THE GREAT DEBATE: The #2 Greatest Player of All-Time

[B][U]This thread is solely for nominations for the #2 Greatest Player of All-Time.[/U][/B]

Any and all discussion regarding the rules and methodology of these rankings should be posted here: [URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=277257"]THE GREAT DEBATE: Ranking the Greatest Players of All-Time[/URL]

[U]Introduction:[/U]

One thing has become clear from recent 'greatest player' polls on ISH: the results are heavily influenced by modern fans acting like sheep to vote for their favourite players at the expense of more deserving - but less popular - alternatives. This skews the results in favour of popular and/or modern players.

Something else that I learned was that sometimes I find myself questioning my own judgement after reading a convincing argument written by someone else in favour of a different player.

Indeed, that is why I continue to come back to this forum. Despite the over abundance of childish posters with little knowledge, there is in fact a group of very knowledgeable members whose intelligence and common sense shines through.

All of the above helped me devise an unusual way of ranking players that I am excited about trialling here.

[U]Rules:[/U]

- The goal is to establish an intelligently debated list of the greatest players of all-time.

- Each day, ISH members are invited to nominate a player of their choice.

- Your nomination can be as long as you like. However, I recommend keeping it relatively concise and to the point.

- You can only vote for one player per day/round.

- Each day, I will select the winning player based upon the most persuasive and convincing nomination.

- Your nominations might include statistics, quotes, descriptions, explanations and video clips (etc) to help justify your decision.

- If your player isn't selected, you can re-use your nomination the next day, if you wish.

[U]Criteria for selecting players:[/U]

- It's completely up to you. NBA, ABA, pre-NBA, NCAA, individual awards, team success, peak, longevity, style, substance... it's up to you.

[U]The Greatest Players of All-Time:[/U]

01 - Michael Jordan (nominated by: pauk)
02 -
03 -
04 -
05 -
06 -
07 -
08 -
09 -
10 -
11 -
12 -
13 -
14 -
15 -
16 -
17 -
18 -
19 -
20 -
21 -
22 -
23 -
24 -
25 -

Note:

- Your nomination can be as long as you like. However, I recommend keeping it relatively concise and to the point.

- Try to be original. I was disappointed in the first round by the lack of convincing arguments for LeBron James, George Mikan, Shaquille O'Neal, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and others. Meanwhile, the arguments for Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell could have been more convincing. The argument for Larry Bird was considered. The arguments for Kobe Bryant were pathetic (i.e. lacked explanation).

[QUOTE]Note:

- Your nomination can be as long as you like. However, I recommend keeping it relatively concise and to the point.

- Try to be original. [B]I was disappointed in the first round by the lack of convincing arguments for LeBron James, George Mikan, Shaquille O'Neal, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and others.[/B] Meanwhile, the arguments for Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell could have been more convincing. The argument for Larry Bird was considered. [B]The arguments for Kobe Bryant were pathetic [/B](i.e. lacked explanation).[/QUOTE]

I'm not participating in the project (it's a nice effort, btw), but I have to ask: What would happen if the thread on the GOAT (or #2, 3, it doesn't matter that much) consisted only of arguments like "its jordan, duh!" or "6 rings, baby!" and an excellent description of a great, but next tier great, like Elgin Baylor? Would you pick Baylor as the GOAT?

As a sidenote, I note that you mention that length isn't an issue, but your original post in the thread for #1 never changed the 200 word limit, while Pauk wrote all this essay (actually he copied this from a famous Jordan poster who used to post this multiple times for years, unless Pauk and that Jordan poster is the same person), which is way longer. You were also lenient for picking for him the best parts of the essay, while he should judge what to keep and what not by himself.

[QUOTE=Psileas]I'm not participating in the project (it's a nice effort, btw), but I have to ask: What would happen if the thread on the GOAT (or #2, 3, it doesn't matter that much) consisted only of arguments like "its jordan, duh!" or "6 rings, baby!" and an excellent description of a great, but next tier great, like Elgin Baylor? Would you pick Baylor as the GOAT?[/quote]

Firstly, the above scenario is extremely unlikely to happy. However, if someone was able to intelligently argue that Baylor was greater than Jordan - and if that argument was stronger than all other arguments, which is clearly unlikely - then, yes, I would select their nomination as the winner.

