[QUOTE=Hey Yo]Yet after his 4th or 5th game back, he dropped 55 on the Knicks and the word was:
"MJ's back, he never missed a beat. He's GOD!!!!"[/QUOTE]He also dropped 51 as an old cripple on the Wizards. Who cares. One game doesn't mean shit.
Printable View
[QUOTE=Hey Yo]Yet after his 4th or 5th game back, he dropped 55 on the Knicks and the word was:
"MJ's back, he never missed a beat. He's GOD!!!!"[/QUOTE]He also dropped 51 as an old cripple on the Wizards. Who cares. One game doesn't mean shit.
[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]1984-85 - Bulls 38-44 - Lost to Milwaukee (59-23)
1985-86 - Bulls 30-52 - Lost to Celtics (67-15) - [B]Champs[/B]
1986-87 - Bulls 40-42 - Lost to Celtics (59-23) - Lost Finals
1987-88 - Bulls 50-32 - Lost to Pistons (54-28) - Lost Finals
1988-89 - Bulls 47-35 - Lost to Pistons (63-19) - [B]Champs[/B]
1989-90 - Bulls 55-27 - Lost to Pistons (59-23) - [B]Champs[/B]
MJs numbers from this period (first 6 seasons):
Reg season: [B]32.8 PPG, 29.9 PER, 6.3 rpg, 6.0 apg, 2.8 spg[/B]
Playoffs: [B]35.8 PPG, 29.7 PER, 6.9 rpg, 6.7 apg, 2.5 spg[/B]
We all know what he did starting the 1990-91 season. But this gives you a perspective on what type of help MJ had and what type of teams he had to go up against. All-time great, legendary teams. He really had no chance. It wasn't until Pippen and Grant matured along with PJ coming on board as coach when MJ had enough firepower to start beating elite teams. But look at his individual numbers during this time, just dominant from the get go. This is what the GOAT does.
Drop the mic.[/QUOTE]
otoh LeBron has lost multiple times while having HCA
[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]1984-85 - Bulls 38-44 - Lost to Milwaukee (59-23)
1985-86 - Bulls 30-52 - Lost to Celtics (67-15) - [B]Champs[/B]
1986-87 - Bulls 40-42 - Lost to Celtics (59-23) - Lost Finals
1987-88 - Bulls 50-32 - Lost to Pistons (54-28) - Lost Finals
1988-89 - Bulls 47-35 - Lost to Pistons (63-19) - [B]Champs[/B]
1989-90 - Bulls 55-27 - Lost to Pistons (59-23) - [B]Champs[/B]
MJs numbers from this period (first 6 seasons):
Reg season: [B]32.8 PPG, 29.9 PER, 6.3 rpg, 6.0 apg, 2.8 spg[/B]
Playoffs: [B]35.8 PPG, 29.7 PER, 6.9 rpg, 6.7 apg, 2.5 spg[/B]
We all know what he did starting the 1990-91 season. But this gives you a perspective on what type of help MJ had and what type of teams he had to go up against. All-time great, legendary teams. He really had no chance. It wasn't until Pippen and Grant matured along with PJ coming on board as coach when MJ had enough firepower to start beating elite teams. But look at his individual numbers during this time, just dominant from the get go. This is what the GOAT does.
Drop the mic.[/QUOTE]
Never lost with HCA, undefeated in the NBA Finals, never lost in the Olympics, undefeated in championship games/series (NCAA, Olympics, NBA Finals).
GOAT. Straight up GOAT.
:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:
[QUOTE=Young X]He also dropped 51 as an old cripple on the Wizards. [B]Who cares. One game doesn't mean shit.[/B][/QUOTE]
Except for the fact when MJ scored 55 against the NYK his 5th game back.
it meant shit!!!!
