Bill Russell: Sam Jones is better then Scottie Pippen?

[L.Kizzle]

I was watching an NBA special on William Felton Russell last night and he was talking about his teammates.


An interesting point was him comparing John Havlicek, Sam Jones and Scottie Pippen. He said Scottie Pippen is one of the greatest to ever play but his two guys (Jones and Havlicek) were better then Pippen.


Some other Bill Russell comments, He says they wouldn't be able to stop Michael Jordan.


So what do y'all think about that, Pippen vs. Jones?

[hotsizzle]

Bulls:"Russell isnt even better than Pippen:oldlol:"

[Jimmy2k8]

Bulls: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: Russell is an idiot. he isn't any better than Scottie pippen.

[Poseidon]

IF Bill Russell was playing today.....he'd be no better than Ben Wallace or Marcus Camby.

Scottie Pippen is a better overall player than Russell or any of his other overrated Celtics teammates from the 60's.

[Jimmy2k8]

^Poseidon= BULLS.

[L.Kizzle]

IF Bill Russell was playing today.....he'd be no better than Ben Wallace or Marcus Camby.

Scottie Pippen is a better overall player than Russell or any of his other overrated Celtics teammates from the 60's.
Topic has nothin' to do with Bill Russell but Jones vs. Pippen

[Los Angeles]

Seriously though, I could care less what Bill Russell has to say...Pippen is the most overlooked/under-appreciated superstar to ever play this game it seems, Russell isn't helping his cause any.

Pippen > Jones

[MaxFly]

He is around top 15 all-time.


First, let me say that I disagree with Russell... Scottie Pippen is ridiculously underrated and was a better player than Sam Jones.

However, top 15 all-time? Lets please not try to make up for Pippen being underrated all in one post. Perhaps top 30, but not top 15.

[Jimmy2k8]

^ Jimmy2k8 = Make It Rain = Asster :oldlol:

Poseidon = Poseidon

BULLS = BULLS



Jimmy2k8 is one poster and only one poster. BULLS is made up of alternate accounts and accounts that rhyme with BULLS.

[Rockets(T-mac)]

Sam Jones and Scottie Pippen?

You got to be kinding me Russell.

Pippen >>> Jones

[Jimmy2k8]

Jimmy2k8 is Make It Rain, who is also Asster, and probably 15 other accounts.

BULLS has one account only...BULLS.


I require proof since you think I have 100 billion accounts.

[MaxFly]

Incidentally, this is an example of why, while I respect the opinions of NBA legends, I don't put all that much weight on them.

[MaxFly]

ISH, known for their retarded rankings(Kobe at #24, Malone at #17), has Pippen at #26. From that alone alone you can conclude that Pippen is better than at least 10 players listed above him.


Players listed ahead of Pippen:

1. Michael Jordan
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4. Earvin 'Magic' Johnson
5. Larry Bird
6. Bill Russell
7. Shaquille O'Neal
8. Oscar Robertson
9. Hakeem Olajuwon
10. Tim Duncan
11. Jerry West
12. Julius Erving
13. Moses Malone
14. Elgin Baylor
15. Bob Pettit
16. John Havlicek
17. Karl Malone
18. George Mikan
19. David Robinson
20. Isiah Thomas
21. Charles Barkley
22. John Stockton
23. Bob Cousy
24. Kobe Bryant
25. Rick Barry
26. Scottie Pippen


^^ The bolded are all unquestionably worse than Pippen. This puts Pippen at #16 all-time. Now I admit that I really can't seem to slip him into the #15 spot. That's a pretty damn talented group. So for right now, it looks like Pippen is a top 16 player of all-time.

When we concoct these all time rankings, we take players' legacies into account as well as how good they are flat out. It's not simply a measure of who the best player is... it's a mixture of legacy and skill, that's why you will see an 11 time NBA champion over Scottie Pippen, regardless of which era he played in.

[MaxFly]

Legacy is important, but Robert Horry and his 7 rings will never compare to Michael Redd and his zero.

Problem... Robert Horry has never lead a team to a championship nor has be been all that important a piece with the exception of 1 or 2 championship runs... the fact that he has 7 rings is counterbalanced by his small roles.


Russell's 11 rings are impressive, but nowhere near as impressive as Malone's multiple trips to the Finals. Personally, I don't give a damn about skill. I will hardly ever use Kobe's skill level to justify his ranking at top 8 all-time. All-time rankings are based on greatness, and greatness only. Skilled players like Dirk don't deserve to be ranked ahead of guys like Russell who couldn't score to save his life.


Consider today's Iverson's to be the Elgin Baylor in the old days. He won nothing...Absolutely nothing. He went to the Finals many times, but he lost. Who gives a damn if he never won? Yet he is considered top 15 all-time. Why? He did nothing at all to separate himself from Iverson.

Looks at user title... realizes he's wasting his time. http://forums.sohh.com/images/smilies/dry.gif

[MaxFly]

Where do you rank Russell all-time?

Top 10... Perhaps 7...

Look, I realize that Russell played on a loaded team... I've made the argument myself more than once, but you can't deny that he was the driving force for those 11 championships in 13 years, and you can't dismiss that feat historically... 11 championships in 13 years as the leader of a team... that's a legacy...

[abuC]

I remember after Wilt died, they had Russell on NBC @ Halftime during a game and asked him some questions about Wilt, he went on to say Wilt would have averaged 40ppg in the current NBA. Everyone on the panel had this "sure old man" kind of look on their faces, and there was some awkward silence. Russell seems to blurt out things at times.

[RainierBeachPoet]

Bulls:"Russell isnt even better than Pippen:oldlol:"

hmmm

whose opinion carries more weight?

a guy who has won 11 championship rings and has actually seen and played with sam jones

or a guy named bulls who posts at ish

hmmmm

tough decision

[Los Angeles]

No way is Pippen better then Bill Russell, no way Bulls.

[Los Angeles]

You need to understand that players back in the day didn't have nearly as much advanced physical preparation as players do in the last 20 years or so. I mean high tech equipment, protein shakes/bars, personal trainers...c'mon man, Bill Russell was a freak of nature. You can't fault him for playing against weaker players, it's not a coincidence that players today are all more athletic and stronger...Russell dominated a league where every played had the same opportunity to better himself as a player...yeah players in the 60's weren't as big or athletic as players today, but that has to do with which hand they were given.

I mean I could easily say if Bill Russell played in todays league he would be even more freakishly athletic and stronger...thus being an even more dominant force.

[D-Fence]

Sam Jones and John Havlicek were probably the 2 best clutch shooters involved in the first Celtics dynasty. Pippen's record in the clutch seems somewhat more uneven, and Russell doesn't have the fondness for Pippen by having played with him. In game 7 of the 1965 Division Finals, Havlicek saved Russell from potentially being the goat and losing the championship with the steal, as Russell was responsible for turning the ball over on the previous play. On Sam Jones, Russell also said that in the 7th game of a championship series, he'd "take Sam over any player who's ever walked on a court."

Ranking John Havlicek over Scottie Pippen is common. Both were all-around great players--scorers, point forwards, great defenders, leaders.

