[QUOTE=CB4GOATPF][B]PEOPLE MUST BE BLIND NOT SEE . ONE MUST ALSO REMEMBER HE HAD TO ADAPT TO OTHER TEAMS 3 DIFFERENT TIMES, SO THERE WASN
Printable View
[QUOTE=CB4GOATPF][B]PEOPLE MUST BE BLIND NOT SEE . ONE MUST ALSO REMEMBER HE HAD TO ADAPT TO OTHER TEAMS 3 DIFFERENT TIMES, SO THERE WASN
[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Yeah, i can't agree on the GOAT backcourt comment. These are some backcourts I'd take over them off the top of my head.
Jerry West/Gail Goodrich(particularly in '72)
Magic/Byron Scott(around '87 or '88)
Magic/Norm Nixon(especially in '82)
Isiah Thomas/Joe Dumars[/QUOTE]
I said arguably the GOAT Backcourt. I don't believe so either. Posters like G.O.A.T. have those 2 as the GOAT backcourt.
But both were HOFs. So he basically enters in a HOF backcourt. With GOAT coach. And plays with another HOF.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]There are at least 2 on the Lakers alone. Magic Johnson and Kobe joined teams with the best bigmen in the NBA and multiple stars along with them. Give me Kareem/Shaq and those early 80s/mid 90s Lakers team over what Bill got. They were carried by superior players. Russell was not.
[/quote]
So you would rather play with Shaq or Kareem, rather than a HOF backcourt, a good argument GOAT coach, and another HOF? :oldlol:
He was playing with the league MVP in his rookie year. It doesn't get much better than that. Along with a GOAT coach, and 2 other HOFs.
Shaq or 2 HOFs/MVP/GOAT Coach.
You tell me which one is better to start out with. :rolleyes:
Also you have to factor in how much Red impacted Russell's devolopment and his play. GOAT coach is really really important for a player's career to go in the right direction. Maybe more important than the players he plays with is the coach he plays with. So KBlaze8855, you really have no argument here. No one was more fortunate than Russell starting their careers.
As for the rest of your post, I've already said Russell gets the most credit. I'm just saying he was extremely fortunate to come into Boston. It's amazing actually. And with luck like that, winning isn't surprising either. It definitely becomes a factor.
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]
Excdept calling it lucky is ignorant. The Celtics and thos great players (plus an all-NBA center) never won before Russell and Bill kept winning after they were gone.
Even if you believe in "luck" Russell's greatness proved able to transcend it.
[/quote]
And ? Whether they won before or after, that has nothing to with my argument. My argument is Russell entered the NBA with the most fortunate situation than any other superstar in NBA history. Deny that. GOAT backcourt (according to you), GOAT coach, and another HOF. Show me another player with entrance grander than that.
[QUOTE]
Chamberlain for one. If he was born into another era his stats would have been a lot lower and he would not have been as physically dominant. Magic, Bird, Jordan also had more "luck" than Russell in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
:roll:
"luck" as in things related to other than Russell. How physically dominant Wilt was on Wilt. That is almost as bad as saying "Russell got lucky because he was good at defense".
Do you realize how stupid you sound now? That's how you sounded on your last post.
Luck as in factors outside of your control. Such as, what TEAM YOU ARE DRAFTED IN. :hammerhead:
No other NBA Superstar in the history of the game was more fortunate than Russell in this aspect.
Like I said beat this. GOAT Backcourt, League MVP, GOAT Coach, and another HOF. Beat that.
[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Get real, Bird? He joined a 29 win tema that had made no other major additions. In fact the team had lost leading scorer Bob McAdoo from the previous year, yet Bird turned them into a 61 win team as a rookie.
Jordan had more luck? He was drafted by a 27 win team and didn't have a good supporting cast until atleast his 5th NBA season.
I'd love to see you try to justify those statements.[/QUOTE]
He thinks "luck" is how good you are too. Watch, "Jordan is lucky because he was fast and athletic, and he could play defense really well". The guy is turning into a troll.
"Bird is lucky because he has a good jumpshot" is what you'll receive.
When all I said was that Russell was lucky because he started his NBA career off at the right place, which is a factor Russell can't control, thus its on his luck. Where as athletics can be controlled by a player.
[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]...[/QUOTE]
Why are you so arrogant. Ask questions if you don't understand something.
First of all I don't believe in "luck". I think Luck is simply probability taken personally.
But if we're to consider luck as circumstances beyond one's control here's my case.
[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Get real, Bird? He joined a 29 win tema that had made no other major additions. In fact the team had lost leading scorer Bob McAdoo from the previous year, yet Bird turned them into a 61 win team as a rookie. [/QUOTE]
McAdoo barely played for the team and was not wanted by Auerbach or Cowens or Fitch or anyone there. Calling him their leading scorer shows me you don't know much about that team or era. I'm not trying to be a di[COLOR="Black"]c[/COLOR]k, just telling you how someone like me who remembers that time would think.
Bird's arrivial coincided with the resurection of Tiny Archibald's career and the peak of Cornbread Maxwell's. The Celtics also made a very significant trade the next year acquiring McHale and Parrish from Golden State for Joe Barry Carroll. (And started winning titles that year) They also picked up Dennis Johnson shortly after (and won two more because no one on their roster could check Andrew Toney prior).
Like Russell he had Auerbach making the moves (Unless foolish owner John Brown was forcing his hand) so that kept solid role players coming in.
But unlike Russell he had free agency and the Celtics legacy (which Bill built) which led to Dj (leaving Phoenix) and Danny Ainge (giving up baseball) and Bill Walton signing as a free agent from LA.
Now I believe Bird is the one who made it all work, but certainly he caught as many or more breaks than Bill Russell.
[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Jordan had more luck? He was drafted by a 27 win team and didn't have a good supporting cast until atleast his 5th NBA season.
[/QUOTE]
Jordan and Russell have a number of career paralells (sp?)
1st: They were drafted by a franchise with no titles before them.
2nd: They played for the best and most prolific coach of their era and the two greatest all-time in terms of titles won as a head man.
3rd: After they were established stars their teams drafted a player who would become the best two-way swingman of his era. (Hondo and Pip)
4th: When they left their team for good, the franchise collapsed.
Now the differences in "luck"
Russell joined a team with more quality players, but to be fair all teams had several quality players. The Celtics had three all-stars (trade one to get Russell) but so did most teams after all there 20 or more all-stars and 9 teams.
Still The Celtics were a middle of the pack team and the Bulls bottom feeders.
Jordan's luck really started in the 1990's. The stars like Magic and Bird saw their careers cut short by disease and injury respectivley and the NBA had enough of the "Jordan Rules" and started calling more fouls. It was the begining of the modern superstar calls.
In the late stages of his career Jordan had way more "luck" due to his era because of modern free agency and international players being a new trend. When the supporting cast from the first three titles faded the Bulls reloaded with free agent former all-stars like Rodman and Ron Harper and the top European player Kukuc.
The Celtics reloaded with Don Nelson (cut by Lakers), Larry Seigfried (rights waived by Syracuse), Bailey Howell (considered washed up by Baltimore and traded for Mel Counts) and Em Bryant (a six ppg scorer traded by NY for a 2nd round pick)
Jordan also had his GREAT coach his whole career whereas Russell had to take over the team as coach when the roster was weakest.
G.O.A.T., I'm making the argument Russell [I]started out[/I] his career more fortunate than any other superstar in NBA history.
You can't really top
GOAT Backcourt (according to you)
Including League MVP
Another HOF
GOAT Coach
And I think the last one, coach, seems to be the most underrated. Red played a major role in the development of Russell. He directed him towards the right path. Russell receiving Red is probably even more fortunate than him receiving GOAT Backcourt or 3 HOFs.
And no nothing related to being a good basketball player (Good Scorer, good speed, etc.) counts as luck lol. That's on their own hard work.
[QUOTE]So you would rather play with Shaq or Kareem, rather than a HOF backcourt, a good argument GOAT coach, and another HOF?
He was playing with the league MVP in his rookie year. It doesn't get much better than that. Along with a GOAT coach, and 2 other HOFs.
Shaq or 2 HOFs/MVP/GOAT Coach.
You tell me which one is better to start out with.[/QUOTE]
Give me Shaq/Nick/Eddie/Fisher/Campbell over Cousy and Sharman yes. Russell joined them and led them to greatness. It would be easier to join a team already great. Its not luck when you join a team that has never done anything and they suddenly become the greatest winners ever and the moment you leave they are back in the lottery. If anyones lucky its the people who got to play with him. Not like he walked into a champion lockerroom and kept the tradition.