[QUOTE=Hey Yo]Except for the fact when MJ scored 55 against the NYK his 5th game back.
it meant shit!!!![/QUOTE]
I don't think there's any debate that Jordan wasn't fully himself in 1995. You cannot have a 2 year absence and return to top form in 17 games. Not at the highest level of basketball. More importantly, it's impossible to establish (or reestablish) championship level chemistry in that short a time frame. He was certainly capable of a dominant single game performance, he could do that on talent alone, but it takes time to fine-tune all the nuances of the game.
Jordan also had a team that could win 55 games without him (the team wasn't even fully healthy). FACT
[QUOTE=sportjames23]Never lost with HCA, undefeated in the NBA Finals, never lost in the Olympics, undefeated in championship games/series (NCAA, Olympics, NBA Finals).
GOAT. Straight up GOAT.
:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:[/QUOTE]
Never made the second round without Pippen :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:
itt, jordan fans crediting their guy with team accolades. :lol
reminds me of a thread months back, where jordan fans huff and puffed after i reminded them having "the most fmvps" was another trite fact (bill russell, had the award existed, would've had more).
jordan fans are literally the kings of bullshit, inconsequential facts.
[QUOTE=Hey Yo]An off-game is 7-26 or 6-27
Only registering 8FGA in the biggest playoff game of your career sounds more like he quit or gave up before the game even started.
So in short, the Bulls DID really have a chance. Could have went up 3-2 in the series with game 6 in Chicago, but MJ had other plans.[/QUOTE]
Only registering 11 FGA in the biggest playoff game of your career sounds more like he quit or gave up before the game started.
So in short, the Heat DID really have a chance. Could have went up 3-1 in the series with games 6 & 7 in Miami, but LeBron had other plans.
Bottomline, if you believe that about Jordan, same exact thing applies to LeBron for Game 4 of the 2011 Finals. Yet you blame Wade for that one. Makes you a huge hypocrite. If Jordan quit, then LeBron did too
[QUOTE=GrapeApe][B]I don't think there's any debate that Jordan wasn't fully himself in 1995. You cannot have a 2 year absence and return to top form in 17 games. Not at the highest level of basketball.[/B] More importantly, it's impossible to establish (or reestablish) championship level chemistry in that short a time frame. He was certainly capable of a dominant single game performance, he could do that on talent alone, but it takes time to fine-tune all the nuances of the game.[/QUOTE]
So if he didn't choose to quit those 2yrs, he would have scored 91 instead of 55 that night?
[QUOTE=mehyaM24]itt, jordan fans crediting their guy with team accolades. :lol
reminds me of a thread months back, where jordan fans huff and puffed after i reminded them having "the most fmvps" was another trite fact (bill russell, had the award existed, would've had more).
jordan fans are literally the kings of bullshit, inconsequential facts.[/QUOTE]
Wait, so team accolades are no longer part of a player's legacy? You're saying that being the best player on a championship team is irrelevant?
[QUOTE=mehyaM24]itt, jordan fans crediting their guy with team accolades. :lol
reminds me of a thread months back, where jordan fans huff and puffed after i reminded them having "the most fmvps" was another trite fact (bill russell, had the award existed, would've had more).
[B]jordan fans are literally the kings of bullshit, inconsequential facts.[/B][/QUOTE]
Pretty much.
[QUOTE=Hey Yo]So if he didn't choose to quit those 2yrs, he would have scored 91 instead of 55 that night?[/QUOTE]
So you completely ignore everthing else I said in that post?
What the hell? :oldlol:
[QUOTE=GrapeApe]Wait, so team accolades are no longer part of a player's legacy? You're saying that being the best player on a championship team is irrelevant?[/QUOTE]
not when you credit jordan to the extent his fans have.
most of them think scottie pippen was a mediocre all star, and could've easily been replaced by some one-dimensional scorer.
they don't really value rebounding, playmaking, defense and other aspects that make an otherwise adequate scorer, ATG.
[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents]Only registering 11 FGA in the biggest playoff game of your career sounds more like he quit or gave up before the game started.
So in short, the Heat DID really have a chance. Could have went up 3-1 in the series with games 6 & 7 in Miami, but LeBron had other plans.