Sam Jones wasn't quite the ball thief, passer, or as versitile at positions, but he was also a great well-rounded player. Playing his entire career with Russell, he also never had the distinction of being the best player on his team, as Havlicek and Pippen (briefly) did. Like most, I wouldn't rank him above Pippen, either, but I'd probably have a smaller than usual gap between them.

I also recall that Havlicek (I think) told a story about Russell being asked what he thought of the Bulls having achieved their first 3-peat, and he said he didn't think much of it.


Some other Bill Russell comments, He says they wouldn't be able to stop Michael Jordan.
They couldn't stop Jerry West, either. Elgin Baylor scored 61 points in a Finals game against Boston. Chamberlain had spectacular games against them, as did Pettit and others. So, yeah, I think Russell's right on that one.

Here's a quote from Kobe Bryant that I also find interesting:
When I was going through a rough time and understanding that I have to give up some personal things to win, I read something that Bill Russell said. He made a comment about Sam Jones and how he felt Sam could have led the league in scoring and done a lot of things. But he understood that wasn't critical for the team to be successful, so he stepped back and sacrificed to give his team what it needed. That provided me with some comfort. I could relate to that. When people think about me, I just want them to be able to say, 'He won.'

[L.Kizzle]

Sam Jones and John Havlicek were probably the 2 best clutch shooters involved in the first Celtics dynasty. Pippen's record in the clutch seems somewhat more uneven, and Russell doesn't have the fondness for Pippen by having played with him. In game 7 of the 1965 Division Finals, Havlicek saved Russell from potentially being the goat and losing the championship with the steal, as Russell was responsible for turning the ball over on the previous play. On Sam Jones, Russell also said that in the 7th game of a championship series, he'd "take Sam over any player who's ever walked on a court."

Ranking John Havlicek over Scottie Pippen is common. Both were all-around great players--scorers, point forwards, great defenders, leaders.

Sam Jones wasn't quite the ball thief, passer, or as versitile at positions, but he was also a great well-rounded player. Playing his entire career with Russell, he also never had the distinction of being the best player on his team, as Havlicek and Pippen (briefly) did. Like most, I wouldn't rank him above Pippen, either, but I'd probably have a smaller than usual gap between them.

I also recall that Havlicek (I think) told a story about Russell being asked what he thought of the Bulls having achieved their first 3-peat, and he said he didn't think much of it.


They couldn't stop Jerry West, either. Elgin Baylor scored 61 points in a Finals game against Boston. Chamberlain had spectacular games against them, as did Pettit and others. So, yeah, I think Russell's right on that one.

Here's a quote from Kobe Bryant that I also find interesting:
His teammate (Russell) wasn't the one to think highly of Sam Jones. After Jones hit a game wing jumper in game 7 of the 1971 playoffs, Wilt said he was the Celts best player.


In the seventh-game showdown, with the score tied at 107 and two seconds left, Jones hit a jump shot over the outstretched arms of Chamberlain to seal the win. After the game Chamberlain hailed Jones as the Celtics' best player. In the NBA Finals against the Los Angeles Lakers, Jones again came through, scoring five of the Celtics' 10 overtime points in Game 7 to propel Boston to a fourth straight NBA crown.

[bdreason]

Pippen greater than Russell?


You must be joking.


Without Jordan, Pippen wouldn't have won anything. Trying to diminish Russell's achievements because of who he played with is laughable.

[KULLS]

Why isn't this little kid banned yet?

[haji_d_robertas]

Why isn't this little kid banned yet?

Which little kid?

[D-Fence]

After Jones hit a game wing jumper in game 7 of the 1971 playoffs, Wilt said he was the Celts best player.
Yeah. Russell and Auerbach have told a few good stories on the games within the games Jones would play with Chamberlain. I recall one ended with Jones defending himself from Chamberlain with a chair.

And this one is from Russell's book Second Wind:
He'd hustle people out on the court all night and have a high time doing it. He always had something going with Wilt, for instance. Against Philadelphia, he'd dribble the ball around the top of the key toward the corner, and I'd set a good pick against the man guarding him. When that happened, Wilt was supposed to pick Sam up. Sam would stop about eighteen feet out, and in a falsetto voice would call, "You better come on out here, Wilt Chamberlain!" Only Sam could sound that sassy, and he always added Wilt's last name, like a mother scolding her child. Wilt would be near the basket, about a step and a half from blocking Sam's shot, but in the next instant Sam would yell, "Too late!" as he let fly a bank shot--which always went in. He'd do it over and over. Sometimes he'd yell two or three times before shooting, if he were open long enough. Finally Wilt would be irritated enough to come out after him, and the instant Wilt lunged to block the shot, Sam would flip the ball to me and I'd dunk it. Which also irritated Wilt, because he hated to see me dunk.

Anyhow, yeah, they all say Sam was clutch.

[RainierBeachPoet]

from Russell's book Second Wind:


Quote:
He'd hustle people out on the court all night and have a high time doing it. He always had something going with Wilt, for instance. Against Philadelphia, he'd dribble the ball around the top of the key toward the corner, and I'd set a good pick against the man guarding him. When that happened, Wilt was supposed to pick Sam up. Sam would stop about eighteen feet out, and in a falsetto voice would call, "You better come on out here, Wilt Chamberlain!" Only Sam could sound that sassy, and he always added Wilt's last name, like a mother scolding her child. Wilt would be near the basket, about a step and a half from blocking Sam's shot, but in the next instant Sam would yell, "Too late!" as he let fly a bank shot--which always went in. He'd do it over and over. Sometimes he'd yell two or three times before shooting, if he were open long enough. Finally Wilt would be irritated enough to come out after him, and the instant Wilt lunged to block the shot, Sam would flip the ball to me and I'd dunk it. Which also irritated Wilt, because he hated to see me dunk.


great anecdote :cheers:

i keep thinking of a michael jackson voice...

[guy]

You need to understand that players back in the day didn't have nearly as much advanced physical preparation as players do in the last 20 years or so. I mean high tech equipment, protein shakes/bars, personal trainers...c'mon man, Bill Russell was a freak of nature. You can't fault him for playing against weaker players, it's not a coincidence that players today are all more athletic and stronger...Russell dominated a league where every played had the same opportunity to better himself as a player...yeah players in the 60's weren't as big or athletic as players today, but that has to do with which hand they were given.

I mean I could easily say if Bill Russell played in todays league he would be even more freakishly athletic and stronger...thus being an even more dominant force.

This is all true. Everyone had an even playing field but the 60s were still alot easier then the 90s and 00s, because there is still way more competition, the playoffs are much different, and free agency. There's more competition cause their has been about 27-30 teams in the past 20 years, compared to 8-9 in the 60s. Back then a team depending on their record, only had to play a max of 2 or 3 playoff series to possibly win a title. And free agency has made it to so rosters are changing alot faster now then in the 60s. With that said, if the 60s Celtics were brought up in the 90s or 00s, and they were all more athletic, stronger, and better skilled cause of the times, they still wouldn't have won nearly as much, cause their would probably be 2 or 3 teams just as good as them, and the team wouldn't have stayed together for as long. And like people have said Bill Russell wouldn't be looked at as that much better then a guy like Dennis Rodman i.e. a great defender and rebounder that doesn't score much, and only cares about winning.

