Bill Russell vs. Wilt Chamberlain

[quote=G.O.A.T]More amazing than 11 NBA titles, 2 NCAA titles and a Gold Medal in 15 years?

More amazing having the most Championships in the history all American team sports, winning the only title ever as a player coach and doing it again the next year?

More amazing than being undefeated in game sevens and averagin more points, rebounds and assists in those games than you did during any season of your career?[/quote]
If your going to list stats like that you forgot to mention that Wilt lead the league in assists for a season. First C to lead the league in assists for an entire season, no PF/C has done so since. Russell did have slightly better talent around him, he was surrounded by hof'ers. Wilt was as well during his time with the Lakers but he only beat Russell one time during that span. He definitely did not have anywhere near the talent level that Russel had when he was with Philly. Basketball is a team game and you can't put too much blame or praise on a player in winning championships. Shaq/Kobe/Payton/Malone couldn't beat Hamiliton/Billups/Sheed/Tayshaun.

Russell is the better winner, Wilt is the better talent. Russell was/is definitely way smarter than Wilt. He is a true scholar of the game, still attends NBA games, especially during the playoffs. I saw him once on sportscenter and he said that he had visited the Dali Lama multiple times and have had extensive conversations with him regarding dharma and the afterlife. Wilt is the best offensive C to ever play the game, he was more athletic than Kareem. Wilt actually played Kareem when he was 17 in a charity event I believe. But this was back when Kareem was still
Lew Alcindor.

[QUOTE]I know Russell is great and all

But I can't believe you are arguing


Shaq/Role Players over League MVP/HOF, another HOF, another HOF, and a GOAT caliber Coach.

Really KBlaze8855? That's a big slap in the face to the HOFs and even Red. Just total disrespect. [/QUOTE]

**** outta here. There are 130 HOF players. Doesnt mean they are all elite players. Shaq led his team to 3 titles. why wouldnt I take him over cousy/Sharman who did nothing similar till Russell led them?

Id take Shaq over say....Nash and Joe Johnson too. Its not disrespect to take Shaq over these guys. Hes flat better than them. Lets not act like someone playing 50 years ago means they are legends to a greater degree. They did nothing to make me want them over Shaq in any era. Even throwing out that hes factually better Shaq did more in his era than they did in theirs.


[QUOTE]Shaq/Role Players or 3 HOFs/GOAT Coach. Give me Shaq/Roleplayers? wow. [/QUOTE]

Shaq and 2 all stars and good role players. Yes. Feel free to take the inferior players and lose to my team. Not like you can even say that for their era they were better. They did nothing pre Russell to stand up to Shaqs legacy.

[QUOTE]Especially considering coaches, (And by the way Russell himself said Red had A LOT do with the player he became, both had tremendous respect for each other), play a big role in developing players, and maybe no one did it better than Red.

Whatever. I don't know how many other people would take Shaq/Role Players, over 3 HOFs/GOAT coach for their careers to develop. You'd have to be nearly retarded. And remember this is in the 60s. So Kobe got Shaq/Role Players with MJ running the show. You'd be in Kobe's situation, rather than in the 60s, where Cousy was the best offensive player in the league, you had coach Red, and 2 other players that at least 1 was among Top 5.[/QUOTE]

You say HOF coach and players like everyone in the HOF is created equal. shaq is not a standard HOF player. Shaq in the time in question could compare to anyone ever. Give me Shaq, Wilt, Kareem, or Russell over the combo you offer. this isnt even a title winning back court...and id take shaq over isiah/Dumars....who are.

[QUOTE]I mean wow, you had a PG that could also set you up. The arguments for 3 HOFs/GOAT Coach just keeps getting stronger. Who wouldn't want to play with the best playmaker in the league?[/QUOTE]

Russells value wasnt as much offensive as defense and chemistry. He had a great offensive value but his legacy is defensive. If I can be a young offensive guard like Magic/Kobe...and have Shaq/Kareem and a number of others to fit my game or a young defensive bigman....and play with Nash or Cousy?

How does a point come into a better situation than being mentored by a star point and playing with the greatest low post weapon since Wilt while running the way showtime did with Cooper, Wilkes, and Haywood? magic had the perfect team to join and id take it easily over joining the pre Russell celtics.



[QUOTE]I can't believe you actually even considred Shaq/Role Players. [/QUOTE]

I cant believe you disregard the simple fact that Shaq/Kareem are better than the Celtics players were and that godly bigmen win games more than flashy guards.