And Magic joined a Laker team with 4 all star level players one of them the best player in the league and one of them an older 18/9 point who he could learn from not to mention Spencer Haywood coming off a 24/9 season and Michael Cooper. give me that over cousy/sharman too.
Magic and Kobe joined teams with multiple all stars and great bigmen who were flat out better than them and took the pressure off. guys who already proved capable of more success than Cousy/Sharman did. flat out better players. Far far far better players.
And as for Cousy winning the MVP over Russell....
Russell missed much of the season being in Australia for the summer olympics. It was in December because of the different seasons in the southern hemisphere. And in what im sure is total coincidence.....the Celtics had the worst winning percentage they would have for 12 years.
Besides its well known that Cousy was more loved/admired than Russell and that the league didnt see his value at first. He was one pick from going in the second round. Of coursy flashy visible(white...this was 50s.) cousy got more love right away. Especially when Russell was out of the country for part of the season. He had to beat the league over the head with his greatness to get his due credit.
[QUOTE]Also you have to factor in how much Red impacted Russell's devolopment and his play. GOAT coach is really really important for a player's career to go in the right direction. Maybe more important than the players he plays with is the coach he plays with. So KBlaze8855, you really have no argument here. No one was more fortunate than Russell starting their careers.[/QUOTE]
Who exactly made Russell win 56 games in a row in college with a team that has won nothing since? Who helped him win the gold medal by the widest margin of victory ever at the time? Russell was a winner before he got to Red. Red won nothing on any level without Russell. He didnt win in the BAA. he didnt win on the Blackhawks. He didnt win in the 6 years on the Celtics before russell. Red coached for 16 years before Russell never winning anything on any level. The first year Russell arrives he wins it all....and starts the greatest dynasty ever. Then retires...and Russell coaches the team to 2 titles himself. and im to act like Red had a greater impact on the legacy of Bill than Bill had on him?
If not for Russell you might not know who Red was. Russell was a winner before he got to the NBA.
[QUOTE]As for the rest of your post, I've already said Russell gets the most credit. I'm just saying he was extremely fortunate to come into Boston. It's amazing actually. And with luck like that, winning isn't surprising either. It definitely becomes a factor.[/QUOTE]
Wilt joining a team with 4 other all stars including the second best point of his generation, the second leading scorer in the NBA who already won a ring 2 years earlier, and 2 other all star frontcourt players isnt lucky?
You saying "You have no argument" doesnt make it true.
Russell joined a team that had won nothing of relevance before him and hes the luckiest player ever because of a good backcourt and a coach whos legacy is tied to what he did the moment Bill arrived?
Russell wasnt even the luckiest Celtic of his time. KC Jones is in the HOf as a player because he won 10 titles counting college. All 10 of them on Bill Russells team. Russell is the greatest winner of all time and only 1 significant player he played with won anything without him. Hondo. And that was after 2 years rebuilding and drafting another HOF bigman with the great pick they got from being bad without Russell.
But hes the lucky one?
If you gotta pick one way or the other they were lucky to have him. Not the other way around. If only for the fact he won without every single player/coach who ever won with him that seems obvious. He won it all without Cousy, Sharman, Red, Sam Jones, Hondo and so on. No matter the lineup his team won it all. Only Hondo won without him. And it took a 34 win season without Bill to draft Cowens to get back to form.
Bill Russell is living breathing victory and everyone he played with has a greater legacy because of it.
[QUOTE=KG215]That's because Wilt wore out his welcome with two teams and was traded two different times. The caoches and players didn't like playing with him. Not in a million years would the Celtics have even considered trading Russell.
[B][COLOR="Blue"]Well their fault for not beinbg able to build teams well. [U]THEY WHERE NOT THE BEST COACH OF ALL TIME IN RED.[/U]
A MASTER EYE FOR PICKING MISSING LINKS-PIECES, BULDING A TEAM DEEPLY AND ORQUESATING A SYSTEM FROM POINT A TO Z
That’s because Russell was a MISSING LINK AN ANCHOR to What THE CELTICS NEEDED AND ALREADY HAD (GREAT OFFENSE/SHOOTING/GAME CREATING: BOB COUSY)
THEY DIDN
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Give me Shaq/Nick/Eddie/Fisher/Campbell over Cousy and Sharman yes. Russell joined them and led them to greatness. It would be easier to join a team already great. Its not luck when you join a team that has never done anything and they suddenly become the greatest winners ever and the moment you leave they are back in the lottery. If anyones lucky its the people who got to play with him. Not like he walked into a champion lockerroom and kept the tradition.
And Magic joined a Laker team with 4 all star level players one of them the best player in the league and one of them an older 18/9 point who he could learn from not to mention Spencer Haywood coming off a 24/9 season and Michael Cooper. give me that over cousy/sharman too.
Magic and Kobe joined teams with multiple all stars and great bigmen who were flat out better than them and took the pressure off. guys who already proved capable of more success than Cousy/Sharman did. flat out better players. Far far far better players.
And as for Cousy winning the MVP over Russell....
Russell missed much of the season being in Australia for the summer olympics. It was in December because of the different seasons in the southern hemisphere. And in what im sure is total coincidence.....the Celtics had the worst winning percentage they would have for 12 years.
Besides its well known that Cousy was more loved/admired than Russell and that the league didnt see his value at first. He was one pick from going in the second round. Of coursy flashy visible(white...this was 50s.) cousy got more love right away. Especially when Russell was out of the country for part of the season. He had to beat the league over the head with his greatness to get his due credit.
Who exactly made Russell win 56 games in a row in college with a team that has won nothing since? Who helped him win the gold medal by the widest margin of victory ever at the time? Russell was a winner before he got to Red. Red won nothing on any level without Russell. He didnt win in the BAA. he didnt win on the Blackhawks. He didnt win in the 6 years on the Celtics before russell. Red coached for 16 years before Russell never winning anything on any level. The first year Russell arrives he wins it all....and starts the greatest dynasty ever. Then retires...and Russell coaches the team to 2 titles himself. and im to act like Red had a greater impact on the legacy of Bill than Bill had on him?
If not for Russell you might not know who Red was. Russell was a winner before he got to the NBA.
Wilt joining a team with 4 other all stars including the second best point of his generation, the second leading scorer in the NBA who already won a ring 2 years earlier, and 2 other all star frontcourt players isnt lucky?
You saying "You have no argument" doesnt make it true.
Russell joined a team that had won nothing of relevance before him and hes the luckiest player ever because of a good backcourt and a coach whos legacy is tied to what he did the moment Bill arrived?
Russell wasnt even the luckiest Celtic of his time. KC Jones is in the HOf as a player because he won 10 titles counting college. All 10 of them on Bill Russells team. Russell is the greatest winner of all time and only 1 significant player he played with won anything without him. Hondo. And that was after 2 years rebuilding and drafting another HOF bigman with the great pick they got from being bad without Russell.
But hes the lucky one?
If you gotta pick one way or the other they were lucky to have him. Not the other way around. If only for the fact he won without every single player/coach who ever won with him that seems obvious. He won it all without Cousy, Sharman, Red, Sam Jones, Hondo and so on. No matter the lineup his team won it all. Only Hondo won without him. And it took a 34 win season without Bill to draft Cowens to get back to form.
Bill Russell is living breathing victory and everyone he played with has a greater legacy because of it.[/QUOTE]
I know Russell is great and all
But I can't believe you are arguing
Shaq/Role Players over League MVP/HOF, another HOF, another HOF, and a GOAT caliber Coach.
Really KBlaze8855? That's a big slap in the face to the HOFs and even Red. Just total disrespect.
Shaq/Role Players or 3 HOFs/GOAT Coach. Give me Shaq/Roleplayers? wow.
Especially considering coaches, (And by the way Russell himself said Red had A LOT do with the player he became, both had tremendous respect for each other), play a big role in developing players, and maybe no one did it better than Red.
Whatever. I don't know how many other people would take Shaq/Role Players, over 3 HOFs/GOAT coach for their careers to develop. You'd have to be nearly retarded. And remember this is in the 60s. So Kobe got Shaq/Role Players with MJ running the show. You'd be in Kobe's situation, rather than in the 60s, where Cousy was the best offensive player in the league, you had coach Red, and 2 other players that at least 1 was among Top 5.
I mean wow, you had a PG that could also set you up. The arguments for 3 HOFs/GOAT Coach just keeps getting stronger. Who wouldn't want to play with the best playmaker in the league?