Bottomline, if you believe that about Jordan, same exact thing applies to LeBron for Game 4 of the 2011 Finals. Yet you blame Wade for that one. Makes you a huge hypocrite. If Jordan quit, then LeBron did too[/QUOTE]
You're forgetting the part where MJ was the clear cut captain/ leader, FG attempter (no, not a word) ball handler/scoring machine for the Bulls in 89
Once the 2011 Finals started we were shown it was still Wade's team in which he let the media and fans know by handing the reigns off to LeBron later that summer.
OP said MJ had no real chance against Detroit and other stacked teams. I showed him where MJ did and asked what happened.
I never said LeBron had no real chance against Dallas.
No hypocrite here, chico
[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]:facepalm I'm a Laker fan. I saw that game like 10 times. Gasol was the MVP of game 7 along with Artest.[/QUOTE]
give him credit, the little guy was trying his best drum up the Kobe hate.. :oldlol: :oldlol:
[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]1984-85 - Bulls 38-44 - Lost to Milwaukee (59-23)
1985-86 - Bulls 30-52 - Lost to Celtics (67-15) - [B]Champs[/B]
1986-87 - Bulls 40-42 - Lost to Celtics (59-23) - Lost Finals
1987-88 - Bulls 50-32 - Lost to Pistons (54-28) - Lost Finals
1988-89 - Bulls 47-35 - Lost to Pistons (63-19) - [B]Champs[/B]
1989-90 - Bulls 55-27 - Lost to Pistons (59-23) - [B]Champs[/B]
MJs numbers from this period (first 6 seasons):
Reg season: [B]32.8 PPG, 29.9 PER, 6.3 rpg, 6.0 apg, 2.8 spg[/B]
Playoffs: [B]35.8 PPG, 29.7 PER, 6.9 rpg, 6.7 apg, 2.5 spg[/B]
We all know what he did starting the 1990-91 season. But this gives you a perspective on what type of help MJ had and what type of teams he had to go up against. All-time great, legendary teams. He really had no chance. It wasn't until Pippen and Grant matured along with PJ coming on board as coach when MJ had enough firepower to start beating elite teams. But look at his individual numbers during this time, just dominant from the get go. This is what the GOAT does.
Drop the mic.[/QUOTE]
If we're to make excuses that he only lost to All-time great legendary teams, we should also note that he never faced All-time great legendary teams once he started winning.
[QUOTE=livinglegend]Jordan also had a team that could win 55 games without him (the team wasn't even fully healthy). FACT[/QUOTE]
They also were 34-31 without him the next year before he came back
Did you know that son?
Okay...so that would just mean that he did worse than we mighta expected on the road. :confusedshrug:
He's great and he is the GOAT, but weird stats like this are irrelevant. Just as you might think its good that he took care of business when he had HCA, someone else can say that this is not a good thing because it means he was rattled when he didn't have HCA.
[QUOTE=ballinhun8]They also were 34-31 without him the next year before he came back
Did you know that son?[/QUOTE]
They also had lost GRANT, too. Based on their 55-27 record in '94 WITH Grant, they likely would have gone at least 12-5 in those same games that they went 13-4 with Jordan. And the reality was, that 55-27 record was deceptive, as well. Pippen and Grant missed a combined 22 games in that '94 season. Had those two been relatively healthy all season, and they probably would have won 60+ games. Which would have been huge. Why? Because they lost to the 56-26 Knicks in a close seven game series...BUT, they went 3-0 at home. Had they had HCA, and they likely would have won that series. And given the fact that they owned Indiana during the regular season, they probably would have dispatched the Pacers in the ECF's. And since we know that the Knicks gave the 58-24 Rockets all they could handle in the Finals (losing a close game seven, and outscoring Houston in that series), they might very well have won a title without Jordan.
Did you know that son?
So, here was Pippen basically carrying a team without BOTH MJ and Grant, to a 34-31 record.
Find me a season in which Jordan had a winning record without Pippen and Grant, or Pippen and Rodman.
