Basketball Philosophy with Bill Russell

But wait, you've been watching basketball for 40 years, what made you go from bashing Wilt's contemporaries to praising them (did your agenda shift?).

Now all of a sudden Russell is GOAT, even though you describe him as "Ben Wallace but a better passer", just a few days ago you mentioned how West/Oscar would be superstars in this league but here we have you saying there is no way West would even be an all-star. Here we have you rambling on and on about how Wilt's '62 season actually wasn't that impressive because he faced undersized centers who couldn't consider dealing with him, but now you write pages saying the opposite. Back then defense wasn't apparently that great, but when people take shots at Wilt? It's suddenly the best defensive era in the league due to shooting percentages (I guess the 50s were even better defensively then). It's not like you didn't know any better, you claim to have been watching basketball since the 60s. Either you haven't been watching as long as you claim (doing a complete 180 on half your opinions in a matter of months) or something in your agenda changed (maybe feeling a bit insecure that people don't respect Wilt, because they don't respect his contemporaries?).

It all shows a pattern to misrepresent facts over time and the fact you mislead people through selective stats (the more ignorant the other person, the better for you). Numerous other posters have said the same thing to you.

But...eeh...continue copy and pasting your crap...

Posted by Fatal9 less than a year ago...

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=165643[/url]

Now, you have Wilt at 10TH????

How about this quote...

[QUOTE]Russell pulled a ***** move imo. I think it was right after the game ended when he made those comments so he didn't know what was going on. He just assumed Wilt quit, when he didn't. You have to be delusional to think Wilt would sit out in a game 7 vs. Russell. It's well documented that he wanted to go back in but the idiot coach had a feud with him. Russell also seems to take every chance he can get to place himself over Wilt. He seems a bit insecure about his legacy, because he's always had to hear "Wilt would win those rings on the Celtics too". You can see it in interviews, he gets almost defensive and sometimes goes out of his way to prove his worth to those teams.[/QUOTE]

I won't take the time to find your quote about Wilt FAKING that injury just a few months ago, but perhaps later.

Or this quote...

[QUOTE]He had to have Magic over Bird or him valuing rings, heads up matches etc etc would throw his whole book out the window. Dude had one thing in mind when he sat down to write the book, prop up Russell over Wilt, by finding every quote, every story that supports his point. In something as opinion based as sports, you can find that type of stuff to make just about any point. He was flat out lying in some of his "facts" (like Wilt never won anything before NBA). Kept using arbitrary stats from selected games to make his point while ignoring Wilt's side of the argument. Tried to pretend like Russell didn't have the supporting cast edge in most of the matchups (navigated around this by using Wilt's teammates when he got old...who he barely played any matchups against Russell with). Used very selective quotes all throughout the chapter. No one with any sort of knowledge is falling for shitty arguments like that.

Simmons already did get ripped apart on ISH. There was a detailed thread a while ago exposing his huge bias and misinformation on the Wilt/Russell topic.[/QUOTE]

Or this one...and it is interesting that a while back YOU posted the SAME recaps and RIPPED Wilt for it...

[QUOTE]He mentions every great performance by Russell in big games and ignores Wilt's great performances completely. Only in a little blurb above does he mention like two Wilt games, as if they were some sort of an anomaly. You could say Wilt's individual performances in big games are even more impressive, especially considering how much more he was expected to do than Russell. I put Wilt's performance in EVERY elimination game he played...but why doesn't Simmons if he is trying to be fair?

at completely ignoring Wilt's rebounding and assist numbers in these games. at him presenting it like Russell held Wilt down himself, when the KEY for Wilt's lower point totals vs. Celtics was ball-denial (reason for lower shot attempts vs. them). Watching even 10 minutes should make anyone realize this. Notice he doesn't even mention Wilt's statline in the 1965 G7 . If you scroll lower you will see him fail to mention Wilt outrebounded Russell again in '68 series. Are people actually trying to present this dude's opinion as legitimate when he is selectively ignoring anything pro-Wilt?[/QUOTE]

Or this...