I would still put Bill Russell in my top 15, because he was one of the greatest defenders, rebounders, and winners and I don't think that would change much if he played in the 90s-00s. Its still hard to tell how his success would change, but his basketball IQ is through the roof and he had a huge impact so I wouldn't discredit him.

[allball]

^Poseidon= BULLS.

it's so obvious it's pathetic.

[johndeeregreen]

I wonder how many people have seen even one full game tape of Jones.

[dejordan]

I wonder how many people have seen even one full game tape of Jones.
i was thinking the same thing. older guys i talk to about the game all basically said that jones was the one they were afraid of late in games (all wilt fans in my fam) and that he had a very unorthadox shot that was really hard to block. i don't know if he was better than scottie, but bill russell tends to be pretty honest in his estimation of players. that doesn't make him right though.

[VCMVP1551]

Pippen is atleast the 3rd best SF ever behind Bird and maybe Havlicek. Jones I believe is a SG and while I think he was a great player I don't think he was on Pippen's level.

[bdreason]

Agreed. Without the 8+ HOF'ers Russell played with, he wouldn't have won anything.




Trying to diminish Pippen's achievements because of who he played with is laughable.


I wasn't diminishing Pippens achievements. The fact is that Pippen didn't acheive as much as Russell.

If you're going to say that Russell only won because of who he played with (which is exactly what you said), then the same arguement can be made for Pippen, since he wouldn't have won anything without MJ.

[Loki]

Pippen is atleast the 3rd best SF ever behind Bird and maybe Havlicek. Jones I believe is a SG and while I think he was a great player I don't think he was on Pippen's level.

Bird
Dr. J
Baylor
Havlicek
Barry
Pippen

Pippen can at best be put over 2 of the other 5 imo. At best. More likely he's the 4th-6th best SF of all-time.

[Lebron23]

I wasn't diminishing Pippens achievements. The fact is that Pippen didn't acheive as much as Russell.

If you're going to say that Russell only won because of who he played with (which is exactly what you said), then the same arguement can be made for Pippen, since he wouldn't have won anything without MJ.


Scottie Pippen's Teams made it into the NBA Playoffs 16 out of his 17 Season in the NBA. His Airness Michael Jordan missed the NBA Playoffs while playing for the Washington Wizards in a crappy Eastern Conference.

Remember when Jordan retired in 1993, Scottie Pippen being the team leader of the Chicago Bulls take his team into the NBA Eastern Conference Finals in the 1993-94 Season. That is why Pippen is the best sidekick of Michael Jordan because he prove that he can deliver even though Jordan is not on his team.


Michael Jordan unexpectedly retired in 1993, and the 1994 season marked Pippen's stepping out from Jordan's shadow and he performed as one of the best players in the league. That year, he earned All-Star Game MVP honors. He had perhaps his best season, leading the Bulls in scoring, assists, and the entire league in steals, averaging 22.0 points, 8.7 rebounds, 5.6 assists, 2.9 steals, 0.9 three-pointers, and 0.8 blocks per game, while shooting 49.1% from the field and a career-best 32% from the three-point line. For his efforts, he earned the first of three straight All-NBA First Team nods, and finished third in the MVP voting. The Bulls finished the season with 55 wins, only two less than their previous championship year with Jordan still on the team.

[L.Kizzle]

Bird
Dr. J
Baylor
Havlicek
Barry
Pippen

Pippen can at best be put over 2 of the other 5 imo. At best. More likely he's the 4th-6th best SF of all-time.
I agree on this ranking, hell some would put 'Nique over Pippen.

[L.Kizzle]

Scottie Pippen's Team made it into the NBA Playoffs 16 out of his 17 Season in the NBA.
Not only did Russell go to the playoffs every season he played, he went to the NBA Finals 12 out of 13 seasons (winning 11 titles at that.) The season the Celtics didn't make the Finals they lost to the 76ers in the Eastern Division Finals (those 6ers are considered one of the greatest teams ever.)

[Lebron23]

Not only did Russell go to the playoffs every season he played, he went to the NBA Finals 12 out of 13 seasons (winning 11 titles at that.) The season the Celtics didn't make the Finals they lost to the 76ers in the Eastern Division Finals (those 6ers are considered one of the greatest teams ever.)

He played in a much weaker era in which the total number of team in the NBA is 10. It is very easy to win several NBA Championship when you are facing the same team every season. Beside we all know that the 1960's and early 1970's Boston Celtics are one of the most stacked team in the history of the NBA. Rings are overrated when your facing a much weaker competition and no one else beside the Los Angeles/Minneapolis Lakers consistently challenging your team in the FINALS.

[dejordan]

He played in a much weaker era in which the total number of team in the NBA is 10. It is very easy to win several NBA Championship when you are facing the same team every season. Beside we all know that the 1960's and early 1970's Boston Celtics are one of the most stacked team in the history of the NBA.
this is a strange offshoot topic. first off the simple counter to this argument is "why didn't every other team win 11 in 13 years?" they all played with just only a handful of teams they had to beat. why the celts every year and not the others? that's not an advantage over the competition since they all played with those circumstances.

however, there are things about that era that made it ideally suited to dynasties. the salary cap, incredibly high salaries, free agency, and a bunch of teams looking to outbid you for your 3rd - 7th guys weren't in effect yet. you could afford to keep a bunch of future hofers together for long stretches of time and even your successful less-heralded players had no reason to leave. success could be maintained.

[G-train]

Rings are weighted too much.

Malone and Barkley would be considered > Duncan if Duncan was drafted by the Celtics and made the conf finals a few times, instead of landing in a dream situation with excellent ongoing management and coaching. Even with that its debatable.

Likewise Pippen. A great star player, but no better than Grant Hill. His dream situation led him to overhyped ability. Yes he was an all star and a great defender. But his offense was not on a Grant Hill's or Jason Kidd's playing field.

Likewise Russell. A awesome defender and almost a point centre, but I'm taking Shaq/Malone/Barkley/Duncan over him every time.

The fact is some all time great players devoted their life to winning a ring, do everything right, and still dont win one. So dont weight rings so much.

[VCMVP1551]

Bird
Dr. J
Baylor
Havlicek
Barry
Pippen

Pippen can at best be put over 2 of the other 5 imo. At best. More likely he's the 4th-6th best SF of all-time.

I agree with Havlicek but none of the other choices. Barry was great and he is close to Pippen's level same with Baylor but Pippen's defense, playmaking ability and 6 rings put him ahead. Pippen was the Bulls primary ball handler and set up the offense during the title run. He played point forward as much as most point guards run the point. Pippen also average nearly 9 rebounds one year.

[L.Kizzle]

Rings are weighted too much.

Malone and Barkley would be considered > Duncan if Duncan was drafted by the Celtics and made the conf finals a few times, instead of landing in a dream situation with excellent ongoing management and coaching. Even with that its debatable.

Likewise Pippen. A great star player, but no better than Grant Hill. His dream situation led him to overhyped ability. Yes he was an all star and a great defender. But his offense was not on a Grant Hill's or Jason Kidd's playing field.

