russell wasn't nearly as bad on offense as people make it sound sometimes.

[RogueBorg]

Beginning with Russell's rookie season of 1956-'57 there were 8 teams in the league and teams only had to win 1 round to reach the NBA Finals. Compare that to this years champion Milwaukee Bucks where there are 30 teams and they had to go through 3 rounds before making the Finals. It is much harder to win a championship in todays game. Going back to the 60's, the league expanded to 9 teams in '62-'63, and 10 teams in '66-'67. Beginning with the 1966 playoffs, Boston had to win 2 rounds before making the Finals.

In 1967-'68 the league expanded to 12 teams.

And in Russell's final season the league expanded to 14 teams.

So when considering Russell's rings, he never played in a league with more than 14 teams with only 1 or 2 rounds to reach the Finals.

That is a much easier road to travel than what teams have to do today.

[Dbrog]

Beginning with Russell's rookie season of 1956-'57 there were 8 teams in the league and teams only had to win 1 round to reach the NBA Finals. Compare that to this years champion Milwaukee Bucks where there are 30 teams and they had to go through 3 rounds before making the Finals. It is much harder to win a championship in todays game. Going back to the 60's, the league expanded to 9 teams in '62-'63, and 10 teams in '66-'67. Beginning with the 1966 playoffs, Boston had to win 2 rounds before making the Finals.

In 1967-'68 the league expanded to 12 teams.

And in Russell's final season the league expanded to 14 teams.

So when considering Russell's rings, he never played in a league with more than 14 teams with only 1 or 2 rounds to reach the Finals.

That is a much easier road to travel than what teams have to do today.

Then why do all the sports who have 1 and done setups have much more parity than the NBA? It's clearly harder to win CONSISTENTLY with less games, hence all the "upsets" in those other sports. As far as less teams, that means every team has more great players. Condense current teams to 8 and you have dudes like Devin Booker as as 2nd stringer on them. That literally makes the competition insane which you would think only elevates being able to win in that environment. I don't even know why I see these two arguments when they are dismantled so easily with FACTS.

[RogueBorg]

Then why do all the sports who have 1 and done setups have much more parity than the NBA? It's clearly harder to win CONSISTENTLY with less games, hence all the "upsets" in those other sports. As far as less teams, that means every team has more great players. Condense current teams to 8 and you have dudes like Devin Booker as as 2nd stringer on them. That literally makes the competition insane which you would think only elevates being able to win in that environment. I don't even know why I see these two arguments when they are dismantled so easily with FACTS.

It's not less games that makes it easier, it's fewer rounds to play that make it easier. The more rounds a team go through the more chances for an upset. In 8 of Russell's 11 rings there were only 2 rounds Boston had to win to win the championship. The Bucks by comparison had to go through 4.

As far as your argument about great players, Boston EASILY had the most hall of famers on their team.

[dankok8]

It's not less games that makes it easier, it's fewer rounds to play that make it easier. The more rounds a team go through the more chances for an upset. In 8 of Russell's 11 rings there were only 2 rounds Boston had to win to win the championship. The Bucks by comparison had to go through 4.

As far as your argument about great players, Boston EASILY had the most hall of famers on their team.

Who is your #1?

[SaintzFury13]

Alright, let's look at the voting so far.


L.Kizzle myself and Thenameless voted for Wilt.


That's 3 votes in Wilt's favour.








SouBeachTalents Bankaii Overdrive RRR3 nayte dankok8 voted for Jordan


That's 6 votes in Jordan's favour.



Dbrog voted for Russell.


That's one vote in Russell's favour.



8ball voted for Lebron.


That's one vote in Lebron's favour.



Zero people, so far I think have voted for Kareem.

I voted for Jordan too...

[SaintzFury13]

Compare Bill Russell's offensive numbers in the playoffs to someone like Kevin Garnett...

Russell's best stretch was 1960-1966 so let's compare that to KG's best 7 postseasons:

1960-1966 Russell: 18.7 rpg, 26.2 rpg (? o), 4.8 apg on 49.8 %TS (+1.9 rTS)

1999-2008 Garnett: 22.3 ppg, 12.7 rpg (2.7 o), 4.5 apg on 52.3 %TS (-0.2 rTS)

Garnett scored 3.6 ppg more but Russell surely had a higher offensive rebound rate when correcting for pace and had better efficiency relative to league average. Plus this doesn't account for the fact that Russell elevated his production in the finals and other key games. Russell wasn't nearly as bad on offense as people make it sound sometimes.

No one is calling Russell a bad offensive player. But he was clearly not an elite one either, at least not on the level of the other people in top 10 status.

And it's perfectly fine that he's not. He and Magic are the two top ten all time greats who weren't great on one end of the floor (in Magic's case it was defense). Again, if you want to argue that Russell was a great offensive player, then fine, but he was nowhere near as good as what was needed for him to truly be considered the GOAT. And not to mention, I cannot justify making someone the GOAT when a legitimate argument exists that another guy who played in the same era as him was a better player.

[dankok8]

Official Vote Tally:

Michael Jordan - 7: dankok8, SouBeachTalents, Bankaii, Overdrive, SaintzFury13, RRR3, nayte
Wilt Chamberlain - 3: coastalmarker99, Thenameless, L. Kizzle
Bill Russell - 1: Dbrog
Lebron James - 1: 8ball

All the votes that weren't cast for Jordan are carried over to the #2 thread. It makes sense that everyone who voted Wilt or Russell or Lebron first for would also vote for him second. People can still change their mind and vote for someone else in the next thread of course.

The #2 thread is now open: LINK (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?497093-Top-50-All-Time-List-Shot-Clock-Era-2&p=14426359#post14426359)