[QUOTE=Psileas]As a sidenote, I note that you mention that length isn't an issue, but your original post in the thread for #1 never changed the 200 word limit, while Pauk wrote all this essay (actually he copied this from a famous Jordan poster who used to post this multiple times for years, unless Pauk and that Jordan poster is the same person), which is way longer. You were also lenient for picking for him the best parts of the essay, while he should judge what to keep and what not by himself.[/QUOTE]

A number of posters raised their concerns about the word limit. I therefore decided to simply select the most convincing argument. Frankly, pauk's post would have been better if he'd condensed it to 200 words. Regardless, it still contained the most convincing arguments for Jordan's merits at the greatest of all-time.

Sorry to those people who stuck to the rules more rigidly.

I don't care what criteria is selected, we really don't need multiple threads on the Greatest Player of All Time. This has been done to death already, and no one is going to offer an argument that we haven't already seen a dozen times on this site.

I get that you're trying to be more "scientific" about it, but these debates are ridiculously subjective. If we're going by a LEADER who brought IMMEDIATE success to his team, a team that would not have won if he were not on it, then the only legitimate choice for GOAT would be Bill Russell.

With all due respect, this exercise is pretty daft. You're picking who you think is making good arguments; and naming this rankings on behalf of ISH? How did your first thread stop the very thing you're arguing against in your introduction? It did basically what you didn't like: fanboys coming propagating for their heroes. Where was a proper reasoned debate?

[QUOTE=SpecialQue]I don't care what criteria is selected, we really don't need multiple threads on the Greatest Player of All Time. This has been done to death already, and no one is going to offer an argument that we haven't already seen a dozen times on this site.

[B]I get that you're trying to be more "scientific" about it, but these debates are ridiculously subjective.[/B] If we're going by a LEADER who brought IMMEDIATE success to his team, a team that would not have won if he were not on it, then the only legitimate choice for GOAT would be Bill Russell.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I'm not trying to be at all scientific about it. Please read the introduction.

[QUOTE=LeBird]With all due respect, this exercise is pretty daft. [B]You're picking who you think is making good arguments; and naming this rankings on behalf of ISH? [/B]How did your first thread stop the very thing you're arguing against in your introduction? It did basically what you didn't like: fanboys coming propagating for their heroes. Where was a proper reasoned debate?[/QUOTE]


This, unless OP is completly un biased (he's not) then the criteria for the voting is pretty absurd.

This idea has been beat to death, no new information to really be brought to the table at this moment. MJ is the clear cut GOAT of basketball, and after that # 1 ranking it's pretty much a toss up between 10 other players who's rankings will depend on who is rakning them & biase.

[QUOTE=WillC]Actually, I'm not trying to be at all scientific about it. Please read the introduction.[/QUOTE]


- same ol tired thread..we already have 100 threads a week about "Ish's" GOAT's GOAT'S

- we all get it.....please think of an original thread or GTFO!

[COLOR="White"]- (really does facepalm......GOAT thread?...really)[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=TheMarkMadsen]This, unless OP is completly un biased (he's not) then the criteria for the voting is pretty absurd.

This idea has been beat to death, no new information to really be brought to the table at this moment. MJ is the clear cut GOAT of basketball, [B]and after that # 1 ranking it's pretty much a toss up between 10 other players[/B] who's rankings will depend on who is rakning them & biase.[/QUOTE]

Hence some intelligent debate about those players could lead to more accurate rankings, rather than it just being a vote (which inevitably becomes warped due to each respective player's popularity).

I'm sorry you think I'm biased. Actually, I am fully open to selecting whoever has the strongest case based upon the nominations put forward.

[QUOTE=LeBird]With all due respect, this exercise is pretty daft. You're picking who you think is making good arguments; [B]and naming this rankings on behalf of ISH?[/B] How did your first thread stop the very thing you're arguing against in your introduction? It did basically what you didn't like: fanboys coming propagating for their heroes. Where was a proper reasoned debate?[/QUOTE]

I don't recall naming these rankings on behalf of ISH.

Now #2 will be much more interesting...

[QUOTE=WillC]Hence some intelligent debate about those players could lead to more accurate rankings, rather than it just being a vote (which inevitably becomes warped due to each respective player's popularity).

I'm sorry [B]you think I'm biased.[/B] Actually, I am fully open to selecting whoever has the strongest case based upon the nominations put forward.[/QUOTE]


Of course you don't think you're biased, unless you're a robot you most likely are biased in some way.

Do you have a list in your head of who YOU think the top 10 players of all time are?

If so, when somebody goes to make an argument for a player to be in a certain spot and it doesn't match up to your pre conceived notion of the who should be where in the top 10, your biase will come in to play.

And yet you're the end all be all of who's arguments get chosen as the "best" or most "credible"

[QUOTE=AlphaWolf24]- same ol tired thread..we already have 100 threads a week about "Ish's" GOAT's GOAT'S

- we all get it.....please think of an original thread or GTFO!