I can't believe you actually even considred Shaq/Role Players.
It's got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard on ISH.
Remember, this is all relative to era.
[quote=G.O.A.T]More amazing than 11 NBA titles, 2 NCAA titles and a Gold Medal in 15 years?
More amazing having the most Championships in the history all American team sports, winning the only title ever as a player coach and doing it again the next year?
More amazing than being undefeated in game sevens and averagin more points, rebounds and assists in those games than you did during any season of your career?[/quote]
If your going to list stats like that you forgot to mention that Wilt lead the league in assists for a season. First C to lead the league in assists for an entire season, no PF/C has done so since. Russell did have slightly better talent around him, he was surrounded by hof'ers. Wilt was as well during his time with the Lakers but he only beat Russell one time during that span. He definitely did not have anywhere near the talent level that Russel had when he was with Philly. Basketball is a team game and you can't put too much blame or praise on a player in winning championships. Shaq/Kobe/Payton/Malone couldn't beat Hamiliton/Billups/Sheed/Tayshaun.
Russell is the better winner, Wilt is the better talent. Russell was/is definitely way smarter than Wilt. He is a true scholar of the game, still attends NBA games, especially during the playoffs. I saw him once on sportscenter and he said that he had visited the Dali Lama multiple times and have had extensive conversations with him regarding dharma and the afterlife. Wilt is the best offensive C to ever play the game, he was more athletic than Kareem. Wilt actually played Kareem when he was 17 in a charity event I believe. But this was back when Kareem was still
Lew Alcindor.
[QUOTE]I know Russell is great and all
But I can't believe you are arguing
Shaq/Role Players over League MVP/HOF, another HOF, another HOF, and a GOAT caliber Coach.
Really KBlaze8855? That's a big slap in the face to the HOFs and even Red. Just total disrespect. [/QUOTE]
**** outta here. There are 130 HOF players. Doesnt mean they are all elite players. Shaq led his team to 3 titles. why wouldnt I take him over cousy/Sharman who did nothing similar till Russell led them?
Id take Shaq over say....Nash and Joe Johnson too. Its not disrespect to take Shaq over these guys. Hes flat better than them. Lets not act like someone playing 50 years ago means they are legends to a greater degree. They did nothing to make me want them over Shaq in any era. Even throwing out that hes factually better Shaq did more in his era than they did in theirs.
[QUOTE]Shaq/Role Players or 3 HOFs/GOAT Coach. Give me Shaq/Roleplayers? wow. [/QUOTE]
Shaq and 2 all stars and good role players. Yes. Feel free to take the inferior players and lose to my team. Not like you can even say that for their era they were better. They did nothing pre Russell to stand up to Shaqs legacy.
[QUOTE]Especially considering coaches, (And by the way Russell himself said Red had A LOT do with the player he became, both had tremendous respect for each other), play a big role in developing players, and maybe no one did it better than Red.
Whatever. I don't know how many other people would take Shaq/Role Players, over 3 HOFs/GOAT coach for their careers to develop. You'd have to be nearly retarded. And remember this is in the 60s. So Kobe got Shaq/Role Players with MJ running the show. You'd be in Kobe's situation, rather than in the 60s, where Cousy was the best offensive player in the league, you had coach Red, and 2 other players that at least 1 was among Top 5.[/QUOTE]
You say HOF coach and players like everyone in the HOF is created equal. shaq is not a standard HOF player. Shaq in the time in question could compare to anyone ever. Give me Shaq, Wilt, Kareem, or Russell over the combo you offer. this isnt even a title winning back court...and id take shaq over isiah/Dumars....who are.
[QUOTE]I mean wow, you had a PG that could also set you up. The arguments for 3 HOFs/GOAT Coach just keeps getting stronger. Who wouldn't want to play with the best playmaker in the league?[/QUOTE]
Russells value wasnt as much offensive as defense and chemistry. He had a great offensive value but his legacy is defensive. If I can be a young offensive guard like Magic/Kobe...and have Shaq/Kareem and a number of others to fit my game or a young defensive bigman....and play with Nash or Cousy?
How does a point come into a better situation than being mentored by a star point and playing with the greatest low post weapon since Wilt while running the way showtime did with Cooper, Wilkes, and Haywood? magic had the perfect team to join and id take it easily over joining the pre Russell celtics.
[QUOTE]I can't believe you actually even considred Shaq/Role Players. [/QUOTE]
I cant believe you disregard the simple fact that Shaq/Kareem are better than the Celtics players were and that godly bigmen win games more than flashy guards.
[QUOTE]It's got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard on ISH. [/QUOTE]
Red himself wouldnt trade Shaq or Kareem for cousy and so on.
[QUOTE]Remember, this is all relative to era.[/QUOTE]
What did Cousy and Sharman do in their era to compare to what Shaq and Kareem did in theirs that makes me wish to play with them?
They were on a team with 3 or 4 all stars depending on the season and their BEST was nearly getting swept in the second round.
Tell me. Tell me...what did the great cousy/sharman backcourt do to make a young player feel their career is in better shape joining them than joining 2 of the 3-4 best bigmen of all time?
And what did Shaq do pre-Kobe?
What has had he done before? Finals sweep? 1st round sweep? What has he done?
Cousy at least was playing at an MVP level, and was a Top 3 player in the NBA (like Shaq) during that time.
You tell me, if you were Bill Russell, going into the NBA.
Would you rather go play in 57, where now you guys become the favorites, playing with [I]2 HOFs at their primes[/I]. Playing with league MVP and playmaker Bob Cousy. The best offensive player in the game arguably. Playing with GOAT coach Red, who is known to develop his players (And who Bill Russell said he would only want to coach him). And another future HOF who won ROY and was pretty good himself.
Or would you play with O'Neal, and an All-Star in Eddie Jones and role players. And have to go through the defending champion Chicago Bulls (72 wins), and other great teams in the league for your shot at a title.
I mean wtf? :roll:
You would rather play with "Shaq", have tough competition for title, play with a garbage coach, and no one special after that.
Versus, play for the championship right away, the league MVP, 3 HOFs, and the GOAT coach who is going to develop your game?
I mean, you ARE considering the chances of your title relative to competiion. On one side, you got the 97 Bulls, on the other side, the St. Louis Hawks. You DO want to win right? Bill Russell is that you? I mean, it probably doesn't matter to him, but luck says its easier to enter the league and go against the Hawks than the Bulls who are considered one of the GOAT teams. Another point for Russell's incredible luck please.
And you ignored the coach remark. Once again, it's your rookie season, who do you want to help develop your game over the course of your career? Red (who maybe the best in history at it), or some garbage coach? :oldlol:
Once again, Bill Russell said he would only play for Red. That's how close their relationship was. That's how good Red was. Both meant a lot to each other.
[QUOTE=GP_20]And what did Shaq do pre-Kobe?[/QUOTE]
More than you're GOAT coach, backcourt and Hall of Famers combined actually in terms of postseason success.
[QUOTE=GP_20]So you would rather play with Shaq or Kareem, rather than a HOF backcourt, a good argument GOAT coach, and another HOF? :oldlol:
He was playing with the league MVP in his rookie year. It doesn't get much better than that. Along with a GOAT coach, and 2 other HOFs.
Shaq or 2 HOFs/MVP/GOAT Coach.
You tell me which one is better to start out with. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]
First you have to remeber those guys aren't HOF material and Red is not the GOAT coach if not for all the titles they won because of Russell. No one thought of Auerbach as a genius or guys like Frank Russell and Bailey Howell or KC Jones as HOF guys in 1959.
But just because it's fun to show how stupid you've become because your so stubborn and all your arguments are strictly stat based...
Let's look at:
Shaq titles without Kobe: 1
trips to the finals without Kobe: 2
Kareem titles without Magic: 1
Trips to the finals without Magic: 2
GOAT coach titles without Russell: 0
Trips to the Finals without Russell: 0
GOAT back court titles without Russell: 0
Trips to the Finals without Russell: 0
Other Celtic HOF's of 50's and 60's titles without Russell: 0
Trips to the Finals without Russell: 0
Hmmmmmmmm; which do I want...
[QUOTE=GP_20]He thinks "luck" is how good you are too. Watch, "Jordan is lucky because he was fast and athletic, and he could play defense really well". [/QUOTE]
Never said anything like that; nothing even close. Why would you say that?
[QUOTE=GP_20]And what did Shaq do pre-Kobe?