[QUOTE=Young X]I always bring this up and I'm gonna do it again. In Jordan's 15 seasons he was on a contender only from '90-'98.
Outside of those years, every other team he was on was terrible.
He and the Bulls had about 7 realistic chances to win a ring and they ended up with 6 of them.
The one they didn't get? Took the defending (and eventual repeat champion) Pistons to game 7 of the ECF as the underdog in 1990. Jordan averaged about 32/7/6 on 57 TS% in the series against one of the toughest defenses of all time. Maybe they could've won if Pippen didn't have that migraine.[/QUOTE]
Agreed.
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]But an injured Wilt, or a Wilt who had major knee surgery, came back way before expectations, played three poor regular season games...and loses a game seven in the Finals against a heavily-favored Knick team, in a game in which he hung a 21-24 statline, in a series in which he hung a 23-24 .625 FG% stat-line? Nope, no excuses for Wilt.[/QUOTE]
Who even brought up the Knicks series? But anyways, my only gripe with Wilt in 1970 is that he dropped 45 in game 6 and had a hobbled Reed in game 7 and he should've tried to do more and be more aggressive. But he wasn't. But in the grand scheme of things, I don't hold 1970 against him too much given the fact that the Knicks were a better team.
[QUOTE=GrapeApe]I don't think there's any debate that Jordan wasn't fully himself in 1995. You cannot have a 2 year absence and return to top form in 17 games. Not at the highest level of basketball. More importantly, it's impossible to establish (or reestablish) championship level chemistry in that short a time frame. He was certainly capable of a dominant single game performance, he could do that on talent alone, but it takes time to fine-tune all the nuances of the game.[/QUOTE]
Gets it. Having a great individual scoring game is NOT the same as being in sync with your teammates and having your basketball legs under you for the long, playoff grind.
[QUOTE=iamgine]If we're to make excuses that he only lost to All-time great legendary teams, we should also note that he never faced All-time great legendary teams once he started winning.[/QUOTE]
It's all relative. The Blazers, Suns, Sonics, and Jazz from top to bottom were as talented, if not moreso, than the Bulls were. The Knicks were also, from 1-12, more loaded. After you got past MJ, Pippen, and Grant/Rodman( and Kukoc as a supersub), the Bulls had otherwise marginally talented players. The main difference was Jordan was the best player on the court no matter who they faced.
[QUOTE=livinglegend]Jordan also had a team that could win 55 games without him (the team wasn't even fully healthy). FACT[/QUOTE]
Yup. MJ was the DIFFERENCE between a 55 win, 2nd round exit team to an all-time great team that won 72 games and 69 games the two years after that and 3 peated.
Also, you can't ignore fact that the Bulls were a well coached, well oiled machine when MJ left and had that confidence of champions. Sort of like if Duncan was out for a year, do you think that a Pop coached team would fall on its face? Of course not. But winning 50+ games in one season is different from being a 3 peat team. Also, you have to factor in that the Bulls added Kukoc, Kerry and Longley that season.
[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]Who even brought up the Knicks series? But anyways, my only gripe with Wilt in 1970 is that he dropped 45 in game 6 and had a hobbled Reed in game 7 and he should've tried to do more and be more aggressive. But he wasn't. But in the grand scheme of things, I don't hold 1970 against him too much given the fact that the Knicks were a better team.[/QUOTE]
The thing is, Chamberlain only had ONE poor post-season SERIES in his NBA career. And that was in his '68-69 season, and it came with a horrific coach, who openly despised Wilt. Van Breda Kolff's coaching ultimately cost the city of Los Angeles their first NBA title. Of course, when LA brought in Bill Sharman a couple of years later, they went on their 33 game winning streak, hung a 69-13 regular season, and blew thru their opposition in the post-season en route to a dominating title.
The "bashers" basically use Chamberlain's '69 post-season as some kind of epitome of his entire post-season career.
Let me ask you this...swap rosters (and coaches) with Russell, and how many rings does Wilt end up with? And then, where would you rank him all-time?