[COLOR="White"]- (really does facepalm......GOAT thread?...really)[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Quit posting in topics you dont like. Simple solution.

[QUOTE=TheMarkMadsen]Of course you don't think you're biased, unless you're a robot you most likely are biased in some way.

Do you have a list in your head of who YOU think the top 10 players of all time are?

If so, when somebody goes to make an argument for a player to be in a certain spot and it doesn't match up to your pre conceived notion of the who should be where in the top 10, your biase will come in to play.

And yet you're the end all be all of who's arguments get chosen as the "best" or most "credible"[/QUOTE]

Of course I have an opinion of the top 10. But I'm merely judging the arguments presented in front of me.

pauk copy and pasted from a website and now he's the guy that nominated? :oldlol:
so all we have to do is copy paste a bunch of articles for you to read now is it?

plus this thing is a joke.. why do you get the ultimate power and authority to decide on behalf of ISH? at least name the list "THE GREAT DEBATE: WILLC's Greatest players of all time"

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Quit posting in topics you dont like. Simple solution.[/QUOTE]


GOAT threads here are like Spam...every once in awhile you just can't help it.

especially this one..."hey guy's....l got a great idea!...lets do a GOAT thread.......copy and paste from the 1,000's of other GOAT's threads nd I will pick a answer....if it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside..."

(cue the music....)...duuuhh...duhh...dunnnnaa....dunnaaa...dunt...dunt.

[QUOTE=ripthekik]pauk copy and pasted from a website and now he's the guy that nominated? :oldlol:
so all we have to do is copy paste a bunch of articles for you to read now is it?

plus this thing is a joke.. why do you get the ultimate power and authority to decide on behalf of ISH? at least name the list "THE GREAT DEBATE: WILLC's Greatest players of all time"[/QUOTE]


not just him....but 90% of everyone else did too....

sp predictable.

Since I put in Wilt Chamberlain as the greatest player of all time, this is my second greatest:

Ralph Sampson.

:D

Seriously, it is [B][I]Bill Russell[/I][/B]. The only player more competitive than Jordan, and the only player who maxed out his talent the NANOSECOND he entered the league, and the only player who stopped Wilt Chamberlain in his prime.

He revolutionized the game with his unique brand of defense. What was unique about his defense? He stayed on his feet UNTIL the shot left the offensive player's hand, and was quick enough to block or deflect it. At the same time, he kept the ball in play so he could fire off passes to streaking Celtics downcourt for easy buckets. That impact forced the opposing team's offense to shoot away from him, and into uncomfortable positions.

I don't have to cite stats - they're largely context-dependent, but Bill Russell was one of the two or three greatest rebounders of all time: he rebounded [B][I]DIAGONALLY[/I][/B]. He rebounded in traffic, unlike most stat-padders. He rebounded intelligently, and fired off outlet passes in one motion. His stats rose across the board during the money season.

Basically, unlike greats like Wilt or Jordan, Russell sublimated his ego for the sake of winning alone and bagged 11 in 13 years. :bowdown:

[QUOTE=Gotterdammerung]Since I put in Wilt Chamberlain as the greatest player of all time, this is my second greatest:

Ralph Sampson.

:D

Seriously, it is [B][I]Bill Russell[/I][/B]. [B][U]The only player more competitive than Jordan, and the only player who maxed out his talent the NANOSECOND he entered the league[/U][/B], and the only player who stopped Wilt Chamberlain in his prime.

He revolutionized the game with his unique brand of defense. What was unique about his defense? He stayed on his feet UNTIL the shot left the offensive player's hand, and was quick enough to block or deflect it. At the same time, he kept the ball in play so he could fire off passes to streaking Celtics downcourt for easy buckets. That impact forced the opposing team's offense to shoot away from him, and into uncomfortable positions.

I don't have to cite stats - they're largely context-dependent, but Bill Russell was one of the two or three greatest rebounders of all time: he rebounded [B][I]DIAGONALLY[/I][/B]. He rebounded in traffic, unlike most stat-padders. He rebounded intelligently, and fired off outlet passes in one motion. His stats rose across the board during the money season.

Basically, unlike greats like Wilt or Jordan,[B][U] Russell sublimated his ego [SIZE="5"]for the sake of winning alone[/SIZE][/U][/B] and bagged 11 in 13 years. :bowdown:[/QUOTE]

Bolded are a couple of reasons I had in ranking Russell over MJ.

