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

[QUOTE=dankok8;14425437]There is some problems with saying "Russell had a stacked team." and just ending it at that.

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

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

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

Clearly Russell must be a lot better than you guys give him credit for.[/QUOTE]


The 1966 Sixers were not better than the Celtics.

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

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




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


Not to mention the obvious vast difference in playoff experience.


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




The 1968 team was not the same as the 67 team

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

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

-Wally Jones (injured knee cartilage)

-Luke Jackson (pulled hamstring muscle)

-Hal Greer (bursitus in his right knee)

-Billy Cunningham (broken right wrist)

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


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

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

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

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





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

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

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

[QUOTE=Thenameless;14425480]If someone has Russell over Chamberlain because of Championships, they should really ask themselves "if the supporting casts were reversed, would it still be 11-2 in favour of Russell?" Most reasonable people who are honest with themselves would say no.

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



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

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






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


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



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


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


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


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



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


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

[QUOTE=Thenameless;14425480]If someone has Russell over Chamberlain because of Championships, they should really ask themselves "if the supporting casts were reversed, would it still be 11-2 in favour of Russell?" Most reasonable people who are honest with themselves would say no.

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


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


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


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

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

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




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



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




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

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


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



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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Thenameless;14425489]10 - 3 in Wilt's favour sounds about right to me.

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

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


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



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


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


Unlike Basketball in which rings utterly dominate the GOAT debate.

[QUOTE=Thenameless;14425489]10 - 3 in Wilt's favour sounds about right to me.

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

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

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



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


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



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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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



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


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


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



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


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

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


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


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

Hell I even remember vividly


That



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

Here are some quotes that demonstrate his sometimes underrated greatness.

Praise from players, coaches


Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (2013)

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

Red Auerbach

“He Oscar is so great he scares me.”

Jerry Lucas

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

Bill Russell

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

Rick Barry

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

Jerry West

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

John Havlicek

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

Jerry West

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

Magic Johnson

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

Wayne Embry

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

Pete Newell

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

Bob Boozer

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

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

John Salley (on what Michael Jordan told him)

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

Salley: "He would say Oscar Robertson."


Praise from media & notable awards

AP Basketball Player of the Century (1999)

Michael Jordan (49)

Oscar Robertson (44)

Wilt Chamberlain (42)

Bill Russell (41)

Earvin Johnson (36)

Larry Bird (34)

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (25)

Elgin Baylor (19)

Jerry West (16)

Julius Erving (12)

Karl Malone (6)

Bob Pettit (4)

Bob Cousy (1)

John Havlicek (1)

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


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

Michael Jordan

Wilt Chamberlain

Oscar Robertson

Bill Russell

Magic Johnson

Larry Bird

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Jerry West

Shaquille O'Neal

Julius Erving



National Association of Basketball Coaches' Player of the Century

PLAYERS OF THE CENTURY

Larry Bird (Indiana State)

Kareem Abdul Jabbar (UCLA)

Earvin "Magic" Johnson (Michigan State)

Michael Jordan (North Carolina)

Oscar Robertson (Cincinnati)

Bill Russell (San Francisco)

Bill Walton (UCLA)

PLAYER OF THE CENTURY

Oscar Robertson Cincinnati
New York Times (2009

The GOAT debate is interesting.





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



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





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

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


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


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


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



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



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


That's an indictment on Kareem...




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

[QUOTE=coastalmarker99;14425495]I remember vividly in the early 70s, Wilt Chamberlain was known as the Babe Ruth of basketball….obviously meaning he was the GOAT. This is also what the national mainstream media said too.



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

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

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_35th_Anniversary_Team[/url]

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14425506]For what it's worth the NBA crowned Russell the GOAT in 1980.

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_35th_Anniversary_Team[/url][/QUOTE]

:applause:



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

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


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



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



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


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


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


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




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


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

[QUOTE=coastalmarker99;14425507]:applause:



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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14425511]Hard to go against a team that had a 68-13 record and a peak Wilt, I'm certain the '72 Lakers were right there in the discussion as well for GOAT team, but Wilt himself said numerous times that the '67 Sixers were the better team.[/QUOTE]


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



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

[QUOTE=coastalmarker99;14425515]The 72 Lakers would have given the 1967 76ers all that they could handle as West and Goodrich would have done well against the 76er's guards of Wally Jones and Hal Geer.