What has had he done before? Finals sweep? 1st round sweep? What has he done?[/QUOTE]
What did Auerbach, COusy, Sharman and the others do before Russell?
[QUOTE=GP_20]Cousy at least was playing at an MVP level, and was a Top 3 player in the NBA (like Shaq) during that time. [/QUOTE]
Cousy never won MVP until Russell joined the team and only won it once when Russell missed most of the year to win a Gold Medal and serve his Country.
Get educated.
[QUOTE=GP_20]You tell me, if you were Bill Russell, going into the NBA.
Would you rather go play in 57, where now you guys become the favorites,
They didn't become the favorites; the '57 Finals was a pretty major upset. Before the season Petit and the Hawks were heavy favorites as you could red in Cousy's biography. (But why learn anything when you can just tell people what's right)
[QUOTE=GP_20]Playing with league MVP and playmaker Bob Cousy. The best offensive player in the game arguably. [/QUOTE]
No arguable. He shot 35-40% and assists were not held in high regard. EVERYONE considered Petitt and Arizin better offensive players. (You can read about this too if you'd like)
[QUOTE=GP_20]Playing with GOAT coach Red, who is known to develop his players (And who Bill Russell said he would only want to coach him). And another future HOF who won ROY and was pretty good himself. [/QUOTE]
This wasn't Red's reputation at the time and he always said Russell had more to do with the players improvement then he did...(Also available info from a book)
If I were a mod, you'd be banned just so more people don't read what you say and become dumber.
Can we get a merge with the Felton\Norman thread please...lets of links and info pertaining to this debate there...
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]What did Auerbach, COusy, Sharman and the others do before Russell?
[/quote]
I was countering what KBlaze said. He told me what you just said above. And I countered with what has Shaq done. And now you are going to ask the same question he did to me...read things in context idiot :hammerhead:
I'm countering his argument by using it, not making my own. I'm just saying what Shaq did before and what Cousy/Sharman did is not very different.
[QUOTE]
Cousy never won MVP until Russell joined the team and only won it once when Russell missed most of the year to win a Gold Medal and serve his Country.
Get educated. [/QUOTE]
I said Cousy was playing at an MVP [I]level[/I].
Learn to read before you reply please. And as he showed, he was definately playing at that level.
[QUOTE]
They didn't become the favorites; the '57 Finals was a pretty major upset. Before the season Petit and the Hawks were heavy favorites as you could red in Cousy's biography. (But why learn anything when you can just tell people what's right)[/QUOTE]
The 57 Finals was a major upset?
[B]Final Records:[/B]
Celtics: 44-28
Hawks: 34-38
The Cetlics winning was a major upset in the NBA Finals? They had 1, 2, 3, 4, HOFs, League MVP, ROY, and GOAT Coach, and it was an upset they beat the 34-38 Hawks? A major upset? :oldlol:
You just lost [I]all [/I]credibility
And that wasn't even my point. I was comparing them to the 97 Bulls.
That's a close isn't it G.O.A.T. 34-38 Hawks vs. 69-13 Bulls. :oldlol:
Russell was so damn lucky he had NOWHERE near the challenge in the Finals.
[QUOTE]
No arguable. He shot 35-40% and assists were not held in high regard. EVERYONE considered Petitt and Arizin better offensive players. (You can read about this too if you'd like)[/QUOTE]
Is that why he was winning MVP with no defensive game? What was he doing so well then? Rebounding? Get out of here with your usual trash. He was voted MVP purely based on his offensive game and his team usually ranked at the top on offense, definitely one of the best offensive players in the history of the game.
[QUOTE]
This wasn't Red's reputation at the time and he always said Russell had more to do with the players improvement then he did...(Also available info from a book)[/QUOTE]
Whether it was Red's reputation at the time or not, he proved that he was great at it.
[quote]
If I were a mod, you'd be banned just so more people don't read what you say and become dumber.[/QUOTE]
I would do the same for you. Because I feel like I'm getting more stupid by reading your posts.
57 Finals an upset? Cousy not even arguable the best offensive player?
You are such a joke.
So many people here have said so and only you and Shaqattack (who I've also been a dick too) have a problem with me.
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]You are such a joke.
So many people here have said so and only you and Shaqattack (who I've also been a dick too) have a problem with me.[/QUOTE]
Trolls and idiot generally over populate the intelligent posters.
Not surprised.
Also I admit when I am wrong...As I'll do now
When Russell came to the league, he played with 4 HOFs (not 3).
My bad my bad guys.
I think that's a record for any superstar? To come into the league and play with 4 Future HOFs?
Why does it seem Russell is breaking all these records based on luck/teammates. Coincidence that he also holds the TEAM accomplishment records as well? Well if you're ignorant...then maybe
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]
McAdoo barely played for the team and was not wanted by Auerbach or Cowens or Fitch or anyone there. Calling him their leading scorer shows me you don't know much about that team or era. I'm not trying to be a di[COLOR="Black"]c[/COLOR]k, just telling you how someone like me who remembers that time would think.
Bird's arrivial coincided with the resurection of Tiny Archibald's career and the peak of Cornbread Maxwell's. The Celtics also made a very significant trade the next year acquiring McHale and Parrish from Golden State for Joe Barry Carroll. (And started winning titles that year) They also picked up Dennis Johnson shortly after (and won two more because no one on their roster could check Andrew Toney prior).
Like Russell he had Auerbach making the moves (Unless foolish owner John Brown was forcing his hand) so that kept solid role players coming in.
But unlike Russell he had free agency and the Celtics legacy (which Bill built) which led to Dj (leaving Phoenix) and Danny Ainge (giving up baseball) and Bill Walton signing as a free agent from LA.
Now I believe Bird is the one who made it all work, but certainly he caught as many or more breaks than Bill Russell.
Jordan and Russell have a number of career paralells (sp?)
1st: They were drafted by a franchise with no titles before them.
2nd: They played for the best and most prolific coach of their era and the two greatest all-time in terms of titles won as a head man.
3rd: After they were established stars their teams drafted a player who would become the best two-way swingman of his era. (Hondo and Pip)
4th: When they left their team for good, the franchise collapsed.
Now the differences in "luck"
Russell joined a team with more quality players, but to be fair all teams had several quality players. The Celtics had three all-stars (trade one to get Russell) but so did most teams after all there 20 or more all-stars and 9 teams.
Still The Celtics were a middle of the pack team and the Bulls bottom feeders.
Jordan's luck really started in the 1990's. The stars like Magic and Bird saw their careers cut short by disease and injury respectivley and the NBA had enough of the "Jordan Rules" and started calling more fouls. It was the begining of the modern superstar calls.
In the late stages of his career Jordan had way more "luck" due to his era because of modern free agency and international players being a new trend. When the supporting cast from the first three titles faded the Bulls reloaded with free agent former all-stars like Rodman and Ron Harper and the top European player Kukuc.
The Celtics reloaded with Don Nelson (cut by Lakers), Larry Seigfried (rights waived by Syracuse), Bailey Howell (considered washed up by Baltimore and traded for Mel Counts) and Em Bryant (a six ppg scorer traded by NY for a 2nd round pick)
Jordan also had his GREAT coach his whole career whereas Russell had to take over the team as coach when the roster was weakest.[/QUOTE]
Regarding McAdoo, my point was that it's not like they added much to the team other than Bird and that they took away the one guy on the team capable of getting them 20 points per game. Bird gave them a go to guy offensively right away. And as far as Archibald's resurrection. Well don't you think that playing with a guy like Bird might have had something to do with that? You talk a lot about Russell's ability to make his teammates better, but wouldn't you agree that Bird had the same quality? Afterall, Archibald was there the year before and Cowens was declining.
Bird didn't come into a good situation his rookie year, he turned it into a good situation right away. He turned it into a good situation which is what kept good players coming to the Celtics. Don't forget that Boston faced 2 teams with more talent than them. The Showtime Lakers and the Moses Malone/Dr. J Sixers.
Jordan had talent and a great coach later, but he didn't have that coach until his 6th season and that's really when the championship caliber talent came around as well. Russell had a great coach and a great team in his rookie year.
Granted they were not a championship caliber team without him, but they did finish 6 games over .500 and they added hall of famer Tommy Heinsohn in Russell's rookie year as well.