[QUOTE=iamgine]If we're to make excuses that he only lost to All-time great legendary teams, we should also note that he never faced All-time great legendary teams once he started winning.[/QUOTE]
It's hard to be a legendary team when MJ's team beats everyone doesn't it? :oldlol: Say the Bulls lost to the Jazz twice, history would view the Jazz as a "legendary" team would they not? But again, MJ didn't let it get to that.
[QUOTE=ballinhun8]They also were 34-31 without him the next year before he came back
Did you know that son?[/QUOTE]
Of course not. They CLING to the 1993-94 season as if that's proof that the Bulls were a great team. As I said above, it's sort of like if Duncan was out for a year in a Pop coached team. Do you think they would fall flat on their face? Of course not. The years of playing in the same system, of being well coached, of having that championship swagger along with adding key pieces (Kukoc, Kerr, Longley) would all play a factor in having that team stay competitive. But being competitive isn't the same as being championship caliber.
[QUOTE=tmacattack33]Okay...so that would just mean that he did worse than we mighta expected on the road. :confusedshrug:
He's great and he is the GOAT, but weird stats like this are irrelevant. Just as you might think its good that he took care of business when he had HCA, someone else can say that this is not a good thing because it means he was rattled when he didn't have HCA.[/QUOTE]
Again, look at the teams he faced when he first came into the league. They weren't just solid teams that had a slight edge in wins but all-time great teams. A great individual talent has no chance against an all-time great team. None.
But still, the fact is, when MJ had the HCA, he never lost. And he also won 6 playoff series when he didn't have HCA.
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]The thing is, Chamberlain only had ONE poor post-season SERIES in his NBA career. And that was in his '68-69 season, and it came with a horrific coach, who openly despised Wilt. Van Breda Kolff's coaching ultimately cost the city of Los Angeles their first NBA title. Of course, when LA brought in Bill Sharman a couple of years later, they went on their 33 game winning streak, hung a 69-13 regular season, and blew thru their opposition in the post-season en route to a dominating title.
The "bashers" basically use Chamberlain's '69 post-season as some kind of epitome of his entire post-season career.
[B]Let me ask you this...swap rosters (and coaches) with Russell, and how many rings does Wilt end up with? And then, where would you rank him all-time[/B]?[/QUOTE]
There's no way to answer that. You play to win the game, not put up great numbers. Stats can be empty and misleading. You can get yours at the expense of winning. On the flip side, you can be very impactful while putting up mediocre numbers.
Watching docs of both Russell and Wilt, one thing is very clear, Russell took the game seriously. He was all business on the court. Legendary mind game tricks. Tried everything he could to try to win. Always thinking. That's the type of mentality you need to have to be a 11 time champ. He was a killer.
Wilt came across as kind of aloof and sort of a individual stats guy. And all of that plays a factor in those crucial situations when it's do or die.
[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]There's no way to answer that. You play to win the game, not put up great numbers. Stats can be empty and misleading. You can get yours at the expense of winning. On the flip side, you can be very impactful while putting up mediocre numbers.
Watching docs of both Russell and Wilt, one thing is very clear, Russell took the game seriously. He was all business on the court. Legendary mind game tricks. Tried everything he could to try to win. Always thinking. That's the type of mentality you need to have to be a 11 time champ. He was a killer.
Wilt came across as kind of aloof and sort of a individual stats guy. And all of that plays a factor in those crucial situations when it's do or die.[/QUOTE]
And yet, in their H2H's, it was almost always Wilt who was coming up big...especially in their biggest games, and in the biggest moments.
Had those two swapped rosters, and Russell being asked to carry mediocre teammates who played even worse in the post-season, and there is no doubt in my mind that John Wooden was right....
It would have been Wilt holding all those rings.
The crux of the matter is this: MJ always won when he should have( HCA, better team) and lost when he should have(no HCA, worse team). You'd have hell to find many situations where the Bulls actually lost [I]because of[/I] MJ under-performing well below his capabilities, especially once he hit his prime.