Likewise Russell. A awesome defender and almost a point centre, but I'm taking Shaq/Malone/Barkley/Duncan over him every time.

The fact is some all time great players devoted their life to winning a ring, do everything right, and still dont win one. So dont weight rings so much.
I think rings get as much credit as they need to be.

Malone and Barkely would probably > Duncan but the rings put him slightly over the other 2.


But take for example Chancey Billups. He has a ring and a Finals MVP, but I doubt anyone is picking him over Jason Kidd. Hell, I doubt most would put Gilbert Arenas over him.

[L.Kizzle]

I agree with Havlicek but none of the other choices. Barry was great and he is close to Pippen's level same with Baylor but Pippen's defense, playmaking ability and 6 rings put him ahead. Pippen was the Bulls primary ball handler and set up the offense during the title run. He played point forward as much as most point guards run the point. Pippen also average nearly 9 rebounds one year.
Pippen is not over Baylor and Rick Barry, just no way. Here is one instance were rings doesn't win out. Pippen has more rings, but Baylor and Barry were the better individual players by a long shot. Also consider Rick Barry also has a ring and was part of one of the biggest upsets in NBA Finals history.

Baylor was one of the greatest individual talents the game has ever seen. Baylor basically created basketball above the rim. He wasn't a bad player either, averaged 38 ppg and 19 in the same season.

[VCMVP1551]

Pippen is not over Baylor and Rick Barry, just no way. Here is one instance were rings doesn't win out. Pippen has more rings, but Baylor and Barry were the better individual players by a long shot. Also consider Rick Barry also has a ring and was part of one of the biggest upsets in NBA Finals history.

Baylor was one of the greatest individual talents the game has ever seen. Baylor basically created basketball above the rim. He wasn't a bad player either, averaged 38 ppg and 19 in the same season.


Baylor also took like 34 FGA per game when he averaged 38. Rebound numbers weren't the same back then either. For example a top rebounder today averages 11-13 rpg while a top rebounder back then average 21-23 rpg. I put Pippen ahead of them because he was hands down a better defender and playmaker. How many other forwards ran the offense like he did?

[VCMVP1551]

I forgot Bird too. Bird is hands down the best SF ever IMO. My rankings are Bird and then either Pippen or Havlicek. I'd put Baylor then Barry and that is my top 5. Dr. J would be 6.

[L.Kizzle]

Baylor also took like 34 FGA per game when he averaged 38. Rebound numbers weren't the same back then either. For example a top rebounder today averages 11-13 rpg while a top rebounder back then average 21-23 rpg. I put Pippen ahead of them because he was hands down a better defender and playmaker. How many other forwards ran the offense like he did?
Considering Baylor was a 6'5 small forward, 19.8 rebounds is incredible. 20 rpg was the norn but for big centers and power forwards. Name me a 6'5 F/G in that era who grabbed damn near 20 boards a game?

Well Baylor and Barry were hands down better offensive players then Pippen. Pippen was a playmaker because that's what the offense called on him to be. If Baylor and Barry had to run the offense, I'm pretty sure they could as both were excellent passers. Both averaged over 5 assist countless seasons.

[VCMVP1551]

Considering Baylor was a 6'5 small forward, 19.8 rebounds is incredible. 20 rpg was the norn but for big centers and power forwards. Name me a 6'5 F/G in that era who grabbed damn near 20 boards a game?

Well Baylor and Barry were hands down better offensive players then Pippen. Pippen was a playmaker because that's what the offense called on him to be. If Baylor and Barry had to run the offense, I'm pretty sure they could as both were excellent passers. Both averaged over 5 assist countless seasons.

Don't get me wrong Baylor was an excellent rebounder but 8.7 rpg wasn't exactly the norm for SF in Pippen's era either. 6'5" in Baylor's era was pretty much the same as 6'7" in Pippen's era too. While Baylor and Barry might have been able to run the offense Pippen did it for years and won 6 titles and got to game 7 of the WCF doing it. Pippen did average over 20 ppg quite a few times as a second option so while I agree Baylor and Barry were better at scoring Pippen wasn't THAT far behind. Pippen was also far more efficient than Baylor.

[L.Kizzle]

Don't get me wrong Baylor was an excellent rebounder but 8.7 rpg wasn't exactly the norm for SF in Pippen's era either. 6'5" in Baylor's era was pretty much the same as 6'7" in Pippen's era too. While Baylor and Barry might have been able to run the offense Pippen did it for years and won 6 titles and got to game 7 of the WCF doing it. Pippen did average over 20 ppg quite a few times as a second option so while I agree Baylor and Barry were better at scoring Pippen wasn't THAT far behind. Pippen was also far more efficient than Baylor.
6 to 8 rpg was basically the norm for small forwards in Pippen's years. Baylor 19.8 wasn't even the norm for centers or power forwards. Actually on four other players have averaged more then Baylor's 19.8, Wilt, Russell, Pettit and Lucas.


Pippen ran the offense for years because that was his job, Elgin's was to score. Pippen was THAT far behind them in scoring. Even the season MJ was gone, he was still only 8th in the league in scoring at 22 a game.

[VCMVP1551]

6 to 8 rpg was basically the norm for small forwards in Pippen's years. Baylor 19.8 wasn't even the norm for centers or power forwards. Actually on four other players have averaged more then Baylor's 19.8, Wilt, Russell, Pettit and Lucas.


Pippen ran the offense for years because that was his job, Elgin's was to score. Pippen was THAT far behind them in scoring. Even the season MJ was gone, he was still only 8th in the league in scoring at 22 a game.

Compare FGA per game that year. Pippen averaged 22 on 17.8 FGA. Pippen also average over 20 ppg on less than 17 FGA 3 times.

[L.Kizzle]

Compare FGA per game that year. Pippen averaged 22 on 17.8 FGA. Pippen also average over 20 ppg on less than 17 FGA 3 times.
Well of course Pippen will be more efficient when 3 guys are draped on MJ. Efficiency doesn't make you a better scorer.

[VCMVP1551]

Well of course Pippen will be more efficient when 3 guys are draped on MJ. Efficiency doesn't make you a better scorer.

Of course efficiency alone doesn't but you have to factor efficiency in. Pippen was efficient and averaged 22 without MJ.

[L.Kizzle]

Of course efficiency alone doesn't but you have to factor efficiency in. Pippen was efficient and averaged 22 without MJ.
He averaged 22 without MJ and 21.9 2 season before with MJ, it doesn't really mean anything on how efficient he was.


Arenas shot 41% last season and Tony Parker I think 53%. What does that mean, jack as everyone knows Arenas is a way better shooter and scorer the Parker.

[VCMVP1551]

He averaged 22 without MJ and 21.9 2 season before with MJ, it doesn't really mean anything on how efficient he was.


Arenas shot 41% last season and Tony Parker I think 53%. What does that mean, jack as everyone knows Arenas is a way better shooter and scorer the Parker.


Yeah FG% doesn't mean as much but FGA does. Arenas shot so many 3's and a good % on free throws so he didn't need as many FGA.

