Printable View
[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Magic, Bird, Jordan also had more "luck" than Russell in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
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=ShaqAttack3234]Yeah, that's why Rick Barry isn't regarded higher as well.[/QUOTE]
Rick Barry was considered a prick as well and a lot of that stemmed from his contract fallout and going to the NBA. He essentially lost 3 years of his NBA prime.
And GP, on eof hte "myths" Simmons debunked in his book was "Wilt was a Great Guy". Apparently, even though he constantly threw teammates and coaches under the bus, he was still perceived as a likeable guy by the fans and outsiders. Or at least that's what I got from the book. It didn't really say or not if Russell was liked or not. In fact I thought it said something about him not being very fan and media friendly.
[QUOTE=CB4GOATPF][B]Baylor was in the downside of his career when he playing with Wilt age 34 plus. Was still great but he wasn
[B]PEOPLE MUST BE BLIND NOT SEE THIS. :hammerhead: :rolleyes: :confusedshrug:
RUSSELL FOR 95% OF HIS CAREER HAD CONSTANTLY TOP 4 OF THE TOP 10-20 PLAYERS IN THE LEAGUE FOR MOST EVERY SEASON (IF YOU INCLUDE HIMSELF: 5).
NOT TO MENTION = THE CELTICS BENCH: FOR ALL PRODUCTIONS DONE BY STARTERS, IN THE CASE OF BOSTON "SUPERSTAR STARTERS" WHERE BACKED UP BY SOLID BENCH PLAY, THEREBY ALSO MORE REST FOR THE STARTING "SUPERSTAR CELTICS"
WILT HAD GOOD PLAYERS BUT FOR EVERY GOO ONE THE CELTICS HAD 1-2 MORE PLUS THE BENCH. AND THIS WAS ALSO LATER IN HIS CAREER. ONE MUST ALSO REMEMBER HE HAD TO ADAPT TO OTHER TEAMS 3 DIFFERENT TIMES, SO THERE WASN
[QUOTE]Do you think their subjective opinions are more valid than yours though?[/QUOTE]
Sadly enough, I really think he does.
How in the hell is using quotes from actual teammates, coaches, oppposing coaches, opponents, and media members who were around in the Wilt/Russell era not a good way to back up your argument?
GP, were you around in the 50's and 60's? I wasn't so all I have to go on is first hand accounts based on quotes from people who experienced that era firsthand. I feel 100000 times better using that in my argument than making brash, opinionated statements, on an era of basketball that happened 25 years before I was born.
Another quote from Simmons himself in his book:
[QUOTE]You have to believe me: I read every NBA book possible to prepare to write this one. No stone was left unturned - during the summers of '07 and '08 I spent more time on [url]www.abebooks.com[/url] than Abe did. While poring over these books, I searched for insight on the Russell-Chamberlain debate and kept a tally of every player, coach, and media member willing to go on the record. And I'm not sure what was more amazing - how many of them praised Russell, or how many of them crushed Wilt (including people who played with him and coached him). Since we could fill this entire book with quotes from people praising Russell's unselfishness, competitiveness, and clutchness...[/QUOTE]
So as you can see, the general consensus in that era - from people that were close to the situation and actually there during that time - preferred Russell to Wilt. You can have Chamberlain and his gaudy numbers all day long. I'll take Russell because with inferior talent, equal talent, or superior talent, he was going to beat Chamberlain many more times than not.
Look at 1969. Chamberlain was teamed up with Elgin Baylor and Jerry West. Russell and K.C. Jones are on the tailend of their careers, running on fumes, finish 4th in the East that year. And don't forget, the Lakers (far superior to the Celtics talent that year) had a 3-1 series lead, and Chamberlain and the Lakers STILL lost the series, despite having game 7 in LA. Russell stepped up one last time when it mattered most while Wilt was unable to overcome Russell when Russell's Celtics might have been at their lowest during Russell's entire career.
[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.