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]And yet, in their H2H's, it was almost always Wilt who was coming up big...especially in their biggest games, and in the biggest moments.
Had those two swapped rosters, [B]and Russell being asked to carry mediocre teammates who played even worse in the post-season[/B], and there is no doubt in my mind that John Wooden was right....
It would have been Wilt holding all those rings.[/QUOTE]
Don't do this again man. It's a fact Wilt had plenty of help once he went to Phila and the Lakers. He lost twice to Russell with HCA in 1968 and 1969. And those were Russell's last 2 seasons in the league. He was close to the end and Wilt still couldn't take advantage. Heck, in 1969, Russell was the HC also. No one in the world expected the Celtics to beat the Lakers that year. And for the Lakers to lose game 7 at home by 2? That's a big hit on Wilt's legacy.
For example, I don't hold 2007 and 2015 against LeBron. He really had no chance. If Bron had done the impossible in 2015, that would've been a huge feather in his cap but he came up short and that's no big deal. And I think most objective fans think the same way. 2011 is another story.
So why can't some of you accept the fact that MJ really had no chance against the Celtics and Pistons until he got more help later in his career?
[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]Don't do this again man. It's a fact Wilt had plenty of help once he went to Phila and the Lakers. He lost twice to Russell with HCA in 1968 and 1969. And those were Russell's last 2 seasons in the league. He was close to the end and Wilt still couldn't take advantage. Heck, in 1969, Russell was the HC also. No one in the world expected the Celtics to beat the Lakers that year. And for the Lakers to lose game 7 at home by 2? That's a big hit on Wilt's legacy.[/QUOTE]
NO ONE expected the REMNANTS of the '68 Sixers, a team that was DECIMATED by injuries to even get to the Celtics in the '68 EDF's. NO ONE.
And yet, with HALF of their roster injured, or missing completely, they STILL took a 3-1 series lead, and wound up losing a game seven by FOUR points.
A HEALTHY '68 Sixer team would have repeated their annihilation of the '67 Celtics ( a 60-21 team that was stacked from 1-10...and yet the Sixers still destroyed them.)
'69? After Wilt and West, the Celtics were a better team. And sorry, but Baylor was of no use in that series. He had games of 2-14, 4-18, and 8-22 in losses.
And even then, LA was ONE PLAY away from winning that series, 4-1. BUT, with an incompetent coach putting the ball in Egan's hands at the end of game four, the result was inevitable.
Oh, and in that game seven, Chamberlain easily outplayed Russell. Had Russell's teammates not outshot Wilt's teammates by a .477 to .360 margin in that game seven, and Wilt would have won yet another ring.
And AGAIN, you are holding ONE playoff series H2H between them against Wilt. And again, Wilt outplayed Russell in that series, and easily outplayed him in game seven.
Next...
[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]For example, I don't hold 2007 and 2015 against LeBron. He really had no chance. If Bron had done the impossible in 2015, that would've been a huge feather in his cap but he came up short and that's no big deal. And I think most objective fans think the same way. 2011 is another story.
[B]So why can't some of you accept the fact that MJ really had no chance against the Celtics and Pistons until he got more help later in his career[/B]?[/QUOTE]
Because you don't cut Wilt the same slack.
And you forget that Wiklt's TEAMs were losing to STACKED teams.
TEN times in his post-season career, Wilt's TEAMs lost to GREAT teams.
SEVEN times to the greatest dynasty in NBA history (and four of those were GAME SEVEN losses by margins of 2, 1, 4 and 2 points.)
Then TWICE to Knick teams that had between 4-6 HOFers.
And to a 66-16 Milwaukee team that was considered the next great dynasty (and that Wilt would beat the very next year.)
Even when he had good teammates, Wilt's TEAMs were usually outgunned. Hell, his '64 Warriors were outgunned by an 8-3 margin HOFers (and his two other "HOF" teammates were Guy Rodgers, the worst shooter of his era, and rookie Nate Thurmond,w ho was playing part-time and out of position. BTW, those two shot .258 and .326 in that Finals series against Russell's Celtics.)