[Loki]

Scottie Pippen's Teams made it into the NBA Playoffs 16 out of his 17 Season in the NBA. His Airness Michael Jordan missed the NBA Playoffs while playing for the Washington Wizards in a crappy Eastern Conference.

They were in the 6th spot in the East before Jordan hurt his knee and sat out for 5 weeks. And Jordan was 39.


Remember when Jordan retired in 1993, Scottie Pippen being the team leader of the Chicago Bulls take his team into the NBA Eastern Conference Finals in the 1993-94 Season.

Eastern Conf. semi-finals, not ECF.

[Loki]

I agree with Havlicek but none of the other choices. Barry was great and he is close to Pippen's level same with Baylor but Pippen's defense, playmaking ability and 6 rings put him ahead. Pippen was the Bulls primary ball handler and set up the offense during the title run. He played point forward as much as most point guards run the point. Pippen also average nearly 9 rebounds one year.

Barry averaged 31/6/6/3 and won a ring and Finals MVP in '75. He would have had at least 7 all-NBA first team selections had he not went to the ABA mid-career. But yeah, he's one of the only ones I could see putting Pippen over, if only because Barry wasn't any sort of defensive force.

Baylor is just way, way better than Pippen. I'm not even going to argue that one. Ditto for Dr. J -- I mean, come on. Shows you how grossly overrated Pippen has become when people are taking him over Doctor freaking J, who for a pretty fair stretch of time was known as the best player in the world, or at least top 2 along w/Kareem.


Pippen did average over 20 ppg quite a few times as a second option so while I agree Baylor and Barry were better at scoring Pippen wasn't THAT far behind.

Pippen was certainly WELL behind Barry and Baylor as far as scoring, especially Baylor. You try to suggest that since Pippen averaged 20-21 ppg as the "second option," that means he was comparable. No. He averaged 22 ppg as a first option in '94, not 32 ppg. Pippen scored more than 35 points a grand total of 11 times between 1991-1998 (8 seasons, including playoffs). Baylor averaged 35 and 38 ppg in separate seasons. Big difference.

[D-Fence]

He played in a much weaker era in which the total number of team in the NBA is 10. It is very easy to win several NBA Championship when you are facing the same team every season. Beside we all know that the 1960's and early 1970's Boston Celtics are one of the most stacked team in the history of the NBA. Rings are overrated when your facing a much weaker competition and no one else beside the Los Angeles/Minneapolis Lakers consistently challenging your team in the FINALS.
Yes, there were fewer teams in the NBA back then. In comparing eras, however, that created some added difficulties. You mention, as many do, that the Celtics were stacked (50s-60s Celtics—Russel didn’t play in the 70s). Yet, teams in general were stacked then.

Sports leagues do not primarily expand based upon the talent pool, but rather based on economics. The NBA was just becoming a major sport in the late 50s and 60s. The NBA had actually shrunk since its beginnings because market forces led to abandoning small town markets (in 1956 when Russell was a rookie, there were still teams in Syracuse, Rochester, and Fort Wayne, and St. Louis and Minneapolis would eventually be too small of markets, as well). A few teams in the bigger cities made sense then. Basketball and the NBA were growing in popularity, yet the league shrunk.

The NBA expanded to 14 teams by the end of Russell’s career and in the 70s there would eventually be more than 20 teams. The primary reason for this, however, wasn't because of increased popularity, nor a larger and superior talent pool. The ABA was the primary reason; the NBA wanted to access more markets to take them away from the ABA. The NBA may have had a larger talent pool by now but not necessarily better, with the players arguably worse or no better, several stars being in the ABA, with the allowance of underclassmen, etc. This made teams weaker, as players had to be dispersed among a larger field; moreover, more players were needed. And, players who wouldn't have been good enough/fortunate enough to make the NBA near the beginning of Russell's career, were now in the NBA.

Look at some of the teams Russell and the Celtics faced to win their championships. The St. Louis Hawks were led by a 2-time MVP Bob Pettit, with 3 to 4 Hall-of-Famers as part of his supporting cast: Cliff Hagan, Ed Macauley, Slater Martin, and Clyde Lovellette. Pettit was about the same size as Russell, and was the next best rebounder in the league for a while, but he could afford to play forward on the Hawks. They had a 7-footer who could grab 10 plus boards per game with Chuck Share. They had other good role players, too.

The Philadelphia Warriors with Wilt Chamberlain also had Hall-of-Famers Paul Arizin (averaging over 20 PPG next to Wilt) and Tom Gola (one of the best perimeter defenders then), as well as one of the best scoring and passing point guards in the league in Guy Rodgers, and then later rookie Nate Thurmond. The Warriors had the original twin towers—2 7-footers, all-time great centers, defenders and rebounders. They also had 2 or more solid bench players.

The Los Angeles Lakers had the fantastic duo of Elgin Baylor and Jerry West, who had seasons where they combined for well over 60 PPG during a season by themselves. They weren't quite as deep, but they had some solid role players, like Rudy LaRusso, one of the best defensive forwards in the league.

The Cincinnati Royals had 2 of the 50 greatest players in Oscar Robertson and Jerry Lucas, as well as Hall-of-Famer Jack Twyman.

The Knicks, with Willis Reed, Walt Frazier, Dave DeBusschere, and Bill Bradley (all Hall of Famers) couldn't win a championship until Russell retired, either.

The Philadelphia 76ers, with Chamberlain, Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham, and Chet Walker, the “greatest team ever” in 1967, lost to the aging Celtics the following season.

And, how about the last championship. The Lakers had Chamberlain, Baylor, and West—all averaging over 20 PPG. Despite the Celtics having won 10 of the last 12 championships, the Lakers were favored to win by everyone, even in Las Vegas—even in the 7th game. The Celtics never lost a 7th game. Russell and Sam Jones were playing their last game. John Havlicek was their only plus 20 PPG scorer. I wouldn't say that Russell and Jones got that ring because their team was stacked.

[D-Fence]

I'd put Pippen over Barry. Looking at the other elite small forwards, Pippen is by far the best defensively. Take Barry, though--he wasn’t useless defensively; he was a great ball thief and supposedly worked well within a team defense. Anyhow, one would probably prefer Pippen's individual defense to Barry's more so than Barry's individual scoring to Pippen's because the gap is larger. One of the things to hold against Barry in such an assessment is that he was selfish and arrogant. He wasn't an absolute ball hog--he was actually an excellent passer and kind of a point forward--but many players hated him (which explains why he didn't win MVP with the players voting for it back then), and he probably wasn't a steady force to maintain a dynasty. He demanded a lot of the offense, which helps explain how his team won a championship after trading away Nate Thurmond, one of the best centers in the game.

Additionally, that championship was won among one of the weaker fields in NBA history. Wilt Chamberlain, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, Willis Reed, Dave DeBusschre, and Jerry Lucas had all recently retired, which crippled 3 of the best teams: Lakers, Bucks, and Knicks. Plus, it was during the expansion and ABA period. It was a great upset for them to sweep the Bullets, but nearly losing to the aging Bulls in the previous round, running over a young Sonics team, and having the best record in a rather weak Western Conference to get there wasn't very impressive.