[QUOTE]It's got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard on ISH. [/QUOTE]

Red himself wouldnt trade Shaq or Kareem for cousy and so on.


[QUOTE]Remember, this is all relative to era.[/QUOTE]

What did Cousy and Sharman do in their era to compare to what Shaq and Kareem did in theirs that makes me wish to play with them?

They were on a team with 3 or 4 all stars depending on the season and their BEST was nearly getting swept in the second round.

Tell me. Tell me...what did the great cousy/sharman backcourt do to make a young player feel their career is in better shape joining them than joining 2 of the 3-4 best bigmen of all time?

And what did Shaq do pre-Kobe?

What has had he done before? Finals sweep? 1st round sweep? What has he done?

Cousy at least was playing at an MVP level, and was a Top 3 player in the NBA (like Shaq) during that time.

You tell me, if you were Bill Russell, going into the NBA.


Would you rather go play in 57, where now you guys become the favorites, playing with [I]2 HOFs at their primes[/I]. Playing with league MVP and playmaker Bob Cousy. The best offensive player in the game arguably. Playing with GOAT coach Red, who is known to develop his players (And who Bill Russell said he would only want to coach him). And another future HOF who won ROY and was pretty good himself.

Or would you play with O'Neal, and an All-Star in Eddie Jones and role players. And have to go through the defending champion Chicago Bulls (72 wins), and other great teams in the league for your shot at a title.



I mean wtf? :roll:

You would rather play with "Shaq", have tough competition for title, play with a garbage coach, and no one special after that.

Versus, play for the championship right away, the league MVP, 3 HOFs, and the GOAT coach who is going to develop your game?






I mean, you ARE considering the chances of your title relative to competiion. On one side, you got the 97 Bulls, on the other side, the St. Louis Hawks. You DO want to win right? Bill Russell is that you? I mean, it probably doesn't matter to him, but luck says its easier to enter the league and go against the Hawks than the Bulls who are considered one of the GOAT teams. Another point for Russell's incredible luck please.


And you ignored the coach remark. Once again, it's your rookie season, who do you want to help develop your game over the course of your career? Red (who maybe the best in history at it), or some garbage coach? :oldlol:

Once again, Bill Russell said he would only play for Red. That's how close their relationship was. That's how good Red was. Both meant a lot to each other.

[QUOTE=GP_20]And what did Shaq do pre-Kobe?[/QUOTE]

More than you're GOAT coach, backcourt and Hall of Famers combined actually in terms of postseason success.

[QUOTE=GP_20]So you would rather play with Shaq or Kareem, rather than a HOF backcourt, a good argument GOAT coach, and another HOF? :oldlol:

He was playing with the league MVP in his rookie year. It doesn't get much better than that. Along with a GOAT coach, and 2 other HOFs.

Shaq or 2 HOFs/MVP/GOAT Coach.

You tell me which one is better to start out with. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]

First you have to remeber those guys aren't HOF material and Red is not the GOAT coach if not for all the titles they won because of Russell. No one thought of Auerbach as a genius or guys like Frank Russell and Bailey Howell or KC Jones as HOF guys in 1959.

But just because it's fun to show how stupid you've become because your so stubborn and all your arguments are strictly stat based...

Let's look at:

Shaq titles without Kobe: 1
trips to the finals without Kobe: 2

Kareem titles without Magic: 1
Trips to the finals without Magic: 2

GOAT coach titles without Russell: 0
Trips to the Finals without Russell: 0

GOAT back court titles without Russell: 0
Trips to the Finals without Russell: 0

Other Celtic HOF's of 50's and 60's titles without Russell: 0
Trips to the Finals without Russell: 0

Hmmmmmmmm; which do I want...

[QUOTE=GP_20]He thinks "luck" is how good you are too. Watch, "Jordan is lucky because he was fast and athletic, and he could play defense really well". [/QUOTE]

Never said anything like that; nothing even close. Why would you say that?

[QUOTE=GP_20]And what did Shaq do pre-Kobe?

What has had he done before? Finals sweep? 1st round sweep? What has he done?[/QUOTE]

What did Auerbach, COusy, Sharman and the others do before Russell?



[QUOTE=GP_20]Cousy at least was playing at an MVP level, and was a Top 3 player in the NBA (like Shaq) during that time. [/QUOTE]

Cousy never won MVP until Russell joined the team and only won it once when Russell missed most of the year to win a Gold Medal and serve his Country.

Get educated.

