Basketball Philosophy with Bill Russell

[QUOTE=jlauber]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.[/QUOTE]

Neither were particularly close to their primes. Kareem was still a hell of an offensive player in '86, he averaged over 23 ppg and 3.5 apg on 56% shooting and 26 ppg and 3.5 apg on 56% shooting in the playoffs. That's why he was still the number 1 scoring option on a 62 win team.

Plus, this has nothing to do with overall defense, just how a player matches up with another. And mid/late 80's defense was weaker than 90's/00's defense(particularly late 90's/early 00's).

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but if you saw the 60's and thought the era was much weaker defensively as recent as 5 years ago, then what changed your mine on defense at the time wasn't based on what you saw, therefor, your opinion on how good defense was at the time was no better than mine.

My point is that players becoming more skilled is a better explanation for the league's FG%, which would also explain why the 50's was so much lower than any other era.

:applause:

[quote]My point is that players becoming more skilled is a better explanation for the league's FG%, which would also explain why the 50's was so much lower than any other era.[/quote]The playing conditions as well.


[I]'"How many layups do you think there were in the last Laker game? Forty-eight. People will tell you guys shoot better now. No doubt they shoot a little better, but not like you'd think from looking at the percentages. Mike Cooper is shooting 59 percent. You want to bet some money he'd outshoot Jerry West? I'll bet my house against him (Cooper) on Dolph Schayes. I'll take Larry Costello and give you any Laker with the exception of Wilkes.

Players just get to the basket (layups) more. It ups their percentage. There's no defense inside. When I played, if the other team ran a fast break two or three times, the coach would assign a forward to break back on defense as soon as the ball went up. I never see a coach doing that now. There were no uncontested layups.

My last two or three years I shot 69 to 73 percent. You think I was a better shooter? No, the defenses got worse and I was able to dunk every damn ball I wanted to. It was easier to get there. When I played against guys like Johnny Kerr . . . He was 6-10 and couldn't jump, but I'll tell you, you didn't get to the basket on him."'

-Wilt Chamberlain, [/I][I]1982[/I]

[I]
"It's a run up and down the court and dunk the ball game now. These are speed merchants and jumping fools. That's why their shooting percentages are going way up. I led the league 11 times in field goal percentage and my lifetime average was 54%. There are now five billion guys shooting over 54%. Can you imagine playing when your hands are so cold and the ball is as hard as a brick? I can remember going to Detroit and playing the old Detroit Arena and there's about 3000 people in this big old huge thing. Every time they opened the door, the wind blows through. I can vividly remember Paul Arizin blowing into his hands and the smoke was blowing out of his nose. Guys were shooting 37%, and these were great shooters. People look at that any say, 'Is that a basketball player or was he on a blind team?' They don't know how to put that into perspective."

-[/I][I]Wilt Chamberlain, [/I][I]1985[/I]




From [B]The Big O: my life, my times, my game[/B]. (2003)

[I]"While there's no shortage of charismatic young guys who can jump and dunk, nobody has captured the public's imagination the way Michael did. Nor are there any rivalries like Magic's Lakers against Bird's Celtics in the 1980s, or Michael's Bulls against Isiah Thomas's Bad Boys. Meanwhile, in its drive to accrue television money and ticket revenues, the league has abandoned free television in favor of cable deals. They've priced out most people from seeing a game - except corporate America.

In the last two years, professional basketball has seen two major trends: one, an influx of European player who coaches and commentators say are extremely well versed in the fundamentals and understand the game; two, the hyping of physically gifted high schoolers who eschew college for a chance at the pros.

Watch an NBA game tonight. You'll see players who can't make a reverse pivot. Can't make a crossover dribble. And the NBA's answer hasn't been additional coaching for these young guys. Rather it's been to welcone top-notch high schoolers with open arms and shoe contracts and their own commercials.

The best players get to sit on the bench for three years or so, and if they have the work ethic and commitment (like Kobe Bryant or Jermaine O'Neal), they'll work hard and begin to figure things out for themselves.

Maybe I am coming from a different mindset. The current NBA is a multi million dollar business. Teams travel in their own private planes, with luxury seats and individual DVD players set up for each team member. When I played, the job wasn't a routine one, but there was a routine to it. Every city was an adventure. [B]The courts weren't like today's lacquered, standardized basketball courts.[/B] [B]There were screws sticking up out of the old Cow Palace floor in San Francisco.[/B] Boston Garden's parquet was noted for, among other things, its [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs#t=9m45s"]dead spots[/URL]. Celtics players used to lead you to them, and when you dribbled on a dead piece of wood, they'd be waiting; the ball would bounce low, or spring off to the side, and a Celtic would pounce.