[QUOTE=jlip]Bolded are a couple of reasons I had in ranking Russell over MJ.[/QUOTE]
So Russell is your #2 guy as well? :D

I have a feeling AlphaWolf will troll this thread by voting and arguing for Kobe, seeing as how his argumentitive skills are actually very good and he can be convincing. I think the reason for this though is instead of a silly poll, to create a debate and discussion, which I'm down for. You just can't take it too seriously.


Anyways, this is Kareem v. Magic v. Russell. I kind of wanna vote for Magic here seeing as how he helped push the Lakers into a Dynasty level creating a great duo with Kareem and being the most unique and skilled PG ever, but as many people have pointed out, his defense sucked and he was a sidekick/1b for a long time, and he never was able to make a team winners without Kareem (keep in mind while Magic played well without Kareem in '80, I doubt that team is in contention without Kareem). So with that said, I'll stop talking about Magic, who is still a top player of all time. I feel Russell has a case too, because honestly, he had the best intangibles of a ball player (seriously, Russell's mentality>Jordans). He had great BballIQ, great at passing and finding the open man, possibly the best defensive anchor of all time (he singlehandedly changed the Celtics defense forever), and made his teammates develop with the correct attitude. He was a ferocious rebounder as well Plus, he was the best Goddamn winner, the most clutch man in basketball, and would find a way to win however possible. However, I can't put him over the top considering the fact he was not as much of an offensive presence and did not shoot above .500 all that often, in addition to the fact you can always make an argument that Wilt was bettter ([b]which is something I do not believe, but it is something to take into account[/b])

Now onto [b]Kareem[/b]. First off, he was gifted in basketball since highschool. He led his highschool team to a couple of New York Catholic City Championships, and having one team where they only lost two games or something ridiculous. But that's just highschool. In UCLA, Lew Alcindor (his original name) was absurdly good. He led the Bruins to 3 NCAA titles, got a bunch of College Player of the Year Awards, broke numerous records, got the MOP in the NCAA Tournament 3 times, and got the dunk banned from competition for a little while. This was an incredible blessing, for because of it, Lew developed the Sky Hook, made it his go-to-move, and is still probably the best go to move. Anyways, after college he got selected number 1 in the draft for obvious reasons and made the Milwaukee Bucks go from 27 - 55 to 56 - 26 in a year. Then Lew makes Milwaukee go 66 - 16 and he wins the Championship for Oscar Robertson, Milwaukee, and his teammates. He posts 32/16/3 in the RS and 27/17/3 in the playoffs. Gets MVP and FMVP The nest season he changes his name to Kareem Abdul Jabbar. I feel that things change for him here, but whatever. So throughout the years Milwaukee stays elite due to his incredible play where he posts 31/16/5 with 4 blocks in the 3 seasons after 71 and they go to the 1974 NBA Finals where he makes a gamewinner, but they frikkin lose the series so it's all for nothing. After a while and posting good numbers, he gets traded to LA and makes LA competitive again. Kareem stays elite. In 77, Kareem averages 26/13/4 with 3 blocks and plays great defense, shoots with incredible effeciency as always and all. However, he loses to Bill Walton. Even though this happens, Kareem stays elite and remains a great player for many years. Then, in 1980, he forms a great duo with Magic Johnson, gets MVP and gets robbed of a FMVP, but finally brings a championship to LA. Kareem stays the man in LA and wins two more rings for them in 82 and 85. Then Magic Takes ovver in 87, and they win 2 more rings. Kareem retires in 89. Now, you may be thinking, why the hell did I just post that? The reason is to point out what he did to teams and how he played on an individual level. He averaged incredible numbers and was [b]a career 24/11/4 for 20 years[/b]. That's right. Twenty years. He was elite for I'd say 75% of them, a 20+/10+ center for Twelve years. He could score 20 or more points until Magic took over in 87. [b]All this goes to show his impressive longevity that is unmatched[/b]. He had an impact on teams that were pretty ridiculous, such as making Milwaukee a title contender immediatly and reviving LA basketball and getting a chip (even if he needed help). He was an MVP for six years as well (his notable ones are in 71, 74, 77 and 80) and a defensive anchor and offensive mismatch (few can say they guarded Kareem well). So, what's the moral of my post. Kareem played for twenty years. That's unheard of. He was elite for about 15 of them and an all star for 19 of them. That's unheard of. He impacted teams in a way only a center could, and posted up great numbers (35/18/4/2/4 in the 77 playoffs at his peak... Goddamn crazy). He does get points marked down because he still did get beat at his peak, he could not win with an elite PG and I'd go onto say Walton's was better (call me crazy but whatever), but his longevity, legacy, skyhook, and impact make him a fantastic player.