[QUOTE]Bill Simmons:

"No one has any clutch stories on Chamberlain. If they existed, I'd pass them along."

Yea sure you would

I guess 45/27 to save team from elimination, multiple 30/30 games in same situation, 57/35, 39/26/12, 30/27/11 and all these other performances in do or die games never happened. Either he is ignorant or has an agenda. It's probably both.[/QUOTE]

NOW, do you want me to WASTE my time and go thru every thread here to point out post-after-post spewing "anti-Wilt" crap here in the last six months, and in USING the OPPOSITE arguments???

[QUOTE=jlauber]not to diminish guys like Russell and West, two great defenders...[B]but defense back then was nowhere near as good as it is today.[/B][/QUOTE]

JLauber, I've said this to you before. I find it strange that someone who supposedly watched 60's basketball would change their mind 40+ years later. What footage came out since then that could have convinced you to change your mind?

[QUOTE=jlauber]


NOW, do you want me to WASTE my time and go thru every thread here to point out post-after-post spewing "anti-Wilt" crap here in the last six months, and in USING the OPPOSITE arguments???[/QUOTE]
That's the exact point I am making. I didn't even research Wilt's career up to that point (and I damn sure don't claim to be alive in the 60s unlike you). It was only after I did a year by year look at his career that I discovered how overrated he was. So me changing my opinion after actually learning about his career is bad...how? It shows how I had no reason to be "anti-Wilt" (lol I couldn't care less), as I started out a fan. I'm not the one who claims to have watched all the 60s, say those stars couldn't play today, and then shift around my stance because Wilty is getting criticized.

This would be like me twenty years from now telling kids one thing about this era, and then saying something completely opposite just because it helps my agenda (and then using selecting stats, and completely misrepresenting facts on top of that).

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]JLauber, I've said this to you before. I find it strange that someone who supposedly watched 60's basketball would change their mind 40+ years later. What footage came out since then that could have convinced you to change your mind?[/QUOTE]

Many of my opinions have changed in the last five years...even some here. BUT, I have been pretty damn consistent with the vast majority of them HERE, and in the last year or so.

I have CONSISTENTLY praised the players of the 60's here...in ALL major sports.

And, while I have changed my rankings here, they have also been very consistent. I have always had Shaq and Kareem in my top-6. Yet, I see you ranking players like Bird and Hakeem over both Wilt and Russell, and based on NOTHING. There is simply no shred of evidence that could be generated to possibly rank them over either.

Once again, you find something I have posted HERE, and I will be more than glad to discuss it with you.

I bet most everyone here has changed their minds in the last SIX YEARS. My god, Fatal9 went off the deep end about 6-7 MONTHS ago.

BTW, I find it fascinating that someone would take the time to find quotes from me on another forum that were posted SIX years ago. I amost take it as a compliment that someone would go to that trouble. I didn't know that I was that important.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Many of my opinions have changed in the last five years...even some here. BUT, I have been pretty damn consistent with the vast majority of them HERE, and in the last year or so. I have CONSISTENTLY praised the players of the 60's here...in ALL major sports.[/QUOTE]

But what doesn't make sense to me is if you saw them and that's why you think they're great(and some were great), then why would you be saying they weren't 5 years ago? Did you lose your memory of 60's sports 5 years ago and suddenly remember when you joined this board?

And you didn't answer my question about why you suddenly think defense was better then when you said it wasn't even close back then. What footage came out to change your mind about defense? You must've seen more 60's games than what's available now if you started watching in '64, so if your impression of defense in the 60's in 2005 was inferior based on watching 60's basketball back then, what came out since then that was more convincing than years of watching 60's basketball?

[QUOTE]And, while I have changed my rankings here, they have also been very consistent. I have always had Shaq and Kareem in my top-6. Yet, I see you ranking players like Bird and Hakeem over both Wilt and Russell, and based on NOTHING. There is simply no shred of evidence that could be generated to possibly rank them over either.[/QUOTE]

I'm not even getting into this again with you.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]But what doesn't make sense to me is if you saw them and that's why you think they're great(and some were great), then why would you be saying they weren't 5 years ago? Did you lose your memory of 60's sports 5 years ago and suddenly remember when you joined this board?