[B]
We ushered in the modern era of basketball. [/B]You wouldn't have the game of basketball as we know it without us. We were cornerstones in building the game and the way it is played today. Today's player, whether he knows it or not, wouldn't be where he is without us.

[B]We had Bill Russell & Wilt, the two most dominant players in the history of the game. [/B]Jerry West was the best clutch player I ever saw, the best shooter, and one of the best competitors. His biggest talent, perhaps, was emerging at the right moment to take advantage of a well-timed pick or pass. Jerry hated to lose so much that you could see it transform him. Jerry and I were friends, but our rivalry was intense.

People always ask who was better: Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, or Michael Jordan? But they forget that those three never played against one another in matchups. Wilt Chamberlain played against Bill Russell. I guarded Jerry West. Our rivalry was especially entertaining, both to watch and to be a part of, because I played with such efficiency and calculated focus, while Jerry was a great shooter. Bob Ryan, the renowned basketball writer for the Boston Globe has said that I developed more skills than any other basketball player he ever saw, whereas Jerry may have had more desire.


I played against some of the greatest defenders in the history of the game - Russell, Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy - but still the scoring was a lot higher than it is today. Some so-called experts will tell you it's because of the coaches and athletes. [B]I've seen basketball analysts say that the principles of help defense are more advanced now and take advantage of all the athleticism. I say that's bull.[/B] [B]If Jerry West was on his game, you couldn't stop him. I don't care what defense you were in. [/B]

I don't want to sound like a dinosaur: "In my day we knew how to play, to dunk; we had to walk uphill both ways to get to the basketball court, and then when we dribbled, we the ball rolled down the hill." Dunking's been part of the game for a long time. Many players I knew when I used to play at the Dust Bowl could dunk a ball. Gus Johnson tore down rims more than 30 years ago. I could list guy after guy who was a great dunker. It never meant anything to me but two points. A lot of them never dunked because it embarrassed a defender, and he'd take it out on them the next play. I rarely dunked, but I did do it once in a while in practice, just to show people I could.

But it you can dunk a ball, you are now the greatest player in the world. Gone by the wayside is the ability to make a play or think about the game of basketball. [B]Street lingo today translates "skills" as the ability to dribble the ball behind your back or off your knee.[/B] But knowing how to run a good fast break is a skill. So is busting your hump and getting out on the wing and filling the lane at the proper angle. [B]Teams don't run the way we did anymore.[/B]

Knowing how to rub off a defender when you use a pick is a skill. Knowing how to feel a defender with your body and read the court to see where help is coming from is a skill. Knowing how to stay in control, pace yourself, and not use all your energy too early or give away all your tricks, that's a skill. Setting solid picks and knowing how to get yourself open from them; knowing how to hit a guy with a pass the exact moment he frees himself and how to get him the ball in a place and at a time that allows him to shoot in rhythm; getting position low on the post; boxing out; playing solid man to man defense while also knowing where the ball is - those are skills. Certain players in the game today have them - Jason Kidd and Tim Duncan are two, off the top of my head. But most younger players don't, not by a long shot.

Shaquille O'Neal is one of the greatest players of all time. He's big, strong, and fast. Shaq's go-to shot is a dunk. There's no doubt he would have gotten his share of dunks on Bill Russell. There were times he'd get position close to the basket, and there's nothing anyone could do about that. Bill was six ten, and had long enough arms where he might have been able to front Shaq. He may have been able to deny him the ball from the side. He was smart enough and competitive enough that he could have played against him. [B]Bill could exploit anything, make you rely on the weakest parts of your game.[/B] Shaq doesn't have much of a jumper. He has a jump hook shot but doesn't have the full kind of hook that would be unstoppable. (Hell, his jump hook might be unstoppable if he used it more.)"
[/I]




NBA teams didn't always have priority at the home venue if there was a scheduling conflict (regular season or playoffs). Imagine shooting a long distance high arc shot in such a building as below in 1967, where you can see a rookie Phil Jackson make a move against Chicago's Bob Boozer.

[IMG]http://i55.tinypic.com/262tzi9.jpg[/IMG]

i always stay away from any play comparison involving Bill Russell. The way he approaches the game and his mindset are very different from pretty much any other player that has played in the NBA.

I guess I just have trouble believing that someone could dominate a game on intangibles, defense, and mind games. Then again, he's got 11 championships, so what can I say?

He's one of the hardest to rank because I don't understand his impact.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I won't apologize for something that I posted SIX years ago.[/QUOTE]

Of course you won’t. You’re too stubborn to do so, and your pride won’t let you.