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

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

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

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14425517]As far as single season teams are concerned, the consensus was that those were the two best teams ever by a comfortable margin up until the mid 80's came around.

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


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


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


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


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



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


Losing the 1968 ECF to the Celtics was a fluke.


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

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




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






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



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



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


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


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



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

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



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



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




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

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14425517]As far as single season teams are concerned, the consensus was that those were the two best teams ever by a comfortable margin up until the mid 80's came around.

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




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


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

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


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



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




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


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

[B]We need more votes!! [/B]

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

[QUOTE=coastalmarker99;14425344][B]Russell was a system player[/B]--the ultimate system player to be sure, but I wonder if, as legendary, as he was, he would have been nearly as effective in another system and with worse teammates around him.





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


I am not sure you can say that of Russell.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

[QUOTE=jlip;14425640]I am burned out with debates which is why I rarely ever post lengthy rebuttals anymore, but the disrespect to Russell I'm seeing in this thread is hilarious. The older posters such as G.O.A.T. and ThaRegul8r especially, would easily tear several of the anti- Russell arguments to shreds. With that being said, I don't really do rankings anymore. I have tiers, and anybody on my tier 1 has a legitimate case for GOAT.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=jlip;14425640]I am burned out with debates which is why I rarely ever post lengthy rebuttals anymore, but the disrespect to Russell I'm seeing in this thread is hilarious. The older posters such as G.O.A.T. and ThaRegul8r especially, would easily tear several of the anti- Russell arguments to shreds. With that being said, I don't really do rankings anymore. I have tiers, and anybody on my tier 1 has a legitimate case for GOAT.[/QUOTE]

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

I will ask you this question dankok8.


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


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

[QUOTE=Dbrog;14425314]66’ Celts went through Oscar, then Wilt, then West/Baylor. How is that not legitly one of the toughest runs to the chip ever?

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

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

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


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





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




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





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


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

[QUOTE=Dbrog;14425314]66’ Celts went through Oscar, then Wilt, then West/Baylor. How is that not legitly one of the toughest runs to the chip ever?

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

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

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


Sam Jones doesn't get enough respect.


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



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




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




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



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



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



Sam Jones career highlights & game-winners.


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

[QUOTE=dankok8;14425698]Who is in your tier 1? Who would you vote for if you had to pick one?[/QUOTE]

Tier 1- Russell, Kareem, MJ, and LeBron

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

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

[QUOTE=jlip;14425864]Tier 1- Russell, Kareem, MJ, and LeBron

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=000;14426013]Does coastalmarker plan on answering my question at some point? What does it mean that Ruseel was a "system player"? That he was the 2017 draymond green of the 60s?[/QUOTE]


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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



Race was a very open subject on those Celtic teams.


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


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


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

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

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


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


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

[QUOTE=000;14426013]Does coastalmarker plan on answering my question at some point? What does it mean that Ruseel was a "system player"? That he was the 2017 draymond green of the 60s?[/QUOTE]

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



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



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



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


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

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



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

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


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


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



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

[QUOTE=8Ball;14426019]Russell had very little offensive talent, couldn't shoot free throws.


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


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

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

Height: 7'2

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


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

9'7.5 standing reach.

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


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


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

Giannis in comparison:

Height: 6'11

Weight: 242 pounds

Wingspan: 7'3

Standing reach: 9'2

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

[QUOTE=8Ball;14426019]Russell had very little offensive talent, couldn't shoot free throws.


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


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


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



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


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



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


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

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



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



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



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


He was lifting weights before almost anybody else was!!

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

[QUOTE=coastalmarker99;14426016]I mean that you can plug Kareem Wilt Jordan and Lebron onto any team and they would still produce the same and provide massive impact on both sides of the court.





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




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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=dankok8;14426031]Lots of good insightful posts here but we need actual votes in order to make a list. :lol

[B]Let's get some votes in here! [/B]We gotta close this thread soon and move on.[/QUOTE]



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



Also just for fun.


I will ask you this question dankok8.


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

[QUOTE=dankok8;14426031]Lots of good insightful posts here but we need actual votes in order to make a list. :lol

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

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

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

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