[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Regarding McAdoo, my point was that it's not like they added much to the team other than Bird and that they took away the one guy on the team capable of getting them 20 points per game. Bird gave them a go to guy offensively right away. And as far as Archibald's resurrection. Well don't you think that playing with a guy like Bird might have had something to do with that? You talk a lot about Russell's ability to make his teammates better, but wouldn't you agree that Bird had the same quality? Afterall, Archibald was there the year before and Cowens was declining.[/QUOTE]
Agree with all of this, I gave Bird that credit in my last post. Just saying that without the Parish \McHale steal and the later additions, maybe he doesn't win three titles...Not saying that should be held against him, just saying that's as much luck as Russell joining a team of good players that had never won anything prior to his arrival. Bird made the Celtics contenders, Russell made the Celtics Champions.
[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Jordan had talent and a great coach later, but he didn't have that coach until his 6th season and that's really when the championship caliber talent came around as well. Russell had a great coach and a great team in his rookie year.[/QUOTE]
I disagree (sort of), they were a good coach and good team before Russell, Bill made them great.
[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Granted they were not a championship caliber team without him, but they did finish 6 games over .500 and they added hall of famer Tommy Heinsohn in Russell's rookie year as well.[/QUOTE]
Is Tommy Heinsohn a HOFer if he doesn't play with Russell? He doesn't think so.
No way Bailey Howell, Frank Ramsey or KC Jones get in without winning those titles and even Sam Jones is iffy. If he's not on the Celtics he might have to be the man on a team, he never wanted that.
Only Cousy and Hondo were great with Russell, the rest were good players that Auerbach and Russell got the most out of with a tireless work ethic and indomitable will to win.
Also I should I apologize to you for being an as[COLOR="Black"]s[/COLOR]hole; even though I think sometimes you're way too stubborn, you bring a lot to most discussions you are in.
Russell has even admitted that Wilt was better than him on D ... which was by far the strongest part of his game ... and couple that with Wilt being eponentially better on offense .. the answer is obvious ...
[QUOTE]And what did Shaq do pre-Kobe?
What has had he done before? Finals sweep? 1st round sweep? What has he done?[/QUOTE]
Even aside from being factually superior....the finals alone is more than they did.
[QUOTE]Cousy at least was playing at an MVP level, and was a Top 3 player in the NBA (like Shaq) during that time.[/QUOTE]
Winning the MVP doesnt mean he was the most valuable player and if he was...I already said there are a number of MVPs I wouldnt take over Shaq and a couple all stars with him.
[QUOTE]
You tell me, if you were Bill Russell, going into the NBA.
Would you rather go play in 57, where now you guys become the favorites, playing with 2 HOFs at their primes. Playing with league MVP and playmaker Bob Cousy. The best offensive player in the game arguably. Playing with GOAT coach Red, who is known to develop his players (And who Bill Russell said he would only want to coach him). And another future HOF who won ROY and was pretty good himself.
Or would you play with O'Neal, and an All-Star in Eddie Jones and role players. And have to go through the defending champion Chicago Bulls (72 wins), and other great teams in the league for your shot at a title.
I mean wtf?
You would rather play with "Shaq", have tough competition for title, play with a garbage coach, and no one special after that.
Versus, play for the championship right away, the league MVP, 3 HOFs, and the GOAT coach who is going to develop your game?[/QUOTE]
For one....what Russell would choose to do is not relevant to the matter of who was more lucky. It is Russell vs a number of others luck wise not asking if Russell would be better suited to join the league 40 years later and be thrown onto a team with Shaq. Its Magic on the Lakers, Kobe on the Lakers, and Russell on the Celtics. You said he was most lucky of any player ever to be where he was. It is irrelevant what his luck would be in a time machine situation. where we pluck him from 1956 and let him choose where to go. If we are gonna get into the era argument there is a lot more reason to be in the 90s than the 50s for a black athlete.
I might as well ask what Kobe would choose considering that he likely could own the 50s even more than he owns this league.
Issue is the players/coaches/situation and how much it does to help the player in each situation.
considering that Bill joined a team that did nothing with players he was better than and a coach who had accomplished zero in 16 years without him.....and that Magic would be joining the Lakers with the best player in the league, a star point to mento him, finishers everywhere and be one of 4 all stars and a guy who put up 24/9 the season before? Or Kobe joining a team with an all star level backcourt, the best bigman of the era, and tons of great role players as the core of the team comes together for 3 rings and 4 finals?
I mean...what evidence is there that either of them could have been dropped into a better situation?
Magic won 5 rings made 8 finals and was the finals MVP as a rookie. Kobe wasnt great early due to his age but cmon...he was an NBA all star at 19 and has half the fans now saying hes better than Jordan. Any evidence of his development being stunted?
[QUOTE]I mean, you ARE considering the chances of your title relative to competiion. On one side, you got the 97 Bulls, on the other side, the St. Louis Hawks. You DO want to win right? Bill Russell is that you? I mean, it probably doesn't matter to him, but luck says its easier to enter the league and go against the Hawks than the Bulls who are considered one of the GOAT teams. Another point for Russell's incredible luck please.[/QUOTE]
Magic won the title as a rookie and Kobe had 3 rings when he was what...24? Winning it all isnt an issue for any of them. They already did it It happened. Its just a matter of who came into the best situation. Magic joined a set of out of this world offensive players one of which the best weapon of his generation(if not any generation) with an all star mentor at his position in one of the worst conferences of all time depth wise.
And again....I used only one team. You are talking about him being the luckiest athlete ever and the Lakers alone have guys like Kobe and Magic dropped into the most perfect situation I can imagine for players of their type.
[QUOTE]And you ignored the coach remark. Once again, it's your rookie season, who do you want to help develop your game over the course of your career? Red (who maybe the best in history at it), or some garbage coach? [/QUOTE]
How did not having Red hurt Magic and Kobe again?
In what way have their skillsets suffered?
Again...you arent talking about hypothetical people. These things already happened. What is Magic gonna do as a rookie if Red is his coach? Win the title extra hard? How did ending up with Riley/Phil hurt these guys?
[QUOTE]Once again, Bill Russell said he would only play for Red. That's how close their relationship was. That's how good Red was. Both meant a lot to each other.[/QUOTE]
I didnt say Red wasnt good or that they were not close. I said Russell won without every single player and coach. They did not do so without him. Russell was arguably the greatest winner in NCAA history, went on to be the greatest winner thus far in Olympic history(54ppg average margin of victory...Russell the captian and leading scorer), joins the Celtics and a coach and players who had won nothing become the greatest winners in history next to him.
And hes the lucky now. Not them. Hes the luckiest.....ignoring that everything he did with them he did without them right down to coaching 2 title teams.
How is he luckier for playing with them than they are for playing with him...if you admit hes the primary reason they won? How is the guy leading lesser people to success more lucky for that success...than the people riding his coattails to it?
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Even aside from being factually superior....the finals alone is more than they did.
[/quote]
Getting swept out of the Finals is not a major accomplishment. Shaq did not do a lot more than Cousy/Sharman. So I don't see the point of "What did Cousy/Sharman accomplish previous to Russell". Because just like Shaq, they had insignificant accomplishments. So at best, it's a really weak argument.
[QUOTE]
Winning the MVP doesnt mean he was the most valuable player and if he was...I already said there are a number of MVPs I wouldnt take over Shaq and a couple all stars with him.[/QUOTE]
Yes of course. But this is relative to era. Cousy was a Top 3 player in the league back then. So was O'Neal. Neither were the best (57 vs. 97). This isn't Shaq vs. Cousy as much as Shaq relative to the league vs. Cousy relative to the league. I hope you understand why. There is no time machine. Kobe joined Shaq in 97, and Russell joined Cousy in 57.
[QUOTE]
Issue is the players/coaches/situation and how much it does to help the player in each situation.
considering that Bill joined a team that did nothing with players he was better than and a coach who had accomplished zero in 16 years without him.....and that Magic would be joining the Lakers with the best player in the league, a star point to mento him, finishers everywhere and be one of 4 all stars and a guy who put up 24/9 the season before? Or Kobe joining a team with an all star level backcourt, the best bigman of the era, and tons of great role players as the core of the team comes together for 3 rings and 4 finals?
I mean...what evidence is there that either of them could have been dropped into a better situation?
Magic won 5 rings made 8 finals and was the finals MVP as a rookie. Kobe wasnt great early due to his age but cmon...he was an NBA all star at 19 and has half the fans now saying hes better than Jordan. Any evidence of his development being stunted?
[/QUOTE]
I'll give you that Magic was also very fortunate.