TL;DR - Kareem's impact, longevity, legacy and skyhook are the reasons I'd say he's one of the greatest. He may have been a bitch at times, but he still has accomplishments that few rival, a longevity so unheard of, and has team accomplishment of improving a small market team so quickly and bringing home the gold for a small market team, something few can do.

Bill Russell

Just my opinion. I cannot make factual statements since I didn't watch him but here are my thoughts:
- Greatest defensive anchor of all time.
- Most unselfish great.
- Ultimate team player.
- Held his own against Wilt despite being not on par with Wilt's physical abilities.

[QUOTE=pauk]Now #2 will be much more interesting...[/QUOTE]

This.

I'll take Bird based on all around skill, Kareem on his resume.

Either one can go 2.

[QUOTE=AlphaWolf24][B]GOAT threads here are like Spam[/B]...every once in awhile you just can't help it.

especially this one..."hey guy's....l got a great idea!...lets do a GOAT thread.......copy and paste from the 1,000's of other GOAT's threads nd I will pick a answer....if it makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside..."

(cue the music....)...duuuhh...duhh...dunnnnaa....dunnaaa...dunt...dunt.[/QUOTE]

I actually agree with him. :wtf:

[QUOTE=andgar923]I actually agree with him. :wtf:[/QUOTE]
It's the offseason though. It's not incredibly surprising stuff like this is popping up

[QUOTE=Freedom Kid7]I have a feeling AlphaWolf will troll this thread by voting and arguing for Kobe, seeing as how his argumentitive skills are actually very good and he can be convincing. I think the reason for this though is instead of a silly poll, to create a debate and discussion, which I'm down for. You just can't take it too seriously.


Anyways, this is Kareem v. Magic v. Russell. I kind of wanna vote for Magic here seeing as how he helped push the Lakers into a Dynasty level creating a great duo with Kareem and being the most unique and skilled PG ever, but as many people have pointed out, his defense sucked and he was a sidekick/1b for a long time, and he never was able to make a team winners without Kareem (keep in mind while Magic played well without Kareem in '80, I doubt that team is in contention without Kareem). So with that said, I'll stop talking about Magic, who is still a top player of all time. I feel Russell has a case too, because honestly, he had the best intangibles of a ball player (seriously, Russell's mentality>Jordans). He had great BballIQ, great at passing and finding the open man, possibly the best defensive anchor of all time (he singlehandedly changed the Celtics defense forever), and made his teammates develop with the correct attitude. He was a ferocious rebounder as well Plus, he was the best Goddamn winner, the most clutch man in basketball, and would find a way to win however possible. However, I can't put him over the top considering the fact he was not as much of an offensive presence and did not shoot above .500 all that often, in addition to the fact you can always make an argument that Wilt was bettter ([b]which is something I do not believe, but it is something to take into account[/b])

Now onto [b]Kareem[/b]. First off, he was gifted in basketball since highschool. He led his highschool team to a couple of New York Catholic City Championships, and having one team where they only lost two games or something ridiculous. But that's just highschool. In UCLA, Lew Alcindor (his original name) was absurdly good. He led the Bruins to 3 NCAA titles, got a bunch of College Player of the Year Awards, broke numerous records, got the MOP in the NCAA Tournament 3 times, and got the dunk banned from competition for a little while. This was an incredible blessing, for because of it, Lew developed the Sky Hook, made it his go-to-move, and is still probably the best go to move. Anyways, after college he got selected number 1 in the draft for obvious reasons and made the Milwaukee Bucks go from 27 - 55 to 56 - 26 in a year. Then Lew makes Milwaukee go 66 - 16 and he wins the Championship for Oscar Robertson, Milwaukee, and his teammates. He posts 32/16/3 in the RS and 27/17/3 in the playoffs. Gets MVP and FMVP The nest season he changes his name to Kareem Abdul Jabbar. I feel that things change for him here, but whatever. So throughout the years Milwaukee stays elite due to his incredible play where he posts 31/16/5 with 4 blocks in the 3 seasons after 71 and they go to the 1974 NBA Finals where he makes a gamewinner, but they frikkin lose the series so it's all for nothing. After a while and posting good numbers, he gets traded to LA and makes LA competitive again. Kareem stays elite. In 77, Kareem averages 26/13/4 with 3 blocks and plays great defense, shoots with incredible effeciency as always and all. However, he loses to Bill Walton. Even though this happens, Kareem stays elite and remains a great player for many years. Then, in 1980, he forms a great duo with Magic Johnson, gets MVP and gets robbed of a FMVP, but finally brings a championship to LA. Kareem stays the man in LA and wins two more rings for them in 82 and 85. Then Magic Takes ovver in 87, and they win 2 more rings. Kareem retires in 89. Now, you may be thinking, why the hell did I just post that? The reason is to point out what he did to teams and how he played on an individual level. He averaged incredible numbers and was [b]a career 24/11/4 for 20 years[/b]. That's right. Twenty years. He was elite for I'd say 75% of them, a 20+/10+ center for Twelve years. He could score 20 or more points until Magic took over in 87. [b]All this goes to show his impressive longevity that is unmatched[/b]. He had an impact on teams that were pretty ridiculous, such as making Milwaukee a title contender immediatly and reviving LA basketball and getting a chip (even if he needed help). He was an MVP for six years as well (his notable ones are in 71, 74, 77 and 80) and a defensive anchor and offensive mismatch (few can say they guarded Kareem well). So, what's the moral of my post. Kareem played for twenty years. That's unheard of. He was elite for about 15 of them and an all star for 19 of them. That's unheard of. He impacted teams in a way only a center could, and posted up great numbers (35/18/4/2/4 in the 77 playoffs at his peak... Goddamn crazy). He does get points marked down because he still did get beat at his peak, he could not win with an elite PG and I'd go onto say Walton's was better (call me crazy but whatever), but his longevity, legacy, skyhook, and impact make him a fantastic player.