And you didn't answer my question about why you suddenly think defense was better then when you said it wasn't even close back then. What footage came out to change your mind about defense? You must've seen more 60's games than what's available now if you started watching in '64, so if your impression of defense in the 60's in 2005 was inferior based on watching 60's basketball back then, what came out since then that was more convincing than years of watching 60's basketball?



[B]I'm not even getting into this again with you[/B].[/QUOTE]



Then why should I respond to you?

But yes, DEFENSE was much better. And BTW, MY reasoning changed because of one of the few decent posts that Fatal9 made...when he posted Kareem just torching Hakeem to death in the 85-86 season. A near 40 year old scoring 35, 42, and 46 points (and on 21-30 shooting) against Hakeem...and then burying Ewing with a 40 point game (while holding Patrick to 2-16 shooting.)

Meanwhile, as I already KNEW, Chamberlain, in the twi-light of HIS career, by ALL accounts (even the Milwaukee writers BTW) outplayed a statistically PRIME Kareem. And, before Wilt's knee injury, he battered Kareem in EVERY facet of the game. I have said it before, but it was really too bad that we didn't see a PRIME Chamberlain against Kareem at any point in his career. I have no doubt that Wilt would have not only outshot and outrebounded him (and by even greater margins), but easily outscored him, as well.

But, beyond that, Thurmond CONSISTENTLY held Kareem WAY down in BOTH scoring and shooting. Kareem struggled to get to 30 against him, and now, thanks to Alexreben, we know that Kareem was held to under 20 points nearly as often as he scored 30. Meanwhile, a PRIME Chamberlain, in his "scoring" prime, had games as high as 45 points against Thurmond (outscoring him 45-13.) AND, even later in his career, he was not only KILLING Thurmond on the glass, he was outshooting him by as much as 200 points (and Wilt ALWAYS shot over 50% against Thurmond, and ALWAYS held Nate to below 40% shooting.)

And, then I researched the numbers. Players that played in the early 60's thru the late 60's and into the 70's, shot considerably worse, almost player-for-player, in the early 60's, than they did in the late 60's. AND, that trend was pretty consistent from the late 60's into the 70's. BUT, even more remarkably, they EXPLODED in the 80's. And that is why it is SO IMPORTANT to take LEAGUE AVERAGE into account. Much like comparing dead ball pitching to the steroid-era pitching...comparing shooting percentages (and BTW, FT shooting has changed very little in the last 50 years or so) between eras is vitally important. Those that diminish Wilt's ppg because of pace, had better acknowledge that had he played in the defenseless 80's, his shooting percentages would have sky-rocketed. My god, Kareem is a great example. Especially when you factor in that he could absolutely BURY Hakeem H2H, as the OLDEST player in the league.

[QUOTE=jlauber]Then why should I respond to you?

But yes, DEFENSE was much better. And BTW, MY reasoning changed because of one of the few decent posts that Fatal9 made...when he posted Kareem just torching Hakeem to death in the 85-86 season. A near 40 year old scoring 35, 42, and 46 points (and on 21-30 shooting) against Hakeem...and then burying Ewing with a 40 point game (while holding Patrick to 2-16 shooting.)

Meanwhile, as I already KNEW, Chamberlain, in the twi-light of HIS career, by ALL accounts (even the Milwaukee writers BTW) outplayed a statistically PRIME Kareem. And, before Wilt's knee injury, he battered Kareem in EVERY facet of the game. I have said it before, but it was really too bad that we didn't see a PRIME Chamberlain against Kareem at any point in his career. I have no doubt that Wilt would have not only outshot and outrebounded him (and by even greater margins), but easily outscored him, as well.