But it wasn't a dream entrance either. Funny how you don't mention Norm Nixon. He was also a great passer/playmaker who played Magic's game. Who played Bill's game in Boston? He immediately became the defensive anchor and was able to do what he did best, defend. On the other hand, Magic's playmaking ability was limited. So let's not ignore this.
[QUOTE]
Magic won the title as a rookie and Kobe had 3 rings when he was what...24? Winning it all isnt an issue for any of them. They already did it It happened. Its just a matter of who came into the best situation. Magic joined a set of out of this world offensive players one of which the best weapon of his generation(if not any generation) with an all star mentor at his position in one of the worst conferences of all time depth wise.[/QUOTE]
I'm saying at the entrance level. Kobe/Shaq did not immediately start winning. They needed Phil for that. But coming into the league, Kobe did not have Phil. So let's stick to 97.
You tell me. 97 Bulls (69-13), or 57 Hawks (34-38), who had the more fortunate opponent contending for title? This is also part of luck.
[QUOTE]
How did not having Red hurt Magic and Kobe again?
In what way have their skillsets suffered?
Again...you arent talking about hypothetical people. These things already happened. What is Magic gonna do as a rookie if Red is his coach? Win the title extra hard? How did ending up with Riley/Phil hurt these guys?
[/QUOTE]
It didn't hurt them possibly, we'll never know. But we do know that it helped Bill Russell and we do know that he is good at developing players.
[quote]
I didnt say Red wasnt good or that they were not close. I said Russell won without every single player and coach. They did not do so without him. Russell was arguably the greatest winner in NCAA history, went on to be the greatest winner thus far in Olympic history(54ppg average margin of victory...Russell the captian and leading scorer), joins the Celtics and a coach and players who had won nothing become the greatest winners in history next to him.
And hes the lucky now. Not them. Hes the luckiest.....ignoring that everything he did with them he did without them right down to coaching 2 title teams.
How is he luckier for playing with them than they are for playing with him...if you admit hes the primary reason they won? How is the guy leading lesser people to success more lucky for that success...than the people riding his coattails to it?[/QUOTE]
What he was able to do without them has nothing to do with my argument. I'm arguing he was put in a very fortunate situation. And you are replying with even without the fortunate situation he would have done very well. Those are 2 different arguments.
And of course his teammates were also fortunate (more) for playing next to him. But we are talking about Top 10 players here. Of the Top 10 players, he was the most fortunate.
I've been arguing entrance. But over the course of his career, I don't think ANY other Top 10 NBA player has had as much luck with starcasts and more as much as Russell. Wilt has had some great ones, but not every year. Kareem was decaying for Magic, and even Kobe has had some bad starcasts (05-07).
Russell though? Best one? Most fortunate player of the Top 10?
Seriously can anyone name me another Top 10 player of all-time that has had better starcasts/coaches through out his WHOLE career than Russell? Not 1-2 seasons, not 10, but whole career.
There is no coincidence the Top 10 player with the most help has won the most titles. It should've been expected.
Once again, Russell lucks out.
I'm not going to copy down some great points made in Bill Simmons new book, but I was pretty even on the two before reading, and after reading (and thus learning a few things I didn't know before) I am now convinced Russell is the "greater" of the two, while Wilt was better as an individual player.
Too bad basketball isn't an individual game, though... so in my view Russell was the better, more influencial player.
I advise everyone to buy Simmons new book. It's great.
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]
I disagree (sort of), they were a good coach and good team before Russell, Bill made them great.[/QUOTE]
That's pretty much what I meant. They were a good team on their own, but as far as a cast for a star player to have they were great because they had capable players at every position and another legit superstar(Cousy). Russell was what turned them into a great team.
[QUOTE]Is Tommy Heinsohn a HOFer if he doesn't play with Russell? He doesn't think so. [/QUOTE]
Hard to say. If he put up the same numbers he did, but didn't win any rings then I'd say no. But if he was on a team with less talent and he puts up better numbers then who knows?
All I know is that he was a capable player from the start since he won rookie of the year. He doesn't win the award if Russell is there for a full season, but it still tells you that he was a quality addition to the team. And as it turned out he was a key member of the team for years.
[QUOTE]No way Bailey Howell, Frank Ramsey or KC Jones get in without winning those titles and even Sam Jones is iffy. If he's not on the Celtics he might have to be the man on a team, he never wanted that.[/QUOTE]
You're definitely right as far as Ramsey and Jones. Howell? I won't comment on because his resume does look good regardless. 19/10 for a dozen NBA seasons while shooting a well above average(for the time) 48% for his career and missing virtually no games.
[QUOTE]Also I should I apologize to you for being an as[COLOR="Black"]s[/COLOR]hole; even though I think sometimes you're way too stubborn, you bring a lot to most discussions you are in.[/QUOTE]
Thanks and I owe you an apology as well because while I disagree with you have researched the game and watched it for a long time unlike a lot of posters here.
The Bailey Howell point is well taken; he was a fine offensive player for the Pistons and Bullets but he defensive reputation was so notoriously bad before Boston that he was traded for a back-up center who averaged 7 points and 6 rebounds.
Also his 20-12 numbers were put it in the most shots and free throw attempts per game era in NBA history. If guys like George McGinnis and Spencer Haywood can't get in or contemporaries like Larry Costello or Richie Guerin (career 17-5-5 with a peak of 30 ppg) , I can't see them putting Howell in without the Hardware.
[QUOTE=Carbine]I'm not going to copy down some great points made in Bill Simmons new book, but I was pretty even on the two before reading, and after reading (and thus learning a few things I didn't know before) I am now convinced Russell is the "greater" of the two, while Wilt was better as an individual player.
Too bad basketball isn't an individual game, though... so in my view Russell was the better, more influencial player.
I advise everyone to buy Simmons new book. It's great.[/QUOTE]
I just don't know how anyone can take Russell considering Wilt has outrebounded and outscored him in every regular season or playoff series they've ever had. Like how do you do that? That's just amazing. I wonder how many other superstar big men like Shaq or Duncan can say that about another good big man.
Like I said, what does it for me is what Wilt showed throughout his career. Which is everything. He was arguably the greatest scorer ever. He was arguably the greatest rebounder ever. If he had gone down without a ring and just displayed amazing individual domination, I would've picked Russell.
But later Wilt changed his game, and won 2 rings. He showed us that he is also one of the best playmaking centers ever as well. He showed us he can also play the "team game" and fit in perfectly on any type of team when he wants to.
He showed us that also he is a dominant defender. Top 5 at least defensive Centers of all-time.
I mean what am I missing here. [U]You could arguably say Wilt, was a Top 3 Center in each scoring, defense, passing, and rebounding[/U]. :applause:
I agree with that statement. And that's just amazing. That's what makes Wilt the better player.
Not "team arguments" which involve teammates and not the player themselves.
[QUOTE=GP_20]I just don't know how anyone can take Russell considering Wilt has outrebounded and outscored him in every regular season or playoff series they've ever had. Like how do you do that? That's just amazing. I wonder how many other superstar big men like Shaq or Duncan can say that about another good big man. [/QUOTE]
If you understood basketball you'd know. Russell's goals weren't to out-score or out-rebound Chamberlain, they were to win. Everyone from the era takes Russell, you're the crazy one here not them.
[QUOTE=GP_20]Like I said, what does it for me is what Wilt showed throughout his career. Which is everything. He was arguably the greatest scorer ever. He was arguably the greatest rebounder ever. If he had gone down without a ring and just displayed amazing individual domination, I would've picked Russell. [/QUOTE]
You think like Chamberlain, one ring was enough for him too; until people started knocking him again than he wanted and finally after numerous tries got #2.
[QUOTE=GP_20]But later Wilt changed his game,[/QUOTE]
and then he changed it again and again; what are you basing your opinions off of, which book did you read or interviews\videos did you watch?
Here's my favorite part...
[QUOTE=GP_20]I mean what am I missing here. [U]You could arguably say Wilt, was a Top 3 Center in each scoring, defense, passing, and rebounding[/U]. :applause:
I agree with that statement. And that's just amazing. That's what makes Wilt the better player. [/QUOTE]
So you agree were yourself, are amazed at your opinion and think that because of that Wilt is better...are you Wilt Chamberlain?
Few people have been as arrogant and delusional...
[QUOTE=GP_20]Not "team arguments" which involve teammates and not the player themselves.[/QUOTE]
Right Team arguments are stupid, just because it's a five man game and Russell made every player better according to the players themselves and those who observed them doesn't mean that should be considered when evaluating players.