TL;DR - Kareem's impact, longevity, legacy and skyhook are the reasons I'd say he's one of the greatest. He may have been a bitch at times, but he still has accomplishments that few rival, a longevity so unheard of, and has team accomplishment of improving a small market team so quickly and bringing home the gold for a small market team, something few can do.[/QUOTE]

Great Post.

bump

I'm confused. If the OP decides on the best argument for the best player, then that player is eliminated from future threads. Right? :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=Gotterdammerung]I'm confused. If the OP decides on the best argument for the best player, then that player is eliminated from future threads. Right? :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]
Yup. Best argument takes the spot, so naturally that player isn't eligible for the next spot.

[QUOTE=Owl]Yup. Best argument takes the spot, so naturally that player isn't eligible for the next spot.[/QUOTE]:biggums:
Then why the hell am I arguing for Russell? :facepalm

And why wouldn't anyone simply re-post their choice until that player wins that slot? :facepalm

ISH logic defeats even rational arguments. :facepalm

[QUOTE=Gotterdammerung]:biggums:
Then why the hell am I arguing for Russell? :facepalm

And why wouldn't anyone simply re-post their choice until that player wins that slot? :facepalm

ISH logic defeats even rational arguments. :facepalm[/QUOTE]
OP has posted about the format in his initial thread, and has suggested somewhere that you can re-enter your previous posts.
Thread: [url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=277257[/url]
Though [I]if [/I]he's given feedback suggesting specific arguments are not persuasive you might wish to revise your arguments, or alternatively stop posting in the threads depending on your opinion of OP and your own mood at the time.

[QUOTE=Gotterdammerung]:biggums:
Then why the hell am I arguing for Russell? :facepalm

And why wouldn't anyone simply re-post their choice until that player wins that slot? :facepalm

ISH logic defeats even rational arguments. :facepalm[/QUOTE]

His logic is correct. Who do you feel should be ranked at number 1?

[QUOTE=Owl]OP has posted about the format in his initial thread, and has suggested somewhere that you can re-enter your previous posts.
Thread: [url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=277257[/url]
Though [I]if [/I]he's given feedback suggesting specific arguments are not persuasive you might wish to revise your arguments, or alternatively stop posting in the threads depending on your opinion of OP and your own mood at the time.[/QUOTE]

I'd actually really like to hear a good argument for Wilt. He's without a doubt one of the hardest all time greats to make a good case for(I don't mean that in a bad way) because of the eratic nature of his career, and the drastically different roles he played. You really have to know the ins and outs of Chamberlain's career to be able to accurately discern what was going on at the time to undestand why he won/lost when he did.

I have him ranked #3 all time after Jordan and Russell, so I'll probably be attempting to put forth a case for him in the next thread, but I do feel like theres other people out there that haven't spoken up yet that are more capable than myself. Where's JLauber when you need him?