But, beyond that, Thurmond CONSISTENTLY held Kareem WAY down in BOTH scoring and shooting. Kareem struggled to get to 30 against him, and now, thanks to Alexreben, we know that Kareem was held to under 20 points nearly as often as he scored 30. Meanwhile, a PRIME Chamberlain, in his "scoring" prime, had games as high as 45 points against Thurmond (outscoring him 45-13.) AND, even later in his career, he was not only KILLING Thurmond on the glass, he was outshooting him by as much as 200 points (and Wilt ALWAYS shot over 50% against Thurmond, and ALWAYS held Nate to below 40% shooting.)

And, then I researched the numbers. Players that played in the early 60's thru the late 60's and into the 70's, shot considerably worse, almost player-for-player, in the early 60's, than they did in the late 60's. AND, that trend was pretty consistent from the late 60's into the 70's. BUT, even more remarkably, they EXPLODED in the 80's. And that is why it is SO IMPORTANT to take LEAGUE AVERAGE into account. Much like comparing dead ball pitching to the steroid-era pitching...comparing shooting percentages (and BTW, FT shooting has changed very little in the last 50 years or so) between eras is vitally important. Those that diminish Wilt's ppg because of pace, had better acknowledge that had he played in the defenseless 80's, his shooting percentages would have sky-rocketed. My god, Kareem is a great example. Especially when you factor in that he could absolutely BURY Hakeem H2H, as the OLDEST player in the league.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol: How does what Kareem did in 1 game vs Patrick Ewing in his rookie year mean anything about overall defense?

Kareem didn't always go head to head with Hakeem either. Sampson faced Kareem a good amount as well. Of course, if you watched these games you'd also know that Hakeem was an undisciplined defender when he was younger.

Most importantly, you seem to think that defense is all 1 on 1, which couldn't be farther from the truth, team defense is more important.

And certain players have more success against others and it doesn't always prove who the best individual defender is, but also, how well they match up physically and how good their team's defensive schemes and personnel are.

As far as league averages? Fatal hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that 50's shooting percentages were lower than 60's. I'll only start in the shot clock era.

1955- 38.5 FG%
1956- 38.7 FG%
1957- 38 FG%
1958- 38.3 FG%
1959- 39.5 FG%
1960- 41 FG%
1961- 41.5 FG%
1962- 42.6 FG%
1963- 44.1 FG%
1964- 43.3 FG%
1965- 42.6 FG%
1966- 43.3 FG%
1967- 44.1 FG%
1968- 44.6 FG%
1969- 44.1 FG%

So I guess 50's defense>60's defense? And 50's defense>any era?

Well this is certainly what I hoped to read when I saw this thread had new posts...awesome

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]:oldlol: How does what Kareem did in 1 game vs Patrick Ewing in his rookie year mean anything about overall defense?

Kareem didn't always go head to head with Hakeem either. Sampson faced Kareem a good amount as well. Of course, if you watched these games you'd also know that Hakeem was an undisciplined defender when he was younger.

Most importantly, you seem to think that defense is all 1 on 1, which couldn't be farther from the truth, team defense is more important.

And certain players have more success against others and it doesn't always prove who the best individual defender is, but also, how well they match up physically and how good their team's defensive schemes and personnel are.

As far as league averages? Fatal hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that 50's shooting percentages were lower than 60's. I'll only start in the shot clock era.

1955- 38.5 FG%
1956- 38.7 FG%
1957- 38 FG%
1958- 38.3 FG%
1959- 39.5 FG%
1960- 41 FG%
1961- 41.5 FG%
1962- 42.6 FG%
1963- 44.1 FG%
1964- 43.3 FG%
1965- 42.6 FG%
1966- 43.3 FG%
1967- 44.1 FG%
1968- 44.6 FG%
1969- 44.1 FG%

So I guess 50's defense>60's defense? And 50's defense>any era?[/QUOTE]

First of all, Kareem not only torched Hakeem (and even the recap mentioned that Hakeem was going for blocks, while Kareem was going around him for easy baskets)...in ONE game, he did it in THREE games...all as the oldest player in the league. Then, take a look a Kareem's numbers vs Hakeem and Ewing in his LAST three years in the league and in his 40's! He was basically battling them to statistical draws...and they were certainly far closer to their primes, than Kareem was to his.