Even though you only rank Wilt above Russell because of his 2 rings...?
[QUOTE=GP_20]If he had gone down without a ring and just displayed amazing individual domination, I would've picked Russell. [/QUOTE]
So two rings plus individual and statistical dominance is greater than 11 rings plus individual dominance.
Explain to use how that makes any sense?
[QUOTE]Getting swept out of the Finals is not a major accomplishment. Shaq did not do a lot more than Cousy/Sharman. So I don't see the point of "What did Cousy/Sharman accomplish previous to Russell". Because just like Shaq, they had insignificant accomplishments. So at best, it's a really weak argument. [/QUOTE]
If losing in the finals isnt a major accomplishment not even getting there is what? Cousy/Sharman/Ed were 3 all stars....all nba first team players. Coached by Red. And combined to do nothing of relevance.
[QUOTE]Yes of course. But this is relative to era. Cousy was a Top 3 player in the league back then. So was O'Neal. Neither were the best (57 vs. 97). This isn't Shaq vs. Cousy as much as Shaq relative to the league vs. Cousy relative to the league. I hope you understand why. There is no time machine. Kobe joined Shaq in 97, and Russell joined Cousy in 57.[/QUOTE]
Shaq in 97 have proven more than Cousy ever did without a superior player on his team. and again...I just gotta point out the fact that shaq is better than this guy. we are talking Shaq here....prime Shaq. With 2 all stars next to him. This is not Cousy/Sharman vs some nobody.
[QUOTE]I'll give you that Magic was also very fortunate.
But it wasn't a dream entrance either. Funny how you don't mention Norm Nixon. He was also a great passer/playmaker who played Magic's game. Who played Bill's game in Boston? He immediately became the defensive anchor and was able to do what he did best, defend. On the other hand, Magic's playmaking ability was limited. So let's not ignore this.[/QUOTE]
I mentioned Norm before you did....
I mentioned him because his presence(as Magic will tell you) was a positive. Playmaking ability being limited? You dont stop playing basketball when it isnt in your hands. Magic had one of the best starts of his career ever. If Norrm hurt him he didnt do a good job of it.
[QUOTE]I'm saying at the entrance level. Kobe/Shaq did not immediately start winning. They needed Phil for that. But coming into the league, Kobe did not have Phil. So let's stick to 97.
You tell me. 97 Bulls (69-13), or 57 Hawks (34-38), who had the more fortunate opponent contending for title? This is also part of luck.[/QUOTE]
You said for your career. And as I said this isnt hypothetical. These things happened. Kobe joined a team of immense talent where he was not looked to dominate and ended up with 3 rings in his early 20s. If we are talking about rookie year only why is the word career even being thrown around? What this is if Kobe stayed a 18 yearold backup his whole career? You spoke of development. How they developed is relevant.
As for finals opponents...
Only relevant once you are in the finals. The 97 Lakers were not. The 80 Lakers were and they won. Im not sure why you are going to hypotheticals. Or why who they play in the finals is a matter of Russells luck when hes the reason they got there in the first place.
It wasnt luck that beat the Hawks. It was russell and Heinson stepping up while the all powerful HOF backcourt shot a combined 5-40 in game 7(Cousy 2-20 Sharman 3-20).
Bill russell won in HS because he was great. He won 56 in a row and 2 titles in college because he was great. He won the gold medal by 54 points a game because he was great. But he gets to the NBA and we gotta start looking for reasons it continued?
The reason is Bill Russell. All the luck and greatness the Celtics had just decided to show up the second he arrived and fly away the moment he left sending them to the lottery.
Guy won at least 15 titles and lost only 1 healthy elimination game on any level in his life.
But hes the lucky one. Not the teammates who won with him and not without him.
He is the lucky one. He needed THEM....
Have people saying he was nothing but Reds missing piece.
Still have people bringing up his HOF teammates as if him winning them 3-10 titles has nothing to do with them being in the HOF.
**** it. If Russell were gonna get the credit hes due hed have gotten it by now. Cousy/Sharman/Red mean hes lucky and not them even if they did nothing before he got there. KC Jones is a great HOF player who put up 7ppg on 35% shooting and played with russell to get rings in the NBA AND college. Wilt being one of 4 or 5 all stars on his first team(depending on if you count a guy who made it the year after or before) isnt enough. He should have had 7 all stars. Plus not all of them are in the hall of fame. And there arent dozens of 50s/60s players who were good but dont get credit as great due to not being on Russells team and therefore a winner. I mean....Guy rodgers...the guy who broke most of Cousys assist records..got to the finals....that guy isnt a 4-5 time ring winner on the Celtics and therefore a HOF player. so him being great doesnt count against Wilt. Makes sense. Paul Arizin didnt accomplish more than Cousy and Sharman even though he put up 29/8 on the way to the title he won without Wilt or Russell. Not like he retired with the highest career PPG anyone retired with until Bob Petitt. Tom Gola didnt also have a title and wasnt all NBA the season before Wilt arrived.
Bill joined a highly successfull team loaded with stars who had proven themselves winners on the highest level time and time again. Wilt joined some scrubs who stole the rings they had from Cousys ample pre russell collection, stuffed the ballots to make those all star games, and bribed the stat keepets into making them look productive.
Its all just so clear to me now.
Now that ive learned the error of my ways allow me to slink away and lick my wounds as I think over the depths of my idiocy.
Goodnight my worthy foe.
Even though you destroyed his everypoint, he'll ignore that and keep saying the same things. He's an idiot when he's wrong about something. He only sees the points that support his side as valid.
You can tell him that he has his history mixed up and he'll just continue to operate as if it's true.
KBlaze8855, why do you keep supporting Russell in this thread (as if he hasn't had enough support already).
Don't YOU think Wilt is better anyways? :confusedshrug:
I've already said Russell was the #1 guy on most his title teams and the #1 reason they won. And without them they would not have won. What more do you want to hear? His teammates needed him more than he needed them. His teammates were more lucky to have him then he was to have them.
I agree with all of that. But that has nothing to do with my point.
Fine forget enterances, throughout their careers, no Top 10 player has had starcasts as good as Russell. Even Kobe has had some horrible starcasts (05-07), Wilt too, Shaq, and the list goes on. Russell?
I think in terms of starcasts/coaches, throughout career, Russell ranks #1 as in having the best with him. Not 1 season, career.
But again, what are you doing? You were supposed to be on Wilt's side. :confusedshrug:
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]If you understood basketball you'd know. Russell's goals weren't to out-score or out-rebound Chamberlain, they were to win. Everyone from the era takes Russell, you're the crazy one here not them.
[/quote]
In order to win, you have to score and rebound. It's a part of winning. You don't just win by showing up, you have to produce. And Wilt produced more than Russell, [I]everytime[/I].
[QUOTE]
You think like Chamberlain, one ring was enough for him too; until people started knocking him again than he wanted and finally after numerous tries got #2. [/QUOTE]
Rings with 2 different teams. Beat that Russell. (Joke)
[QUOTE]
and then he changed it again and again; what are you basing your opinions off of, which book did you read or interviews\videos did you watch?[/QUOTE]
Yes he changed it lots of times. And that's whats so impressive. He's done everything. And whatever he's done he has done it in historically high levels. I don't need to read a book to know that Wilt changed his game later in his career from earlier. That's all I was saying.
[QUOTE]Here's my favorite part...
So you agree were yourself, are amazed at your opinion and think that because of that Wilt is better...are you Wilt Chamberlain?
Few people have been as arrogant and delusional...[/QUOTE]
Once again you misinterpret. I said "arguably Top 3....". And then later I myself support this statement. Which is different from saying "arguably" because arguably might mean you don't support it. But I think he was Top 3 everywhere.
[QUOTE]
Right Team arguments are stupid, just because it's a five man game and Russell made every player better according to the players themselves and those who observed them doesn't mean that should be considered when evaluating players.
Even though you only rank Wilt above Russell because of his 2 rings...?[/QUOTE]
I value Individual Domination with Team Accomplishments on the side. Thus I value both. And without one, Wilt would not be better. And of course I value Individual Domination more in individual comparisons.
[quote]
So two rings plus individual and statistical dominance is greater than 11 rings plus individual dominance.
Explain to use how that makes any sense?[/QUOTE]
Yes because [U]Individual[/U] dominance should be valued more when comparing [U]individual[/U] players. Thus, Wilt's large advantage individually overcomes Russell's team advantage.
[QUOTE]KBlaze8855, why do you keep supporting Russell in this thread (as if he hasn't had enough support already).