The case for Wilton Norman Chamberlain (posited as somewhat as a

[QUOTE=Owl]The case for Wilton Norman Chamberlain (posited as somewhat as a “versus Russell” because there have been multiple Russell advocates, though personally I think Chamberlain over Jabbar is closer and a tougher argument)

The most dominant player ever.
He was arguably the most dominant scorer leading by an extra 32% (approx) on the next top scorer twice (or 60% in ’62 if you don’t count Elgin Baylor who played 48 games). Michael’s greatest lead was 28% more than Nique in ’87, his next biggest lead 14% (again over Nique in ’88) is a smaller advantage than four of Wilt’s seasons. So adjusting for pace and minutes he might not be at Jordan’s level but then again he might. Chamberlain was also consistently in the top 10 in true shooting %, something Jordan only achieved once (in 1989).

He’s the most dominant rebounder who wasn’t a specialist and has 2,304 rebounds more than any other player ever collected.

He led the league in assists (though not apg), and still stands as not only the only center, but the only non-point guard to do so.

To be at the top on the pantheon you need to have no substantial areas of your game that are only middling. Bill Russell’s offensive game was, bluntly, middling. Unexceptional points per game, slightly low points per minute, spent several years below the league average field goal percentage despite being a center, and a low usage one (took less than one shot every 3 minutes), good passer, a lousy free throw shooter, though a little better than Wilt, and a good offensive rebounder. In total his offensive game was okay but not remarkable enough to warrant being ranked over Wilt (or indeed Jabbar) even though he was the greatest defender ever.
Russell has the MVP edge. But in the years they were both in the league it’s 4 each. And that’s just the player vote for MVP (Wilt might have irritated a few of his peers). Wilt made the all-league team 7 times during that period, Russell just twice. Wilt had two other claims for MVPs. In’64 it went to Oscar Robertson, but Wilt claimed the U.S. Basketball Writers’ Association MVP (we don’t have full records for this), and in 1962 (when Russell claimed the MVP) Wilt won the Metropolitan Sportwriters Sam Davis Memorial Award [NBA MVP] (again records are incomplete). But in no cases did any other player win any MVP type award (of those we are aware of), or take the center spot on the all-NBA First Team when Wilt won his official MVPs. When Wilt won the MVP he was the clear cut best. In the Wilt era Russell was only decisively superior in ’63 and ’65, wheras Wilt has four such years.
Ah but surely Russell outplayed Wilt in the playoffs.
Well head to head their numbers were
Chamberlain: 25.7ppg, 28.4 rpg
Russell: 14.9 ppg, 25.4rpg
And though I don’t have the numbers I’d be willing to bet Wilt shot better (his career playoff fg% is 52.2% to Russell’s 43%). But surely Russell raised his game, his points increased etc. Well some years, his productivity didn’t shift that much though as his career points per36 is the same in the playoffs as in the regular season (12.8). This in itself is an achievement against tougher competition. But the much hyped Russell extra scoring gear for the playoffs seems to be at least partially a mirage based on extra minutes.

There’s a suggestion that Russell did what he needed to, or what he was asked to do to win. This is true. But there is sometimes the implication that Russell could have done more, that Russell had the unique ability that if he had chosen to he could have defied Dean Oliver Skill curve and gone from (slightly?) below average usage, average efficiency (lowish for a center) to scoring superstar if that were what was required. Simply put, he could not, or he would have done so. Russell was certainly integral to the Celtics but this was not a one way street, the low roster turnover, the elite coaching, the elite talent that the Celtics provided a culture (to which Russell undoubtedly contributed significantly) that enabled the Celtics to win.

There is the myth that Wilt was a greedy stat padder, but he too was fulfilling the roles asked of him by his coaches. He was just required to do more. If his numbers had been empty would the Warriors have won 49 games and lost only 31 in Wilt’s 50ppg team, or carry a team to four seasons winning at least 58% of their games.

Goliath could not win alone, but he won two titles in a dominant fashion going through two dominant defending champs (the Celtics who added Bailey Howell and actually improved their record six games going 60-21 despite their new powerhouse competitors) and the Milwaukee Bucks (who compiled the greatest single season SRS in ’71 and the greatest non-title winning SRS in ’72). Had the Warriors retained their full core healthy core (especially Cunningham but also a healthy Jackson, Wilt and maybe even Costello from the prior year) I believe they would have bested the Celtics and perhaps stayed together. With a team of quality and a team that fit (Wilt was beyond his apex anyway, but the Laker teams with Baylor and Wilt did not represent a team with synchronicity, and coach van Breda Kolff made it worse in his year as coach by insisting on wedging Wilt into his motion offense, rather than accommodating his new star).