As to how high Pippen could rank among small forwards all-time, I've seen decent arguments for him to be above all except for Bird and Erving. I'm not saying I would place him that high, though.

Havlicek and Pippen have a lot of similarities. Among the group being discussed, they're the standouts defensively, and they were both excellent passers and played the point. Pippen was better at those things, too.

Baylor was a good passer and playmaker, but the fact that he would rarely dribble the ball with his left hand and consequently rarely make a move to the left side probably prevented him from being a point forward. Defensively, Pippen was vastly superior. Moreover, Baylor, unfortunately, spent much of his career suffering from a bad knee. He also never won a championship, and his team won the championship the season he retired. As for rebounding, Baylor did play on a team lacking big men, and Baylor played a lot in the low post. It seems he played a lot like a power forward at the beginning of his career. Also, teams averaged about 66 RPG back when Baylor was rebounding nearly 20 RPG; today, teams average a bit over 40 RPG.

Anyhow, I could agree with these rankings, except I'd put Pippen over Barry. But, I think one can make a reasonable case for Pippen as high as third. Just as well, however, I suppose you could maybe place a couple of unmentioned small forwards ahead of Pippen.

[L.Kizzle]

Considering that Baylor was supposedly an athletic freak during his era, it is not that impressive at all. Wilt has had a few 27 rbg years, which would be nothing more than 13 rbg today, max. Baylor's 19.8 rbg year would most likely be around 5.8 rbg in Pippen's era. Pippen was clearly the better rebounder. In fact, Pippen was better than Baylor at every facet of this game outside of scoring.
I thought athletes didn't exist back in the 50's and 60's?

[guy]

[QUOTE=D-Fence]
The NBA expanded to 14 teams by the end of Russell

[dejordan]

Its simple math though. Even with talent distributed evenly across the league, Russell had a much better chance when competing against 7-13 other teams, then he would against 26-29 other teams. He had a better chance when he only had to win 2 or 3 playoff series instead of 4. He had a better chance when there wasn't free agency to change rosters as much.


i don't know if this argument works for me. i get the probability side of it, but we're not playing craps or poker here. realistically of the 30 teams who played last year, how many did we really think had a shot at winning? 3? 4? was it that much different 40 years ago? i do think that your point about the stability of teams back then leading to dynasties makes a lot of sense.

i don't really want to speak to that other stuff about the competitive difference in eras. all i have to say about that is if you're going to discredit a player for playing in a weak era, then you have to remember that if you moved a current player back to that era, he would lose all of his modern advantages in the translation.

[elz]

I think this is a case of Bill favoring players of his era over players from another

happens all the time


Bill himself
as great as he was
I have no idea how he'd fare in todays game
a 6 foot 9 center in todays league

I just can't see it
I see players from this era that just off their physical gifts alone
would dominate back in the day with no problem
but thats just My Opinion

[VCMVP1551]

Barry averaged 31/6/6/3 and won a ring and Finals MVP in '75. He would have had at least 7 all-NBA first team selections had he not went to the ABA mid-career. But yeah, he's one of the only ones I could see putting Pippen over, if only because Barry wasn't any sort of defensive force.

Baylor is just way, way better than Pippen. I'm not even going to argue that one. Ditto for Dr. J -- I mean, come on. Shows you how grossly overrated Pippen has become when people are taking him over Doctor freaking J, who for a pretty fair stretch of time was known as the best player in the world, or at least top 2 along w/Kareem.



Pippen was certainly WELL behind Barry and Baylor as far as scoring, especially Baylor. You try to suggest that since Pippen averaged 20-21 ppg as the "second option," that means he was comparable. No. He averaged 22 ppg as a first option in '94, not 32 ppg. Pippen scored more than 35 points a grand total of 11 times between 1991-1998 (8 seasons, including playoffs). Baylor averaged 35 and 38 ppg in separate seasons. Big difference.

Dr. J is VERY overrated lets look at Pippen's career high stats 22.0 ppg, 8.7 rpg, 7.0 apg, 2.9 spg, 1.2 bpg

Dr. J's career highs 26.9 ppg, 8.5 rpg, 4.6 apg, 2.2 spg, 1.8 bpg

So as far as peak years Dr. J was a better scorer and shot blocker. They were pretty much even at rebounder while Pippen was a superior passer and was better at stealing the ball. Stats are about the same however Pippen was a much better perimeter defender and he won 6 titles, Dr. J won 1. Neither one of a championship as the 1st option and both were succesful leading teams in the playoffs. Baylor never won a title despite playing with 2 of the best players of all time. Baylor was also a bit of a chucker and not quite the all around player Pippen was. People really underrate Pippen.

[VCMVP1551]

I think this is a case of Bill favoring players of his era over players from another

happens all the time


Bill himself
as great as he was
I have no idea how he'd fare in todays game
a 6 foot 9 center in todays league

I just can't see it
I see players from this era that just off their physical gifts alone
would dominate back in the day with no problem
but thats just My Opinion

Dwight Howard is a 6'9" center in todays league and he is doing just fine. Ben Wallace is well under 6'9". Amare plays center and he is a little under 6'9".

[MaxFly]

So how many people really believe that Sam Jones is better than Scottie Pippen?

[L.Kizzle]

So how many people really believe that Sam Jones is better than Scottie Pippen?
KC Jones, Bill Sharman, Satch Sanders, John Havlicek, Johnny Most, Hal Greer, Jerry West

[MaxFly]

KC Jones, Bill Sharman, Satch Sanders, John Havlicek, Johnny Most, Hal Greer, Jerry West

Bill Russell

[RagingBull33]

Dwight Howard is arguably the 5th most athletic C in the history of this game. Russell is not even top 5.

So how many centers all time could have been Olympians? Bill Russell. Anybody else?


KC Jones, Bill Sharman, Satch Sanders, John Havlicek, Johnny Most, Hal Greer, Jerry West
Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain lol.

[L.Kizzle]

So how many centers all time could have been Olympians? Bill Russell. Anybody else?


Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain lol.
No need to laugh at Wilt, he actually said id. Here is the quote:



"In the seventh-game showdown, with the score tied at 107 and two seconds left, Jones hit a jump shot over the outstretched arms of Chamberlain to seal the win. After the game Chamberlain hailed Jones as the Celtics' best player. In the NBA Finals against the Los Angeles Lakers, Jones again came through, scoring five of the Celtics' 10 overtime points in Game 7 to propel Boston to a fourth straight NBA crown."

[MaxFly]

KC Jones, Bill Sharman, Satch Sanders, John Havlicek, Johnny Most, Hal Greer, Jerry West

As I mentioned earlier... this is a prime example of why, while I respect the opinions of NBA legends, I don't put to much weight on said opinions. They obviously aren't exempt from bias nor delusion.

[guy]

Dr. J is VERY overrated lets look at Pippen's career high stats 22.0 ppg, 8.7 rpg, 7.0 apg, 2.9 spg, 1.2 bpg

Dr. J's career highs 26.9 ppg, 8.5 rpg, 4.6 apg, 2.2 spg, 1.8 bpg

So as far as peak years Dr. J was a better scorer and shot blocker. They were pretty much even at rebounder while Pippen was a superior passer and was better at stealing the ball. Stats are about the same however Pippen was a much better perimeter defender and he won 6 titles, Dr. J won 1. Neither one of a championship as the 1st option and both were succesful leading teams in the playoffs. Baylor never won a title despite playing with 2 of the best players of all time. Baylor was also a bit of a chucker and not quite the all around player Pippen was. People really underrate Pippen.