Bill Russell also never lost a series with HCA. And no we are not counting the 1958 Finals when he totally missed two games and played very little in two more.
But here is where it gets interesting and shows how insane his winning was. [B]Bill Russell is 4-1 (80%) in series where he didn't have HCA. [/B] Somehow people who say "Bill only won because of overwhelming talent" overlook that he won the 1966, 1968, 1969 titles as an underdog, especially the last two. They also skip right past the fact that KC Jones and Frank Ramsey (and Satch Sanders although he got in as a contributor) quite simply weren't HOF caliber players and only got in because of Russell. Neither ever even made an all-star game. Hawks from 1957-1961, Warriors in 1960 and 1962, Royals in 1963 and 1964, Knicks in 1969, Lakers in 1962 and 1968, and Sixers from 1965-1968 were definitely up there in talent with the Celtics.
For example the aforementioned 1964 Celtics had 8 HOFers as LAZERUSS said but let's break it down and look at it in context. People get caught up on names without actually looking at the level at which they played.
Bill Russell
Sam Jones - all-star who averaged 19/5/3
John Havlicek - all-star caliber but not a superstar yet; only in his second year playing as a 6th man and averaged 20/5/3
Tom Heinsohn - good role player who averaged 16/6/2
KC Jones - role player who averaged 8/5/5
Satch Sanders - role player who averaged 11/8/1
Frank Ramsey - role player who averaged 9/3/1
Clyde Lovellette - scrub who averaged 7/3/1 in his last season
We see that looking at Boston as a 8 HOFer team is erroneous!! They had 3 guys that were all-star caliber which is great but nothing out of the ordinary for a dynastic team.
[QUOTE=dankok8]Bill Russell also never lost a series with HCA. And no we are not counting the 1958 Finals when he totally missed two games and played very little in two more.
But here is where it gets interesting and shows how insane his winning was. [B]Bill Russell is 4-1 (80%) in series where he didn't have HCA. [/B] Somehow people who say "Bill only won because of overwhelming talent" overlook that he won the 1966, 1968, 1969 titles as an underdog, especially the last two. They also skip right past the fact that KC Jones and Frank Ramsey (and Satch Sanders although he got in as a contributor) quite simply weren't HOF caliber players and only got in because of Russell. Neither ever even made an all-star game. Hawks from 1957-1961, Warriors in 1960 and 1962, Royals in 1963 and 1964, Knicks in 1969, Lakers in 1962 and 1968, and Sixers from 1965-1968 were definitely up there in talent with the Celtics.
For example the aforementioned 1964 Celtics had 8 HOFers as LAZERUSS said but let's break it down and look at it in context. People get caught up on names without actually looking at the level at which they played.
Bill Russell
Sam Jones - all-star who averaged 19/5/3
John Havlicek - all-star caliber but not a superstar yet; only in his second year playing as a 6th man and averaged 20/5/3
Tom Heinsohn - good role player who averaged 16/6/2
KC Jones - role player who averaged 8/5/5
Satch Sanders - role player who averaged 11/8/1
Frank Ramsey - role player who averaged 9/3/1
Clyde Lovellette - scrub who averaged 7/3/1 in his last season
We see that looking at Boston as a 8 HOFer team is erroneous!! They had 3 guys that were all-star caliber which is great but nothing out of the ordinary for a dynastic team.[/QUOTE]
Sam Jones was already an established 23 ppg scorer by that time.
Havlicek was already a 20 ppg scorer that season.
KC Jones and Satch Sanders were considered the best defensive players at their positions at that time.
Lovelette was not a scrub, he had averaged 20 ppg just the season before. Just goes to show you how powerful those Celtics were when a 20 ppg scorer is their 7th best player.
Player-for-player, the '64 Celtics were FAR superior to Wilt's cast of retreads.
[QUOTE=dankok8]Bill Russell also never lost a series with HCA. And no we are not counting the 1958 Finals when he totally missed two games and played very little in two more.