Don't YOU think Wilt is better anyways?
I've already said Russell was the #1 guy on most his title teams and the #1 reason they won. And without them they would not have won. What more do you want to hear? His teammates needed him more than he needed them. His teammates were more lucky to have him then he was to have them.
I agree with all of that. But that has nothing to do with my point.
Fine forget enterances, throughout their careers, no Top 10 player has had starcasts as good as Russell. Even Kobe has had some horrible starcasts (05-07), Wilt too, Shaq, and the list goes on. Russell?
I think in terms of starcasts/coaches, throughout career, Russell ranks #1 as in having the best with him. Not 1 season, career.
But again, what are you doing? You were supposed to be on Wilt's side. [/QUOTE]
I dont much care which one anyone picks. Both Wilt and russell have the most insane **** used against him. Wilt is disrespected because he was so dominant he makes people assume his opponents sucked and he was out for himself even though he won 2 titles, made 6 finals, and led 2 of the 4 best teams ever wins wise. And Russell won so much he has people pretending someone else made him a winner because nobody could be that good....even if he was the sole common factor to 15 various champions.
These guys both did so much that the mindblowing things they accomplished are the primary thing used to discredit them and I get more annoyed with it every year.
The side I appear to be on will generally be that of who is hated on most foolishly at the moment. And reading that Bill is just Reds missing piece and that PER means some of these guys riding his coattails were better than him....
Its exactly why I dont read ISH much anymore.
There comes a point where you have to totally disregard what you see or spend every minute arguing. And its easier to not read anything. Really this time...going to bed.
Not sleep. But bed....I have a game on DVR that needs watching.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]I dont much care which one anyone picks. Both Wilt and russell have the most insane **** used against him. Wilt is disrespected because he was so dominant he makes people assume his opponents sucked and he was out for himself even though he won 2 titles, made 6 finals, and led 2 of the 4 best teams ever wins wise. And Russell won so much he has people pretending someone else made him a winner because nobody could be that good....even if he was the sole common factor to 15 various champions.
These guys both did so much that the mindblowing things they accomplished are the primary thing used to discredit them and I get more annoyed with it every year.
The side I appear to be on will generally be that of who is hated on most foolishly at the moment. And reading that Bill is just Reds missing piece and that PER means some of these guys riding his coattails were better than him....
Its exactly why I dont read ISH much anymore.
There comes a point where you have to totally disregard what you see or spend every minute arguing. And its easier to not read anything. Really this time...going to bed.
Not sleep. But bed....I have a game on DVR that needs watching.[/QUOTE]
Yeah they are both generally underrated.
But you don't think Wilt's side was being foolishly hated on this thread? Since you think it's nearly even, you don't think statements like this
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T.]There is no argument for Chamberlain[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T.]It isn't even close.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T.]
I don't understand how people can be so absurd as to ignore all the evidence that shows how clearly superior in every aspect of competition Russell was to Wilt.[/QUOTE]
are foolish? :oldlol:
Hey at least I think it's a good comparison and everything. This is just absurd. You miss these KBlaze885? Total disrespect on Wilt.
And I never said Bill was Red's missing piece. Don't know where you heard that from. And who used PER? Probably CB4GOATPF or whatever, but no one listens to his colored arguments anyways.
[QUOTE=GP_20]
Yes he changed it lots of times. And that's whats so impressive. He's done everything. And whatever he's done he has done it in historically high levels. I don't need to read a book to know that Wilt changed his game later in his career from earlier. That's all I was saying.
[/QUOTE]
It's also been pointed out by people from that time, that Chamberlain changed his game so often for selfish reasons. He wanted to score X amount of points, or average X amount of rebounds, or lead the league in assists, for himself. Not to make his team better. Like G.O.A.T. said, Chamberlain got his 1 ring and was satisfied with that, he then wanted to move on to accomplishing more individual goals. Aren't a lot of players greatness (regardless of sport) measured by level of team success and titles won? Russell set aside personal achievement and success for team success.
Here's a question (and I'm seriously wanting your point of view on this) shouldn't a player as statistically dominant as Wilt won more than 2 rings in that era? I mean, shouldn't someone who dominated statistically at as high of a level as Wilt did, made his teams quite a bit better than any other team in the league on more than 2 occassions? While Shaq had some very impressive statistcal seasons in a much tougher era for big men to put up as gaudy of numbers as they did in the Wilt/Russell era, he has still won 4 rings, and 3 as option A, while never putting up Wiltesque numbers.
You've made it clear that in a case when comparing one player's historical greatness to another player's historical greatness, the individual statistics mean much more to you. But again, when athletes are heavily judged on the amount of success their teams had, and how many titles he won, how can you not see Russell was better?
[QUOTE=GP_20]Yeah they are both generally underrated.
But you don't think Wilt's side was being foolishly hated on this thread? Since you think it's nearly even, you don't think statements like this
are foolish? :oldlol:
Hey at least I think it's a good comparison and everything. This is just absurd. You miss these KBlaze885? Total disrespect on Wilt.
And I never said Bill was Red's missing piece. Don't know where you heard that from. And who used PER? Probably CB4GOATPF or whatever, but no one listens to his colored arguments anyways.[/QUOTE]
This is someone telling you you're wrong and you begging him to tell me I'm wrong. This is what you do.
He understands my argument and why I say the things I do...("did you miss these"...sad dude) if he thought WIlt was better I'd be fine with it because he understands my argument and draws a different conclusion...it's subjective. He also understands hyperbole, context and nuance, which you do not and thus understands when I say "there is no argument against Russell" I mean that laying out all the unbiased evidence I have come across and weighing it based on my educated opinions on what makes a good basketball player I draw a very clear conclusion as to who is better.
When Abe said he preferred Wilt, I asked him why and he explained he values individual season peak the most when measuring a players greatness. At that point I understood and accepted his argument knowing he understood and accepted mine. We both get smarter.
I don't respect or understand your opinion because your opinion is based mostly on other opinions you have a lot of which are factually untrue and\or lack much basis based on everything I've read and seen about the issue. When I point out these flaws you ignore it and continue to make an argument based on stats and opinions that exclusively highlight the good in Chamberlain and the "luck" or "good fortune" of Russell.
Debunking the Myth: Russell came into a great situation and Chamberlain a poor one.
Russell drafted by Celtics in 1957
[B]Celtics four seasons prior:[/B] 163-124
[B]Best Season:[/B] 46-25 Lost in Division Finals
[B]Team Mates[/B] (accomplishments prior to Star's arrival)
F: Tom Hiensohn 22 (rookie) ; rookie averaged 16-10-2
F: Jim Loscutoff 25 (13-14-2);averaged carer highs 13 and 14 in rookie season 1956
G: Bill Sharman 29 (20-4-5); 4 time all-star three time all-nba (he'd double those)
G: Bob Cousy 27 (19-7-9); 6 time all-star 5 time all-NBA
Chamberlain acquired by Warriors in 1960.
[B]Warriors four prior seasons:[/B]151-137
[B]Best Season: [/B]45-27 NBA Champs
[B]Team Mates[/B] (accomplishments prior to Star's arrival)
F: Tom Gola 26 (14-11-4); three-time all-star, (five total) all-NBA in '58, NBA Champ '55
F: Woody Sailsbury 24 (15-12-1); averaged career highs 15 and 12 in his 2nd season 1959
G: Paul Arizin 30 (26-9-2); 7 time all-star; 4-time all-NBA selection NBA Champ '55
G: Guy Rodgers 23 (11-6-6); 2nd year future five time all-star two time league leader assists
Cousy and Arizin are a wash. Both have 11 combined all-NBA+all-star selections when their big man arrives and both put up great numbers the year before. Cousy is three years younger a slight edge to Russ.
The second best player for each team was Tom Gola for Philly a defensive whiz and all-around player who excelled most as a rebounder. Boston had Sharman a defensive whiz and all-around player who excelled most as a shooter. Sharman was the better player, but Gola having the title experience and still as an all-NBA\all-star player helps. He is 26 when Wilt gets there, Sharman 29 when Russ arrives.
The other two players are young for both teams, the PF's both fade quickly after the dominant big men arrive.
Hiensohn gets better with Russell, Rodgers gets better when he leaves Wilt.
So while I think Boston was clearly a better situation overall, not by much. Also factor in that While Philly kept it's core in tact from the 1955 title when they drafted Wilt, Boston lost all-NBA center Ed MacCauley from a team that couldn't even get to the finals to get Russell.