I can't speak for defense in the 50's, ...I didn't see any of it. BUT, and YOU know this as well, since I have posted it NUMEROUS times. There was something more to the poor FG%'s of the early 60's than just defense. Some arenas had no heating, and were freezing cold in the winter. All of us have played in cold weather, and it has a HUGE affect on shooting. Some had BREEZES going thru them. Here again, all of us have played outside in windy conditions, and trying to estimate just how the ball will react to the wind is damn near an impossibility. Some had "dead spots" on the floors (and before someone asks how does that affect shooting...it certainly affects the shooter as he is getting ready to pick up his dribble and shoot.) And, as GOAT brought up...and this is HUGE...the BALL was NOT uniform until something like 1970. I remember playing in city leagues, and before each game they would bring out a rack of balls for the shoot-around. NONE of the balls were identical. Some were lighter, some were heavier, and some were LOPSIDED. And, you never knew which one that they would select for the actual game, either. On top of all of that, I remember attending games in which the smoke from cigarettes was so bad, that you could hardly see the floor by the 4th quarter.

As for defense, my god, as YOU know, it was NEVER Russell vs. Wilt. The Celtics SWARMED Chamberlain. So, no, Kareem, nor Hakeem, nor Shaq were the first to get doubled or tripled.

Look, I could go on-and-on. The longest HR hitter of all-time, and it is well documented, was 5-11 190 lb. Mickey Mantle. Perhaps the fastest pitcher of all-time was Nolan Ryan. The fastest LEGITIMATE NFL player of all-time was Bob Hayes, who played over 40 years ago. Jeez, Darrell Green was playing in the NFL in the early 80's. At age 50, he just ran a 4.43 40 yard dash, which would have blown away just about every college player at the NFL combine last year. The world record in the long jump is 29' 4". Bob Beamon jumped 29' 2" in 1968. Furthermore, give all of the athletes the same benefits of modern technology, and while we don't know just how much better they would be...we do know, that they would ALL be better. And, take all of the current athletes back into the 60's, and in their childhood, and raise them under the same conditions that the greats of that period were raised in, and while we don't know how much worse they would be, we do know that they would ALL be worse. Can you imagine what Shaq would have looked like on the diet, training, and medicine of that era? Hell, with his poor shooting skills he might have been no better than Darryl Dawkins.

I will be the first to agree that the AVERAGE athlete of today is better than those of yesteryear, BUT, they are not SIGNIFICANTLY better. AND, once again, give all of those athletes of the 60's, 70's, and 80's the same benefits, and the differences would be marginal. Take a look at baseball. If I told you that Babe Ruth would be great today, the vast majority of the "ESPN Generation" would run me off the forum. BUT, take a look at Ted Williams, who, like Kareem, was a "bridge." Williams was a rookie in 1939 (and before integration.) Now I won't look up the numbers, so yes, I might be off a few points or HRs or even a couple of years...but follow along. In his rookie year Williams hit .327 with 31 HRs. Jimmy Foxx played in William's rookie year, and batted .360 with 35 HRs. Just the year before, in 1938, Foxx hit 50 HRs. Just six years before that, Foxx hit 58 HRs...in a year in which a way over-the-hill Ruth hit 41. And just five years before that, and in his prime, Ruth slugged 60 HRs.

Ok, so what does that have to do with today's players...especially since it all occurred before integration? Well, two years later, in 1941, Williams hit .406 with 37 HRs (the last player to hit .400 BTW.) Now, fast forward to 1957, and in a league that had been integrated for over 10 years. Williams, at age 38, hit .388 with 38 HRs. In 1956, Mickey Mantle, and against almost the exact same pitchers, hit .353 with 52 HRs. And a year before that, Willie Mays hit 51 HRs. Ten years later, in 1965, Mays won the MVP with 52 HRs. BTW, in Williams '57 season, young Hank Aaron hit 44 HRs. 16 years later, in 1973, Aaron hit 40 HRs in only 392 ABs.