You didn't include Dr. J's ABA days. Which I think you should since it basically merged with the NBA.

[guy]

i don't know if this argument works for me. i get the probability side of it, but we're not playing craps or poker here. realistically of the 30 teams who played last year, how many did we really think had a shot at winning? 3? 4? was it that much different 40 years ago? i do think that your point about the stability of teams back then leading to dynasties makes a lot of sense.

i don't really want to speak to that other stuff about the competitive difference in eras. all i have to say about that is if you're going to discredit a player for playing in a weak era, then you have to remember that if you moved a current player back to that era, he would lose all of his modern advantages in the translation.

It is much different than 40 years ago, because thats 3 or 4 teams out of 30 teams. Back then there was about 2-3 teams out of 8 or 9 teams that had a shot, which is about 22-38%. If today's game had the same percentage of championship contenders there would be about 6-11 championship contenders. But of course realistically, there can only be a few championship contenders, cause only the best of the best are looked at in that light, so really its about 10% today. So basically, with an increase in teams, it is much harder to build a championship team. And free agency and the increase in playoff rounds make it even harder.

And even if you take the modern advantages into account it is still harder cause more competition = more difficulty. For every great player in the 60s, there are probably 2 or 3 great players from the 90s and 00s who are just as good or even better. However, this goes unrecognized because they don't have the success to back it up because they have to share it with those others who are just as great as them and the league is just more difficult. For example, take Bill Russell and lets say he grew up in the 70s-80s and got to the NBA in the 90s and had a team similar to the 60s Celtics. He doesn't win nearly as much, because he's got to go up against Shaq's Lakers and Duncan's Spurs. He might win sometimes against them, but I'm sure not all the time, and Duncan and Shaq, who have went up against great Defensive frontcourt players similar to Russell such as Dennis Rodman, Ben Wallace, Dikembe Mutombo, and still dominated, would probably not have too many problems against Russell. So in that case, Russell ends up looking not much better then those other guys.

IMO, 11 titles back then to me is about the equivalent of 3 or 4 titles, today, so in that case, I would still rank Russell pretty high. I'm not trying to disrespect the legends from the 60s, but people seem to just overrate these guys alot. They don't adjust for the league structure and the inflated stats.

[VCMVP1551]

You didn't include Dr. J's ABA days. Which I think you should since it basically merged with the NBA.

ABA numbers can't be compared to NBA numbers. Dr. J came to the NBA in his prime and he didn't put up numbers close to his ABA numbers. Pippen was a superior playmaker and a defender. He was as good as Dr. J at rebounding, not as good of a scorer but he won FIVE more titles.

[VCMVP1551]

Dwight Howard is arguably the 5th most athletic C in the history of this game. Russell is not even top 5.

Amare is the most athletic C in the history of this game. Russell wasn't even the most athletic C of his decade.

Ben Wallace is not considered a top 6 player of all-time.


Russell would be a poor man's Mutombo today, which could be considered successful, but nothing close to a top 90 player of all-time, let alone top 6.

Amare isn't really a center he is a PF playing center in the Phoenix offense but he has to match up with centers. David Robinson and prime Shaq were probably as athletic as Amare.

[G-train]

Marion Jones would win 20 gold medals in 1956 so she is the greatest ever....

:rolleyes: @ BULLS

[D-Fence]

Even with talent distributed evenly across the league, Russell had a much better chance when competing against 7-13 other teams, then he would against 26-29 other teams. He had a better chance when he only had to win 2 or 3 playoff series instead of 4.
That's a different argument from the one I responded to, guy. I agree with you in part: winning a championship becomes more difficult with more rounds. But, of course, that's not the only difference between winning a championship in the 50s and 60s and winning a championship in later years. I already discussed part of how winning championships in the 50s/60s was more difficult. But, yes, there are also ways in which winning championships then was easier. It sounds like a contradiction, but it's not.


He had a better chance when there wasn't free agency to change rosters as much.
Yes, free agency makes it more difficult to maintain a roster today and thus makes it more difficult to maintain a dynasty. I agree.


And maybe the league didn't expand cause of increased popularity, but you don't think the increase in popularity made the NBA much more competitive and basically raised the level of play? With popularity, more people grow up trying to play basketball. With more people trying to play basketball, it becomes harder and harder to make it to high school, college, and pro basketball. This basically means some of the players that get cut from high school, college, or the pros, might've made it back in the 60s when not as many players were competing.
I agree in part with the notion of social progress, but I think people tend to take it too far and view history and change with a narrow-minded perspective. Things don't always improve--basketball and the NBA don't constantly improve. Things improve and at the same time other things diminish.

With increased popularity, yes, a larger field of players mathematically indiactes a more challanging game. But, in the 50s and 60s, there were plenty of good basketball players who weren't in the NBA for various reasons.

The notion that these players learn from the past and improve upon it works in some individual cases and can be generalized to an extent. It's not the rule, though. This reminds me of Walt Frazier's book The Game Within the Game, which I've been reading recently. Frazier discusses differences in the NBA today from the NBA and players of his time, and many of the changes aren't improvements. For example, he talks about the attitude of players--how they're friendly to opponents, how they talk on their cell phones as though nothing big happened after losing games. That same day, I saw a replay of LeBron James laughing and joking around with Tim Duncan while the Spurs were celebrating in their locker room having swept the Cavs in the Finals. I think Frazier's on to something there. Players like Frazier, Bill Russell, or Jerry West didn't act like that after being beat in the NBA Finals.

He also says players today aren't as well-rounded as in the past. He talks about some superior playing styles that have gone out of fashion, like the hook shot, outlet pass, two-handed bounce pass, etc. Anyhow, the point is that some things have gotten worse over time.

Especially when talking about the elite players, progress is slower. There are fewer things to improve upon and these players were all dedicated. When talking about a large group, as in all NBA talent, or basketball players everywhere, progress is more accute.

There's a lot to take into consideration when comparing eras; it's not as simple as many have made it out to be.

[guy]

That's a different argument from the one I responded to, guy. I agree with you in part: winning a championship becomes more difficult with more rounds. But, of course, that's not the only difference between winning a championship in the 50s and 60s and winning a championship in later years. I already discussed part of how winning championships in the 50s/60s was more difficult. But, yes, there are also ways in which winning championships then was easier. It sounds like a contradiction, but it's not.

I believe your main argument was that almost every team was stacked back then. So what? Every team played on an even playing field. Just like today, every team plays on an even playing field. You rarely see teams today that are that stacked because of free agency and the salary cap. So that evens itself out. The thing that makes it harder today is that teams are competing with more then 3 times the amount of teams in the 60s for a championship.



I agree in part with the notion of social progress, but I think people tend to take it too far and view history and change with a narrow-minded perspective. Things don't always improve--basketball and the NBA don't constantly improve. Things improve and at the same time other things diminish.