[QUOTE=jlauber]As for YOU, I gave YOU the information on the Wilt-Russell matchups. [/QUOTE]

And I gave YOU a hell of a lot more information.

The efficiency you’ve cited of Adrian Dantley?

It came from me. (From MY original work, not someone else’s, I might add) Though if you’d been watching basketball then, you should have known about Dantley. None of that should have been new to you.

Article you’ve repeatedly quoted about Kareem’s matchup against Wilt and Thurmond in the ’72 playoffs?

Came from me. You hadn’t seen it until I posted it.

I’ve told you things from the era you’ve said you watched that you never knew, which again, I find odd if you were watching basketball when it happened.

I showed you statistical studies that have been done which you didn’t know existed until I showed them to you.

Please.

[QUOTE=jlauber]And I find it almost eeriethat someone would go to the trouble to find posts of mine from six years ago.[/QUOTE]

I can understand your chagrin considering the results. But the truth is impregnable and will withstand the strongest scrutiny. You can go back a HUNDRED years, and the truth will still be the truth. It’s only when you’re speaking from a position of UNtruth that you have to worry about what someone might find.

If you were on trial, and I presented evidence before the court that you are a habitual offender of the crime you’ve been charged of, it would be relevant. Diagnostic criteria for personality disorders is a pervasive pattern which can be traced back to early in life.

You challenged the wrong person. Sucks for you.

[QUOTE=jlauber]In any case, yes, SOME of my positions have changed in the last six years.[/QUOTE]

Some people have expressed curiosity as to why you would throw every single one of Wilt’s contemporaries under the bus, but then do a 180 and defend them. How’d THAT change? I haven’t seen anyone who’s done such a radical change. I’m reminded somewhat of a former poster here by the name of BULLS who claimed to allegedly have grown up in that era, but said it was WEAK. That was his shtick.

Judd Vance (Air Judden), renowned defender of Wilt, never in TWENTY PLUS YEARS bashed Wilt’s contemporaries and then did a 180. He’s been consistent. I know of other Wilt fans who have never done so. You’re the first I’ve seen. So the question is how’d your take come to be drastically different? (I’m still curious on PHILA’s opinion on this.)

[QUOTE=jlauber]“[B]I know both you and I will get some flak from "old-timers" about how great some of them were[/B] . . . , but realistically, todays basketball players, although many lacking in fundamental skills, are far superior to the players of the 60's.” [/QUOTE]

I find those choice of words curious, because if one is an old timer one’s self, then why would one use that term to describe [I]others[/I], who would presumably be your peer group? This sounds like a younger person talking.

[QUOTE=jlauber]But, once again, when I post something, I usually back it up 10 fold.[/QUOTE]

Lie. I’ve thoroughly demonstrated that you’ve had a history of pulling things out of your behind without a shred of evidence to suit your agenda. Or misrepresenting the facts.

[QUOTE=jlauber]And I have challenged you and anyone else here to find my misquotes HERE.[/QUOTE]

Lie. I said you did the same thing to Russell than you did to Thurmond, crediting 50+ point games Wilt had against Russell’s TEAM in which Russell HIMSELF didn’t actually play as having been accomplished against Russell. You said you’d never done so. Perhaps you need to review the meaning of “never.”

Hell, you were misrepresenting the facts the VERY FIRST TIME you picked an argument with me on this forum:

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r] [QUOTE=jlauber]Aside from [B]Guy Rodgers[/B] and Al Attles, who were nothing more than decent their entire careers [/QUOTE]

Rodgers was a four-time All-Star who finished in the top two in assists for eight years straight from 1959-60 to 1966-67. (When I have the time, I'll look to see just how many point guards in league history have done that to put it in historical context.)

[QUOTE]During Wilt Chamberlain's first three years in the NBA, two debates raged among basketball fans in Boston and Philadelphia. The loudest and most captivating debate involved the merits of the two centers warring in the pivot—Philadelphia's Wilt Chamberlain and Boston's Bill Russell. The other was a secondary debate: Who as the better playmaker, Philadelphia's Guy Rodgers or Boston's Bob Cousy?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]With Guy feeding him for 30 shots a game, [Chamberlain] led the league with 37.6 scoring average—the best in pro history. Wilt also led the NBA with 27 rebounds a game. On occasion, Guy would toss up a shot purposely short of the rim and Chamberlain would guide it into the basket with one hand. This was an early version of the alley-oop, which the two later perfected in San Francisco.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][U]Over the years, Guy’s exclusion from the Hall of Fame puzzled many of the players who made it to Springfield[/U]. He tried to be philosophical about it, speculating that for some reason the “powers that be” didn’t want him enshrined. Years later, his old nemesis, Cousy, was shocked when he was told that Guy was not in the Hall of Fame. To Cousy, it was a no-brainer.

[B]One of Guy’s biggest proponents, Chamberlain, openly questioned the Hall of Fame’s inaction, pointing out that, in his opinion, Guy was as a ballhandler and passer “better than Cousy or Jerry West or Robertson or Walt Frazier or Pete Maravich or anyone.”[/B][/QUOTE]

[B]Wilt Chamberlain:[/B] "He was as good a ballhandler and passer as anyone, and that includes Bob Cousy."

[B]Pat Williams:[/B] "Wilt Rodgers and Wilt, you had the ultimate passer and the ultimate scorer. Guy was about 6-foot-1 and built like Kevin Johnson. He was an imaginative passer in the middle of the fast break with a flair for the dramatic—some of his passes took your breath away."

[B]Tom Meschery:[/B] "On the fast break and getting the ball to Wilt, no one was any better."[/QUOTE]

I’m not the only person who’s pointed this out to you.

[I](cont.)[/I]

And then there was this:

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r](By the way, since you like to bring up injuries, how about this:

[QUOTE]Round 1 in the highly anticipated Willis Reed vs. Wilt Chamberlain matchup went to Reed, who led the Knicks with 37 points on 16-of-30 shooting. Instead of battling Chamberlain in the low post, Reed unexpectedly settled for midrange jumpers; Chamberlain often did not come out to guard him, and Reed continued to knock down outside shots. Reed's 16 field goals were a Knicks playoff record. He also added 16 rebounds and five assists, [B]despite injuring his left shoulder on a first-half dunk[/B].[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]In what would become a theme for the 1970 Finals, [B]Willis Reed was nursing an injury entering Game 2[/B]. His shoulder was sore after he collided with Lakers forward Happy Hairston during a dunk in Game 1.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE][B]Game 4:[/B] Knicks star Willis Reed had another injury of his own to contend with, as he [B]was kicked in the knee at some point during Game 3 and suffered swelling[/B].[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Before Game 5, Willis Reed was still feeling the effects of a left knee injury aggravated during Game 3. Reed originally injured the knee in November of 1969, and the pain was exacerbated after the same knee was kicked during the Finals. Reed received frequent cortisone injections to dull the pain, and between Games 4 and 5 he underwent sound therapy and whirlpool baths.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Then, the Knicks' worst fears were realized. Willis Reed, already slowed by his knee injury, collided with Wilt Chamberlain on a drive to the basket and tripped. Reed lay on the floor as play continued the other way, but went to the locker room eight seconds later. It turned out that Reed had severely damaged the tensor muscle in his upper right leg, near his hip.[/QUOTE]

And you’re on record as saying this:

[QUOTE=jlauber]Everyone looks at Wilt's STATS, and just accepts that he was healthy. He was FAR from 100%. Still, going up against the league MVP (and a great player), Chamberlain more than held his own. While everyone points to Reed's game seven...how about the first FOUR games of the series, [B]when Reed was 100% and Wilt was not[/B]??!![/QUOTE]

I’ve just proven that’s flat-out [B]FALSE[/B], as Reed suffered an injury in the very first game which he was nursing, and the injuries compiled as the series went on. (But no Knick fan has ever used that as an excuse. I’ve never even heard it mentioned) Looking at your history, I’d suspect a deliberate prevarication here (it also raises the question as to how many [I]other[/I] times you’ve done this to ignorant souls who didn’t know any better), but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you simply weren’t as interested in doing as much research on Willis Reed as you did Wilt (everything I just posted is out there for anyone interested in the truth rather than a one-sided story), because it would suit your agenda better for Wilt to be heroically battling back from injury while his opponent was completely healthy. Of course, it’s easy to pull that with someone who doesn’t know anything and wouldn’t know whether what you’re saying is true or not. But I’m not someone who doesn’t know anything, and as I’ve said, I will expose agendas by WHOMEVER. I’m equal opportunity. [/QUOTE]

Continuing your pattern of misrepresenting the facts which I have documented. And you’ll note that I referenced your history THE VERY FIRST TIME I ENCOUNTERED YOU on this board. I let you know up front that I knew what was going on. You had to begrudgingly acknowledge the level of basketball knowledge I had. And yet you would pull THE SAME FREAKING THING later, which was AFTER I’d already corrected you:

[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4992170&postcount=119[/url]

You’re on record as saying it in 2008, repeated it again in 2009 once you got to InsideHoops and said it AGAIN in 2010 even AFTER being told it wasn’t true. Because you don’t let the truth get in the way of your agenda. As I demonstrated when I documented your pattern.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I am sure I have made some minor errors[/QUOTE]

“Minor.” LOL. If you verified what you were going to say before you say it, you wouldn’t have made ANY errors. But you’ve made a hell of a lot of them. Only, there usually weren’t any knowledgeable people to correct you.

Until you came here.

[QUOTE=jlauber]but in between I have supported my opinions with VOLUMES of evidence.[/QUOTE]

I destroyed this assertion the first time you made it. Stop embarrassing yourself.

[QUOTE=jlauber]BTW, I still haven't read your FG% numbers from the '64 Finals. I suspect that either you can't find them, or they will confirm what I already have an educated estimate at...that Wilt probably outshot Russell by some 200 points. [B]In any case, you told me that you could find anything in five minutes[/B]. [/QUOTE]

Lie. You’re providing fresh instances of misrepresentation of the facts, proving my point and the relevance of everything I posted, since you continue to do it. And it’s a slap in my face to lie RIGHT TO ME about what _I_ said.

And LOL again and wanting other people to do your research for you right after claiming to support your claims with “VOLUMES” of evidence. (And again trying to turn things around.) FYI, people [B]PAY ME[/B] to do research for them and provide them with information they want. As a matter of fact, I just collected my fee today from a client for my services.

[QUOTE]I’ve just proven that’s flat-out FALSE, as Reed suffered an injury in the very first game which he was nursing, and the injuries compiled as the series went on.[B] (But no Knick fan has ever used that as an excuse. I’ve never even heard it mentioned)[/B] Looking at your history, I’d suspect a deliberate prevarication here (it also raises the question as to how many other times you’ve done this to ignorant souls who didn’t know any better), but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you simply weren’t as interested in doing as much research on Willis Reed as you did Wilt (everything I just posted is out there for anyone interested in the truth rather than a one-sided story), because it would suit your agenda better for Wilt to be heroically battling back from injury while his opponent was completely healthy. Of course, it’s easy to pull that with someone who doesn’t know anything and wouldn’t know whether what you’re saying is true or not. But I’m not someone who doesn’t know anything, and as I’ve said, I will expose agendas by WHOMEVER. I’m equal opportunity.


[/QUOTE]


Reeds' supposed injuries were never mentioned. Good enough for me. Of course, I could have brought up the fact that Wilt had been suffering from lingering arthritis in BOTH knees, as mentioned by Cherry in page 243. Or that the writers who covered the series noted that Wilt had lost his quickness and spring in that series. Do you want to COMPARE Reed's injuries, which were [B]never publicized[/B], EXCEPT his sprained hip muscle, which ran to his knee, in that series to a player who MIRACULOUSLY came back from major knee surgery just a few months before. Of course, when Wilt played with MULTIPLE leg injuries in '68 he was ripped for his poor play in game six (shin splints, arthritis, injured feet.) In any case, I suppose 100% healthy would NEVER be accurate with athletes, but Reed was in considerably better shape than Chamberlain. Not only that, but Reed's performance on one leg was far worse than Wilt's performance on one leg.

As for Guy Rodgers...arguably the WORST shooter in NBA history. How bad was he? He shot 99 points less than the league average in the 67-68 season...in a league that shot .446. Rodgers was CONSISTENTLY well below the league average. And for those that value PER, in the year that Wilt suffered a losing season with a cast of clowns (62-63) Rodgers had one of the lowest PERs of ANY guard in the league. Had he NEVER shot the ball, I would have said he was decent, but alas, he not only shot, he shot far too often.

[QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by jlauber
BTW, I still haven't read your FG% numbers from the '64 Finals. I suspect that either you can't find them, or they will confirm what I already have an educated estimate at...that Wilt probably outshot Russell by some 200 points. In any case, you told me that you could find anything in five minutes.


Lie. You’re providing fresh instances of misrepresentation of the facts, proving my point and the relevance of everything I posted, since you continue to do it. And it’s a slap in my face to lie RIGHT TO ME about what _I_ said.

And LOL again and wanting other people to do your research for you right after claiming to support your claims with “VOLUMES” of evidence. (And again trying to turn things around.) FYI, people PAY ME to do research for them and provide them with information they want. As a matter of fact, I just collected my fee today from a client for my services.[/QUOTE]

Interesting...

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by jlauber
Quote:
[B]This took less than 5 minutes to find out.[/B] Which is why I say it's inexcusable to not find out for one's self when it's easy to do. More information is available at the fingertips of the average joe or jane than at any point in human history. There is ZERO reason to "assume" anything, when ANYONE can find out the answer. Researching for one's self is educated. "Assuming" is not. I have no sympathy for those unwilling to do the former.


Then by all means, find Wilt's FG% against Russell in the '64 Finals. I will even give you more than five minutes.


[/QUOTE]

Of course you didn't. Not because you don't have the time (my god, you have the time to look up posts that were written six years ago), but because you CAN'T find them. However, I do hope you prove me wrong, because I am convinced that it will PROVE that Wilt outshot Russell by some 200 points in those Finals.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Neither were particularly close to their primes. Kareem was still a hell of an offensive player in '86, he averaged over 23 ppg and 3.5 apg on 56% shooting and 26 ppg and 3.5 apg on 56% shooting in the playoffs. That's why he was still the number 1 scoring option on a 62 win team.

Plus, this has nothing to do with overall defense, just how a player matches up with another. And mid/late 80's defense was weaker than 90's/00's defense(particularly late 90's/early 00's).



Yeah, but if you saw the 60's and thought the era was much weaker defensively as recent as 5 years ago, then what changed your mine on defense at the time wasn't based on what you saw, therefor, your opinion on how good defense was at the time was no better than mine.

My point is that players becoming more skilled is a better explanation for the league's FG%, which would also explain why the 50's was so much lower than any other era.[/QUOTE]

I stated that Kareem, from '87 to '89, and in his 40's, battled Hakeem and Ewing to a draw in their H2H games. Once again, in those years, Hakeem and Ewing were far closer to their primes, than what Kareem was to his.

Furthermore, Hakeem in his 85-86 season, averaged 23.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, and shot .526. Not his prime season, but not that far from his best seasons in the mid-90's. How about Kareem in '86? 23.4 ppg was not only way below his peak seasons (as high as 34.8 ppg...in a year in which BOTH Wilt and Thurmond outplayed him in the post-season)...but he averaged a measley 6.1 rpg (WAY below his high seasons of 16-17 rpg.) He was nowhere near his physical prime in '86.

And I gave you the reasons why defense was better in the 60's...just ask Kareem, who struggled against both Thurmond and Wilt, AND, he NEVER faced Russell, either. Yet, at nearly 40 years of age, he was abusing Hakeem and Ewing.

[QUOTE=jlauber]I stated that Kareem, from '87 to '89, and in his 40's, battled Hakeem and Ewing to a draw in their H2H games. Once again, in those years, Hakeem and Ewing were far closer to their primes, than what Kareem was to his.

Furthermore, Hakeem in his 85-86 season, averaged 23.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, and shot .526. Not his prime season, but not that far from his best seasons in the mid-90's. How about Kareem in '86? 23.4 ppg was not only way below his peak seasons (as high as 34.8 ppg...in a year in which BOTH Wilt and Thurmond outplayed him in the post-season)...but he averaged a measley 6.1 rpg (WAY below his high seasons of 16-17 rpg.) He was nowhere near his physical prime in '86.

And I gave you the reasons why defense was better in the 60's...just ask Kareem, who struggled against both Thurmond and Wilt, AND, he NEVER faced Russell, either. Yet, at nearly 40 years of age, he was abusing Hakeem and Ewing.[/QUOTE]

Yao Ming played better against Dwight Howard than Tim Duncan did, I guess Yao>Duncan defensively by your logic?

An old Arvydas Sabonis guarded Shaq better than Alonzo Mourning(or pretty much any great center did), I guess he was the best defensive center of his era?

Do you not get the point I'm making?

I did not see the Kareem vs Hakeem regular season games in question, so I can't comment on them until I see them and see how much each of them were matched up with each other, nor have I seen the Kareem vs Ewing game.

And Hakeem wasn't nearly as good of an overall player in the mid 80's as he was from '93-'95, regardless of numbers.

Also, I've been wondering something, you've argued with me whenever I've said that Russell outplayed Wilt in a series, and state that Wilt always outplayed Russell, and that their teammates were the difference. If that's the case, then how could you rank Russell ahead of Wilt?

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Yao Ming played better against Dwight Howard than Tim Duncan did, I guess Yao>Duncan defensively by your logic?

An old Arvydas Sabonis guarded Shaq better than Alonzo Mourning(or pretty much any great center did), I guess he was the best defensive center of his era?

Do you not get the point I'm making?

I did not see the Kareem vs Hakeem regular season games in question, so I can't comment on them until I see them and see how much each of them were matched up with each other, nor have I seen the Kareem vs Ewing game.

And Hakeem wasn't nearly as good of an overall player in the mid 80's as he was from '93-'95, regardless of numbers.

[B]Also, I've been wondering something, you've argued with me whenever I've said that Russell outplayed Wilt in a series, and state that Wilt always outplayed Russell, and that their teammates were the difference. If that's the case, then how could you rank Russell ahead of Wilt[/B]?[/QUOTE]

INDIVIDUALLY, it was no contest. Having said that though, and I have mentioned this many times before, Russell's TEAMMATES almost always outplayed Wilt's...even with comparable rosters. Russell deserves much of the credit, and Wilt probably deserves at least some of the blame.

In terms of TEAM success, IMHO, Russell, Magic, and Duncan were the greatest "winners" in NBA history. Especially Russell. Had he not been injured in the 57-58 Finals, he probably would have won 12 titles in his 13 year career. Using TEAM success as a measuring stick, what more could he have done (other than go 13-13 I guess)?

I do have MJ right with him, because, IMHO, he was the greatest "winner" among the greatest INDIVDUAL players. That group includes Kareem, and Shaq. But, why is Wilt at #4? Because, as I have posted many times, he nearly won FIVE more titles. True, Kareem can probably claim '74 and '84, but my problem with him, and I know that you will disagree, is that IMHO, it was Magic who led the Lakers of the 80's. Kareem could only win one title in the decade of the 70's, and while I agree that it was certainly not his fault in several of those seasons...the same argument could DEFINITELY be used for Wilt. Once again, though, Wilt lost four game seven's, to the greatest Dynasty in NBA history, by a combined NINE points. Factor in that he and the Lakers were robbed in game five of the '70 Finals by the officials, and Wilt could EASILY have had SEVEN rings. And, with Wilt having seven, Russell would have dropped to seven, as well. And let's be honest here...IF Russell and Wilt were tied with seven rings (which would be the most by any player), who do you think would be ranked as the GOAT?

I could even carry Wilt's argument further, with his '71 season (injuries to West AND Baylor in '71, both of whom missed the entire post-season), and his '73 season (when West was playing with injured knees, and Hairston was just coming back from missing nearly the entire season...in addition to losing four close games...all in the last minute.) But, using those arguments, I'm sure you could come up with excuses for other players as well. But, in those other five seasons, we are talking about RAZOR-THIN margins (and with several excuses like injuries, crappy rosters, poor play by his teammates, bad officiating, and incompetent coaching.)

Shaq has four rings, with three as the main dawg, but even in those three, Kobe was instrumental in at least a couple (and as we have seen in the last several years, Kobe, himself, is probably a top-10 player.) And not only did Shaq suffer some embarrassing playoff sweeps, I just can't compare his competition to Wilt's, particularly in 2000. Now I know that you can, and probably will argue these points, which is fine, but IMHO, his career, in 18+ seasons, is just not as impressive as Wilt's.

So, my top-10 has Russell/MJ, Magic, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq/Duncan (with a slight edge perhaps, to Shaq)...and then comes the next tier of Kobe/Hakeem/Bird (all interchangeable.)

Of course, in terms of absolute INDIVIDUAL domination, I just don't see ANY player within a country mile of Chamberlain. My god, he was not only winning scoring titles, rebounding titles, and FG% titles, he was winning them by HUGE margins...and in some seasons, he was winning all three. AND, the NBA legislated Rules aimed directly at him, because they were afraid he was going to make a mockery of the game.

why argue with jlauber, regulator and Shaq...he only has one agenda and despite all the knowledge he's acquired, it still seems like he is a bit of a liar, or at best delusional.

The guy disappeared for months after Reg embarrassed him, then came back on a rep gaining (through IM promises) mission...that tell's you a lot.

Those old posts tell me all I need to know. Either he watched that era and came to the conclusion that Russell sucked, which makes him an idiot, or he lied from the start about his age etc, which also makes him an idiot.

[QUOTE=jlauber]INDIVIDUALLY, it was no contest. Having said that though, and I have mentioned this many times before, Russell's TEAMMATES almost always outplayed Wilt's...even with comparable rosters. Russell deserves much of the credit, and Wilt probably deserves at least some of the blame.[/QUOTE]

When I say who outplayed the other, I don't mean who put up the better individual numbers, I mean who played the best all around basketball which includes intangibles such as clutch play, letting your teammates shine and making them better, in other words, contributing the most to your team winning.

Who do you believe did that more in those match ups? Russell or Wilt?

I guess to simplify it, what do you think would be the result if you have them identical rosters for their entire careers?

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T.]why argue with jlauber, regulator and Shaq...he only has one agenda and despite all the knowledge he's acquired, it still seems like he is a bit of a liar, or at best delusional.[/QUOTE]

I'm just trying to understand why he argues with me whenever I say Russell outplayed Wilt in a certain series if he ranks Wilt over Russell?

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]When I say who outplayed the other, I don't mean who put up the better individual numbers, I mean who played the best all around basketball which includes intangibles such as clutch play, letting your teammates shine and making them better, in other words, contributing the most to your team winning.

Who do you believe did that more in those match ups? Russell or Wilt?

I guess to simplify it, what do you think would be the result if you have them identical rosters for their entire careers?



I'm just trying to understand why he argues with me whenever I say Russell outplayed Wilt in a certain series if he ranks Wilt over Russell?[/QUOTE]

U mean Russell over Wilt, he did that to garner my, and other posters here, respect, he still wants to argue Wilt over Russell and more specifically anyone else.

Russell is the only one who Wilt does not have a case against amongst the big four...that's his motivation.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]why argue with jlauber, regulator and Shaq...he only has one agenda and despite all the knowledge he's acquired, it still seems like he is a bit of a liar, or at best delusional.

The guy disappeared for months after Reg embarrassed him, then came back on a rep gaining (through IM promises) mission...that tell's you a lot.

Those old posts tell me all I need to know. Either he watched that era and came to the conclusion that Russell sucked, which makes him an idiot, or he lied from the start about his age etc, which also makes him an idiot.[/QUOTE]

One, I could not care less about "reps." And two, are you going to tell me that you have not changed any of your opinions in the last 5-6 years?

As for Regulator "embarrassing" me...let's see, he had to go back to posts I made six years, to find MINOR issues. Wilt with either FIVE or SEVEN 50 point games against Russell (and 24 of 40+ including a high of 62) is not significant. Nor did I make that claim HERE. AND, as I have stated previously, I would have to see where I gleaned that info from.

Even he admitted that the Reed and his supposed injuries in the '70 Finals were not publicized, nor do I really care. I stated all along that Wilt, on basically one leg, battled MVP Reed (and in his prime) to a draw in the first four games of that series. He was torching Reed in game five, when Reed went down (LA was ahead by 10 points), and had the officials not handed NY that game five, Wilt's game 45-27 game six would have iced the series. In any case, Wilt, on one leg, was far more dominant, than Reed on one leg.

Of course, YOU have claimed that Wilt's rosters were basically as good as Russell's in his first six seasons...which is complete nonsense. Player-for-player, Russell's Celtics were significantly better in those years. HOF player margins of 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, 7-2, and 5-2 is all anyone needs to know. And even in their last four seasons, they were very close (Russell not only had more HOF teammates in each year of those four years, he had deeper teams.)

[QUOTE=jlauber]One, I could not care less about "reps." And two, are you going to tell me that you have not changed any of your opinions in the last 5-6 years?

As for Regulator "embarrassing" me...let's see, he had to go back to posts I made six years, to find MINOR issues. Wilt with either FIVE or SEVEN 50 point games against Russell (and 24 of 40+ including a high of 62) is not significant. Nor did I make that claim HERE. AND, as I have stated previously, I would have to see where I gleaned that info from.

Even he admitted that the Reed and his supposed injuries in the '70 Finals were not publicized, nor do I really care. I stated all along that Wilt, on basically one leg, battled MVP Reed (and in his prime) to a draw in the first four games of that series. He was torching Reed in game five, when Reed went down (LA was ahead by 10 points), and had the officials not handed NY that game five, Wilt's game 45-27 game six would have iced the series. In any case, Wilt, on one leg, was far more dominant, than Reed on one leg.

Of course, YOU have claimed that Wilt's rosters were basically as good as Russell's in his first six seasons...which is complete nonsense. Player-for-player, Russell's Celtics were significantly better in those years. HOF player margins of 7-3, 7-3, 6-3, 8-1, 7-2, and 5-2 is all anyone needs to know. And even in their last four seasons, they were very close (Russell not only had more HOF teammates in each year of those four years, he had deeper teams.)[/QUOTE]

My opinions change all the time, but I never compared Russell to Wallace, or made any type or comparison as absurd amongst players I've actually watched play.

I never saw Russ and Wilt, my opinion is based on hundreds of books and articles I've read plus the opinions of those who did watch them. No one ever diminished Russell anywhere near the way you have.

You have never been interested in anything but oyour agenda, I am sorry I spent so much time (despite your obvious knowledge) talking with you, as I see now, none of our conversations were about furthering knowledge, and all were about furthering your agenda.