Now you get the point. Williams was facing many of the same pitchers that Ruth had faced in his career. And Mays, Aaron, and Mantle faced many of the same pitchers that Williams faced in their careers. And Aaron in the 70's faced many of the pitchers that Mike Schmidt was hitting 48 HRs off of in 1979. Or George Foster hit 52 against in 1976. You can follow that all the way to today.

Or, take Nolan Ryan, who pitched in FOUR decades. Ryan was clocked at 101 MPH (on a SLOW gun BTW) in 1974, in the eigth inning of a game in which he had thrown 162 pitches. In his LAST season, and at age 46, and on his very LAST pitch (and on an injured arm), he was clocked at 98 MPH...in the early 1990's! And, Ryan pitched alongside of Marichal and Gibson, who along with Koufax, dominated the 60's. They were BETTER than Ryan, in fact. And yet, Ryan was one of the best pitchers of his era.

So, that is why I believe that Ruth would be great today. Just as I believe that a healthy Sayers, or Jim Brown, or OJ (who would STILL be among the fastest backs, of THIS era) would be great today. And for those that believe that Chris Johnson is the fastest...take a look at his 100 meter time (without looking it up, I believe it was 10.5 or so), and have him run against Hershel Walker, OJ, the aforementioned Green (who ran a 10.08 BTW)....and Bob Hayes, who ran a 10.0 in 1964!

So, yes, Wilt, Oscar, West, Thurmond, Russell, Barry, Hawkins, Frazier, Lucas, Reed, Bellamy, Havlicek, and then later, Kareem, Lanier, Gilmore, Archibald, Hayes, Unseld, Maravich, McAdoo, Dr. J, Cowens, Gervin, Moses, David Thompson, and MANY others...would be GREAT today, too.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Well this is certainly what I hoped to read when I saw this thread had new posts...awesome[/QUOTE]

Well, even though you and I don't always agree...I think we BOTH agree that Russell and Wilt were FAR better players than 9th and 10th all-time.

[QUOTE=jlauber]BTW, I find it fascinating that someone would take the time to find quotes from me on another forum that were posted SIX years ago. I amost take it as a compliment that someone would go to that trouble. I didn't know that I was that important.[/QUOTE]

Since you wanna refer to me without mentioning my name, I will respond. I have not commented on this until now.

[B][U]You[/U][/B] were the one who questioned me:

[QUOTE=jlauber]I'm still waiting for your verification of me stating that Wilt had SEVEN 50+ point games against Russell[/QUOTE]

I gave you the verification you were waiting for. And you didn't even have the dignity to apologize or admit you were wrong. Which has already been noted.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I have ALWAYS stated that Wilt scored 50+ points against Russell in FIVE games[/QUOTE]

Lie. As I've proven.

You were the one who opened Pandora's box:

[QUOTE=jlauber]So, by all means, give me some other examples of my "over-zealous" statements. [/QUOTE]

[B]You[/B] asked for it, so I gave it to you. As I said, the examples I provided should be more than enough to suffice. And they were by no means exhaustive. I gave you the reason why I have questioned certain statements you have made, because

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Since you wanna refer to me without mentioning my name, I will respond. I have not commented on this until now.

[B][U]You[/U][/B] were the one who questioned me:



I gave you the verification you were waiting for. And you didn't even have the dignity to apologize or admit you were wrong. Which has already been noted.



Lie. As I've proven.

You were the one who opened Pandora's box:



[B]You[/B] asked for it, so I gave it to you. As I said, the examples I provided should be more than enough to suffice. And they were by no means exhaustive. I gave you the reason why I have questioned certain statements you have made, because

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]

I used to break it down. There are 48 minutes in a game. It takes a second -- a second-and-a-half, maybe two seconds -- for a three point shot. And if you add up all the shots taken in a game -- free throws don't count because the clock stops -- but if you take all the seconds added up shooting and rebounding it comes to about three minutes.[B] Now out of a 48-minute game three minutes are concerned with shooting and rebounding. What is going on the other 45 minutes?[/B] [/QUOTE]

advertisement?