With increased popularity, yes, a larger field of players mathematically indiactes a more challanging game. But, in the 50s and 60s, there were plenty of good basketball players who weren't in the NBA for various reasons.

The notion that these players learn from the past and improve upon it works in some individual cases and can be generalized to an extent. It's not the rule, though. This reminds me of Walt Frazier's book The Game Within the Game, which I've been reading recently. Frazier discusses differences in the NBA today from the NBA and players of his time, and many of the changes aren't improvements. For example, he talks about the attitude of players--how they're friendly to opponents, how they talk on their cell phones as though nothing big happened after losing games. That same day, I saw a replay of LeBron James laughing and joking around with Tim Duncan while the Spurs were celebrating in their locker room having swept the Cavs in the Finals. I think Frazier's on to something there. Players like Frazier, Bill Russell, or Jerry West didn't act like that after being beat in the NBA Finals.

He also says players today aren't as well-rounded as in the past. He talks about some superior playing styles that have gone out of fashion, like the hook shot, outlet pass, two-handed bounce pass, etc. Anyhow, the point is that some things have gotten worse over time.

Especially when talking about the elite players, progress is slower. There are fewer things to improve upon and these players were all dedicated. When talking about a large group, as in all NBA talent, or basketball players everywhere, progress is more accute.

There's a lot to take into consideration when comparing eras; it's not as simple as many have made it out to be.

I never said everything has improved. I will say that I do think almost everything has improved because of natural progression, with training advancements and more knowledge, and that is expected to happen. However, I'm not ignorant, and I agree that if alot of those players from the 60s grew up in the 70s-90s, with all the training advancements and new knowledge,and played in the 90s-00s, I'm sure alot of them would still be able to play in the NBA and be stars and future hall of famers. I wasn't trying to say basketball has gotten better, I said to be successful in basketball today is alot harder.

And you can say the attitude of basketball players has changed, but I highly doubt that if those 60s players played today they would have any different attitudes. Times change. I highly doubt the attitude of players outweighs more competition. Maybe things have gotten worse, but most things have not, and none of that changes the fact that its much harder in today's game.

I agree that there is alot to take into consideration when comparing eras, and its not that simple. But what has not changed is that everyone back then had a relatively even playing field as they do today, and their is only 1champion. However, as the league expanded, the championships, MVP awards, statistic titles did not expand, and free agency made it harder for teams to stick together and the playoffs became longer, so it is much harder to be a success, which is why so many great players are passed up by players from the 60s who had it much easier.

[guy]

You also said that back then there were many great basketball players that didn't play in the NBA for various reasons. And you don't think the same thing happens today? Theres great players that don't play for various reasons today whether its injuries, tragedies (Len Bias), legal problems, or cause they play foreign ball.

[L.Kizzle]

Topic trending on ISH.

[Math2]

Seriously though, I could care less what Bill Russell has to say...Pippen is the most overlooked/under-appreciated superstar to ever play this game it seems, Russell isn't helping his cause any.

Pippen > Jones

True but Havlicek>Pippen

[PTB Fan]

He's right about Hondo, the overlooked legend of the mid 60's to late 70's...he was a world class performer all the time

[TrueAristotle]

Didn't Russell also say that he could list 5 players better than MJ not counting himself? It would be hard not to call Russell biased.

[ThaRegul8r]

Didn't Russell also say that he could list 5 players better than MJ not counting himself? It would be hard not to call Russell biased.

He never said anything of the sort. That's a flat-out lie.

[L.Kizzle]

He never said anything of the sort. That's a flat-out lie.
Yes, I think what Russell says all the time is their is not just "one" greatest player ever, he always names a group of players.

George Mikan
Pettit
Baylor
Wilt
Oscar
West
Jabbar
Bird
Magic
Jordan

[ThaRegul8r]

Yes, I think what Russell says all the time is their is not just "one" greatest player ever, he always names a group of players.

Correct. He calls them the "ties," in that no one could ever play any better than them (plural).

[jlip]

Didn't Russell also say that he could list 5 players better than MJ not counting himself? It would be hard not to call Russell biased.

He never said anything of the sort. That's a flat-out lie.

Yes, I think what Russell says all the time is their is not just "one" greatest player ever, he always names a group of players.

Correct. He calls them the "ties," in that no one could ever play any better than them (plural).

It's true that Russell has often said that there is no single definitive GOAT in his opinion, but I found this comment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-f_gVh9h9Q&feature=related#t=6m01s) by him in an interview a year or two ago quite interesting.

[kaiiu]

Bill Russell need to shut his old ass up

[G.O.A.T]

In the introduction to Kareem's new DVD Movie, when Jerry Krause implies that MJ would be the difference if Russell's Celtics and the Jordan Bulls met, Russell uses the phrase, "I could match him."

That sort of sums up Bill, he doesn't need to tell you he's better, but he'll let you know he won't let anyone beat him.

[jlip]

In the introduction to Kareem's new DVD Movie, when Jerry Krause implies that MJ would be the difference if Russell's Celtics and the Jordan Bulls met, Russell uses the phrase, "I could match him."

That sort of sums up Bill, he doesn't need to tell you he's better, but he'll let you know he won't let anyone beat him.

What's the name of the movie, and has it been released yet?

[StarJordan]

Russell uses the phrase, "I could match him."


He would start switching hands in mid-air too?

[G.O.A.T]

What's the name of the movie, and has it been released yet?

It's called "On the Shoulders of Giants" and so far it's only available on Netflix I believe.

It's about the Harlem Rens and the opening scene is Kareem, Jerry Krause, Russell and Jerry West discussing who the greatest team of all-time was.

The rest of the film is about the Harlem Renaissance.

Kareem wrote a book by the same name and a few chapters were specifically about the Rens.


He would start switching hands in mid-air too?

Right after Jordan grabs 44 rebounds and blocks 15 shots.

[Duncan21formvp]

I was watching an NBA special on William Felton Russell last night and he was talking about his teammates.


An interesting point was him comparing John Havlicek, Sam Jones and Scottie Pippen. He said Scottie Pippen is one of the greatest to ever play but his two guys (Jones and Havlicek) were better then Pippen.


Some other Bill Russell comments, He says they wouldn't be able to stop Michael Jordan.


So what do y'all think about that, Pippen vs. Jones?

I don't think Jones is better than Pippen, I think HONDO is at least his equal though.

[D-Wade316]

He played in a much weaker era in which the total number of team in the NBA is 10. It is very easy to win several NBA Championship when you are facing the same team every season. Beside we all know that the 1960's and early 1970's Boston Celtics are one of the most stacked team in the history of the NBA. Rings are overrated when your facing a much weaker competition and no one else beside the Los Angeles/Minneapolis Lakers consistently challenging your team in the FINALS.
This is just false. Competition in the 60s were tougher than today. Imagine yourself facing Wilt, Russell, Oscar, Baylor, and West a total of 35+ games every season.

[greymatter]

He would start switching hands in mid-air too?

Most overrated highlight ever. Either hand he could have layed it up with and no one was in a position to really contest it. Dr J's behind the backboard reverse layup was infinitely better.