Was Wilt easy to “handle”? No. He was complex, and if he didn’t respect his coach (i.e. usually ex-pros popular with the fanbase but no prior coaching experience and no later coaching success, or an inflexible system coach who didn’t want Wilt) then your team might not be too harmonious. But with a respected/good coach he nearly unseated the Celtics with what had been a losing team prior to his arrival and with talented and balanced squads he could (and did) play a large role in overcoming truly great teams. His team accolades aren’t what they might have been if he had landed in a Celtics-like environment (coaching, talent, balance, low turnover), but in some cases the stats, accolades and awards even the amount teams were willing to pay him show must show that Wilt was if not the greatest player at least the greatest center and a worthy claimant to the number two spot on the all time list.[/QUOTE]

Overall, great post.

One thing that often get's misconstrued in my opinion about Wilt's scoring is the reason behind his often drastic ppg drops from RS to PS. I can't find the quote I'm looking for right now, but I'm sure I've read at least several quotes that attribute that drop to a general post season coaching strategy. Maybe someone else can chime in with the quote I'm looking for. I have a database of Wilt quotes, but I don't have that one.

To me, one of Wilt's greatest strengths is his absolutely monolithic peak in 67'. I see 67' Wilt as an almost guaranteed championship barring him being on an absolutely bottom of the barrell team.

I've decided to start working on another Russell argument, not as a counter argument to this, but just in general. Hopefully I can get it in on time.

[QUOTE=Owl]OP has posted about the format in his initial thread, and has suggested somewhere that you can re-enter your previous posts.
Thread: [url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=277257[/url]
Though [I]if [/I]he's given feedback suggesting specific arguments are not persuasive you might wish to revise your arguments, or alternatively stop posting in the threads depending on your opinion of OP and your own mood at the time.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I won't repost my post in the other thread, cuz that argument was for Wilt at #1.

For #2, even though Owl already posted a great argument for Wilton Norman Chamberlain, here's mine, which is an argument AGAINST the common criticisms of Wilt playing in an "inflated era":

[quote=Gotterdammerung]I don't give much credit to "pace," or the balderdash espoused by paceologists like most ISH posters here. Why?

1. There's no accurate way to adjust for the relative competition that the guys in the 60s or 70s and the modern players faced. Since the 60s/70s was a smaller league with fewer players per team, then it follows to reason that they played against tougher competition. Then again, the counterpoint is that the modern player is blessed with superior knowledge about nutrition, training, and he faces more players from different countries due to the global expansion, so he faces stiffer competition. Now, one can argue for either side, but the best position is neither one. Moreover, neither position can account for the possibility whether the best athletes were more likely to play professional basketball in the 60s/70s as opposed to the modern era.

2. As for the concept of pace itself - people are not robots. Making more field goals and more free throws over 80-82 game season requires more energy and increases the likelihood of fatigue and injury. Therefore, the capability of a Kobe Bryant scoring 35 points per game in 2006 tells us exactly zippo about his ability to score 45 or 55 in 1962 at a faster pace, even without factoring in the difference of competition and diet, nutrition, travel/schedule/equipment/gyms/etc.

3. The NBA has been here since 1947, but nobody has even come with a spitting distance of Chamberlain's statistics - not just in scoring but also rebounding and passing. If pace was the only factor, then it stands to reason that during higher pace eras, there would be far more examples of other guys competing with Chamberlain in the 60s. The fact is that Chamberlain exceeded 40 points per game in 4 different years, but nobody has even come close to averaging 40 ppg once.

Conclusion: Pace is not a sufficient explanation for how far ahead Chamberlain's accomplishments are of other players, but also how much more dominant his performances are than the record setting performances of the very greatest ever in other sports. Example: Gretsky scored 92 goals in 1982. In order to exceed Gretzky by Chamberlain margins (36% over Jordan's highest scoring season), a NHL player would have to score 125 goals. :eek:

Incidentally, the average height of NBA players over the past 40 years has pretty much remained consistent. If you take the height of guys on the 1972 Lakers and the 2006 Miami Heat, there were indistinguishable.
[/quote]

Great posts by Owl and Gotterdammerung, although:

[QUOTE]The most dominant player ever.[/QUOTE]

I only exempt that and reserve it for Michael Jordan. Jordan dominated all forms in the regular season, playoffs, and finals than Chamberlain did.

Outscored by Sam Jones in all 4 game 7s vs Boston. 2-4 in the Finals with massive chokes. That's what you call "Most dominant" :applause:

It's kind of funny how we see people arguing for Russell or Wilt but we don't see anyone talking about Mikan or Petit or Sharman and etc. What makes those 50s guys inferior? Skin color? Earliest era? No one alive has seen them play? :confusedshrug: