Lots of good insightful posts here but we need actual votes in order to make a list. :lol
[B]Let's get some votes in here! [/B]We gotta close this thread soon and move on.
Printable View
Lots of good insightful posts here but we need actual votes in order to make a list. :lol
[B]Let's get some votes in here! [/B]We gotta close this thread soon and move on.
[IMG]https://backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Russell-era-rDRtg-for-Bos.png[/IMG]
[QUOTE=dankok8;14426031]Lots of good insightful posts here but we need actual votes in order to make a list. :lol
[B]Let's get some votes in here! [/B]We gotta close this thread soon and move on.[/QUOTE]
Alright, my vote is Wilt for the reasons that I have already discussed in this thread.
Also just for fun.
I will ask you this question dankok8.
If you put Kareem on Russell's teams from 1957 to 1969 how many rings do you think he wins.
[QUOTE=dankok8;14426031]Lots of good insightful posts here but we need actual votes in order to make a list. :lol
[B]Let's get some votes in here! [/B]We gotta close this thread soon and move on.[/QUOTE]
Jordan.
Imagine thinking Russell was a "limited" player who had to "get lucky" to succeed :roll: or is just "Dwight Howard"... you can't write this stuff :lol
He's only the dude the NBA picked to have the fMVP award named after lmao
Edit: btw coastal, Kareem doesn't win shit in those time periods once Wilt enters cause wilt owned his ass. Also going off of ACTUAL HISTORY Kareems resume shows he doesn't necessarily win the chip in years he's supposed to. He had the easiest decade to win em in
[QUOTE=dankok8;14426031]Lots of good insightful posts here but we need actual votes in order to make a list. :lol
[B]Let's get some votes in here! [/B]We gotta close this thread soon and move on.[/QUOTE]
Wilt Chamberlain.
[QUOTE=Dbrog;14426038]Imagine thinking Russell was a "limited" player who had to "get lucky" to succeed :roll: or is just "Dwight Howard"... you can't write this stuff :lol
He's only the dude the NBA picked to have the fMVP award named after lmao
Edit: btw coastal, Kareem doesn't win shit in those time periods once Wilt enters cause wilt owned his ass. Also going off of ACTUAL HISTORY Kareems resume shows he doesn't necessarily win the chip in years he's supposed to. He had the easiest decade to win em in[/QUOTE]
If you were to pick a player in next year's draft. Would you take 20 year old Wilt or 20 year old Russell?
I am taking Wilt everytime. Throw a competent guard around him like Dru Holiday and a Middleton type player and that's a dominant championship contending team.
20 year old Russell, Dru Holiday, and Middleton are not winning the championship in 2021. Russell ain't walking through the door and dropping 50 to close a game out.
[QUOTE=8Ball;14426060]If you were to pick a player in next year's draft. Would you take 20 year old Wilt or 20 year old Russell?
I am taking Wilt everytime. Throw a competent guard around him like Dru Holiday and a Middleton type player and that's a dominant championship contending team.
20 year old Russell, Dru Holiday, and Middleton are not winning the championship in 2021. Russell ain't walking through the door and dropping 50 to close a game out.[/QUOTE]
If you are a GM in this era and you take Russell over Wilt in the draft you won't have a job by the next morning.
Russell averaged 15 points per game on 44 percent shooting for his entire career despite having a massive athletic advantage over his opponents not named Wilt Chamberlain.
His defence also wouldn't be as impactful as it was in the 1960s due to the three-point line and the rules of today favouring the offensive player over the defensive player.
With the way the game is played now, it’s not possible for one person to have the impact Russell did on the defensive end.
All shots during the 1960's and 1950's were two-pointers meaning Russell’s primary direct defensive impact against shots around the rim could be as effective and impactful as any defence in a game relative to shots taken away from the rim, i.e., perimeter shots
[QUOTE=8Ball;14426060]If you were to pick a player in next year's draft. Would you take 20 year old Wilt or 20 year old Russell?
I am taking Wilt everytime. Throw a competent guard around him like Dru Holiday and a Middleton type player and that's a dominant championship contending team.
20 year old Russell, Dru Holiday, and Middleton are not winning the championship in 2021. Russell ain't walking through the door and dropping 50 to close a game out.[/QUOTE]
Who is your GOAT?
[QUOTE=coastalmarker99;14426020]Russell found an ideal home on the Celtics. They were an up-tempo team with shooters and scorers, so he wasn't needed to carry any significant offensive load, but he could still contribute by scoring on offensive rebounds and running the break, which played to his strengths in rebounding and athleticism.
Defensively, the Celtics had been aching for someone who could block shots, control the paint, rebound, and start the fast break, and that again was exactly what Russell was best at.
Within the Celtics, Russell found a sanctuary where he could let down the walls he built to protect himself from the outside world, and he became part of a close-knit family that allowed him to express himself to his fullest potential on the court.
Auerbach appreciated his talents, needed exactly what he offered, and provided an ideal environment for him to succeed.
On top of all that, he had a personality that lent itself to being obsessed with team goals at the expense of individual achievement.
A perfect fit for Russell, a perfect fit for the Celtics.
If Russell had played somewhere else, we might still recognize him as one of the best to ever play the game, but I doubt we would to the extent that we do now.
How many other teams would be satisfied to let him contribute so little in a set offence?
How many coaches would recognize and encourage his revolutionary approach to defence?
How many coaches would have given Russell the freedom to do whatever he wanted on the court as Red did?
Maybe he would've done just as well if he'd joined the Hawks and been coached by Alex Hannum who was the second-best coach of that era but there's no possible way that he would have found a situation better than Auerbach's Celtics.[/QUOTE]
Wilt's problem was that he was so talented for his time he also had to play with a bunch of bums. Which pissed him off and was labelled a team cancer. He probably looked at his teammates funny because they weren't anywhere close to his ability. Like playing with kids. 50ppg?
If Wilt played in this era, he would have actual NBA level talent around him and he would fit in a lot better.
Jordan for me.thanks op.
[QUOTE=dankok8;14426064]Who is your GOAT?[/QUOTE]
LeBron.
Jordan close 2nd. I had Jordan #1 before 2020 finals.
[QUOTE=Dbrog;14426038]Imagine thinking Russell was a "limited" player who had to "get lucky" to succeed :roll: or is just "Dwight Howard"... you can't write this stuff :lol
He's only the dude the NBA picked to have the fMVP award named after lmao
Edit: btw coastal, Kareem doesn't win shit in those time periods once Wilt enters cause wilt owned his ass. Also going off of ACTUAL HISTORY Kareems resume shows he doesn't necessarily win the chip in years he's supposed to. He had the easiest decade to win em in[/QUOTE]
No trolling response from me.
If you could swap a top 15 player today with 21 year old Russell, does that team get better? Name me the team that gets better.
Would LeBron ever say yes to trading Anthony Davis for Bill Russell? Never.
Bucks would get worse with Russell vs Giannis.
Philly would not trade Embiid for Russell.
Denver would not trade Jokic for Russell.
Lakers would arguably be better if you swapped prime 24 year old Wilt for AD.
Now repeat this exercise going back the last 30 years, most of the time your answer would be Wilt.
Wilt is just a better basketball player than Russell. Wilt was much more moody but I can understand it.
[QUOTE=8Ball;14426066]Wilt's problem was that he was so talented for his time he also had to play with a bunch of bums. Which pissed him off and was labelled a team cancer. He probably looked at his teammates funny because they weren't anywhere close to his ability. Like playing with kids. 50ppg?
If Wilt played in this era, he would have actual NBA level talent around him and he would fit in a lot better.[/QUOTE]
In-game one of the 1965 ECF
Wilt destroyed Russell. He scored 33 points and blocked 11 shots while grabbing 31 rebounds on 13-25 FG/FGA or 63 TS%
while Russell had 16 points and 32 rebounds on 7-22 shooting.
Wilt's teammates? They collectively shot...get this... 20-85 from the field, or .23.5 percent.
Also here are Wilt's playoff FG%'s, his teammates (collectively and without Wilt), and the post-season league averages.
59-60:
Wilt: .49.6
Team: .38.0
League: .40.2
60-61:
Wilt: .46.9
Team: .33.2
League: .40.3
61-62:
Wilt: .46.7
Team: .35.4
League: .41.1
63-64:
Wilt: .54.3
Team: .38.3
League: .42.0
It should be noted that the Warrior's offensive rating relative to the league was 100% positively correlated with Wilt taking more shots during his six years there.
[QUOTE=coastalmarker99;14426063]If you are a GM in this era and you take Russell over Wilt in the draft you won't have a job by the next morning.
Russell averaged 15 points per game on 44 percent shooting for his entire career despite having a massive athletic advantage over his opponents not named Wilt Chamberlain.
His defence also wouldn't be as impactful as it was in the 1960s due to the three-point line and the rules of today favouring the offensive player over the defensive player.
With the way the game is played now, it’s not possible for one person to have the impact Russell did on the defensive end.
All shots during the 1960's and 1950's were two-pointers meaning Russell’s primary direct defensive impact against shots around the rim could be as effective and impactful as any defence in a game relative to shots taken away from the rim, i.e., perimeter shots[/QUOTE]
That's my point. Forget historical achievements and titles.
There is not 1 GM today that would take Wilt over Russell in a draft. Their job is to build the best competing team.
Not 1 GM today would trade a top 15 player for prime Russell.
Would you trade Tatum of Russell? No.
Would you trade Jaylen Brown for Russell? Maybe, I am leaning no.
In today's game, if you can't inflict damage as a center, you are marginalized and turned into a Dwight Howard role. Jokic and embiid are not great perimeter defenders off pick and rolls, but they brutalize the other team offensively. Same with Shaq, Wilt. They would have an immediate mismatch offensively against today's bigs.
Russell would not have 1 mismatch.