But here is where it gets interesting and shows how insane his winning was. [B]Bill Russell is 4-1 (80%) in series where he didn't have HCA. [/B] Somehow people who say "Bill only won because of overwhelming talent" overlook that he won the 1966, 1968, 1969 titles as an underdog, especially the last two. They also skip right past the fact that KC Jones and Frank Ramsey (and Satch Sanders although he got in as a contributor) quite simply weren't HOF caliber players and only got in because of Russell. Neither ever even made an all-star game. Hawks from 1957-1961, Warriors in 1960 and 1962, Royals in 1963 and 1964, Knicks in 1969, Lakers in 1962 and 1968, and Sixers from 1965-1968 were definitely up there in talent with the Celtics.
For example the aforementioned 1964 Celtics had 8 HOFers as LAZERUSS said but let's break it down and look at it in context. People get caught up on names without actually looking at the level at which they played.
Bill Russell
Sam Jones - all-star who averaged 19/5/3
John Havlicek - all-star caliber but not a superstar yet; only in his second year playing as a 6th man and averaged 20/5/3
Tom Heinsohn - good role player who averaged 16/6/2
KC Jones - role player who averaged 8/5/5
Satch Sanders - role player who averaged 11/8/1
Frank Ramsey - role player who averaged 9/3/1
Clyde Lovellette - scrub who averaged 7/3/1 in his last season
We see that looking at Boston as a 8 HOFer team is erroneous!! They had 3 guys that were all-star caliber which is great but nothing out of the ordinary for a dynastic team.[/QUOTE]
Not surprised at all that Russell is also undefeated when he has HCA. Russell and MJ were cut from the same cloth. Both killers. Both masters of the mind game and tried to beat you at all costs. Never tried to show weakness on the court. The mental game was just as important to them as the physical game. The two GOAT winners ever.
And yeah, when you win THAT much, there are going to be a couple of guys that get inducted in the HOF that might not even get consideration had they not won all those rings. But Russell was the guy that made it all happen.
[QUOTE=dankok8]Bill Russell also never lost a series with HCA. And no we are not counting the 1958 Finals when he totally missed two games and played very little in two more.
But here is where it gets interesting and shows how insane his winning was. [B]Bill Russell is 4-1 (80%) in series where he didn't have HCA. [/B] Somehow people who say "Bill only won because of overwhelming talent" overlook that he won the 1966, 1968, 1969 titles as an underdog, especially the last two. They also skip right past the fact that KC Jones and Frank Ramsey (and Satch Sanders although he got in as a contributor) quite simply weren't HOF caliber players and only got in because of Russell. Neither ever even made an all-star game. Hawks from 1957-1961, Warriors in 1960 and 1962, Royals in 1963 and 1964, Knicks in 1969, Lakers in 1962 and 1968, and Sixers from 1965-1968 were definitely up there in talent with the Celtics.
For example the aforementioned 1964 Celtics had 8 HOFers as LAZERUSS said but let's break it down and look at it in context. People get caught up on names without actually looking at the level at which they played.
Bill Russell
Sam Jones - all-star who averaged 19/5/3
John Havlicek - all-star caliber but not a superstar yet; only in his second year playing as a 6th man and averaged 20/5/3
Tom Heinsohn - good role player who averaged 16/6/2
KC Jones - role player who averaged 8/5/5
Satch Sanders - role player who averaged 11/8/1
Frank Ramsey - role player who averaged 9/3/1
Clyde Lovellette - scrub who averaged 7/3/1 in his last season
We see that looking at Boston as a 8 HOFer team is erroneous!! They had 3 guys that were all-star caliber which is great but nothing out of the ordinary for a dynastic team.[/QUOTE]
How good was Wilt's supporting cast in that '63-64 season?
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9854454&postcount=98[/url]
A last place roster that couldn't beat a team of rookies without Wilt.
BTW, his two "HOF" teammates, Rodgers and Thurmond shot .258 and .326 from the field in the '64 Finals.