[QUOTE=GP_20]You tell me, if you were Bill Russell, going into the NBA.

Would you rather go play in 57, where now you guys become the favorites,

They didn't become the favorites; the '57 Finals was a pretty major upset. Before the season Petit and the Hawks were heavy favorites as you could red in Cousy's biography. (But why learn anything when you can just tell people what's right)


[QUOTE=GP_20]Playing with league MVP and playmaker Bob Cousy. The best offensive player in the game arguably. [/QUOTE]

No arguable. He shot 35-40% and assists were not held in high regard. EVERYONE considered Petitt and Arizin better offensive players. (You can read about this too if you'd like)

[QUOTE=GP_20]Playing with GOAT coach Red, who is known to develop his players (And who Bill Russell said he would only want to coach him). And another future HOF who won ROY and was pretty good himself. [/QUOTE]

This wasn't Red's reputation at the time and he always said Russell had more to do with the players improvement then he did...(Also available info from a book)

If I were a mod, you'd be banned just so more people don't read what you say and become dumber.

Can we get a merge with the Felton\Norman thread please...lets of links and info pertaining to this debate there...

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]What did Auerbach, COusy, Sharman and the others do before Russell?
[/quote]

I was countering what KBlaze said. He told me what you just said above. And I countered with what has Shaq done. And now you are going to ask the same question he did to me...read things in context idiot :hammerhead:

I'm countering his argument by using it, not making my own. I'm just saying what Shaq did before and what Cousy/Sharman did is not very different.



[QUOTE]
Cousy never won MVP until Russell joined the team and only won it once when Russell missed most of the year to win a Gold Medal and serve his Country.

Get educated. [/QUOTE]

I said Cousy was playing at an MVP [I]level[/I].
Learn to read before you reply please. And as he showed, he was definately playing at that level.


[QUOTE]
They didn't become the favorites; the '57 Finals was a pretty major upset. Before the season Petit and the Hawks were heavy favorites as you could red in Cousy's biography. (But why learn anything when you can just tell people what's right)[/QUOTE]


The 57 Finals was a major upset?

[B]Final Records:[/B]
Celtics: 44-28
Hawks: 34-38


The Cetlics winning was a major upset in the NBA Finals? They had 1, 2, 3, 4, HOFs, League MVP, ROY, and GOAT Coach, and it was an upset they beat the 34-38 Hawks? A major upset? :oldlol:

You just lost [I]all [/I]credibility


And that wasn't even my point. I was comparing them to the 97 Bulls.

That's a close isn't it G.O.A.T. 34-38 Hawks vs. 69-13 Bulls. :oldlol:

Russell was so damn lucky he had NOWHERE near the challenge in the Finals.

[QUOTE]

No arguable. He shot 35-40% and assists were not held in high regard. EVERYONE considered Petitt and Arizin better offensive players. (You can read about this too if you'd like)[/QUOTE]

Is that why he was winning MVP with no defensive game? What was he doing so well then? Rebounding? Get out of here with your usual trash. He was voted MVP purely based on his offensive game and his team usually ranked at the top on offense, definitely one of the best offensive players in the history of the game.


[QUOTE]
This wasn't Red's reputation at the time and he always said Russell had more to do with the players improvement then he did...(Also available info from a book)[/QUOTE]

Whether it was Red's reputation at the time or not, he proved that he was great at it.



[quote]
If I were a mod, you'd be banned just so more people don't read what you say and become dumber.[/QUOTE]


I would do the same for you. Because I feel like I'm getting more stupid by reading your posts.

57 Finals an upset? Cousy not even arguable the best offensive player?

You are such a joke.

So many people here have said so and only you and Shaqattack (who I've also been a dick too) have a problem with me.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]You are such a joke.

So many people here have said so and only you and Shaqattack (who I've also been a dick too) have a problem with me.[/QUOTE]
Trolls and idiot generally over populate the intelligent posters.

Not surprised.

Also I admit when I am wrong...As I'll do now


When Russell came to the league, he played with 4 HOFs (not 3).

My bad my bad guys.



I think that's a record for any superstar? To come into the league and play with 4 Future HOFs?


Why does it seem Russell is breaking all these records based on luck/teammates. Coincidence that he also holds the TEAM accomplishment records as well? Well if you're ignorant...then maybe

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]
McAdoo barely played for the team and was not wanted by Auerbach or Cowens or Fitch or anyone there. Calling him their leading scorer shows me you don't know much about that team or era. I'm not trying to be a di[COLOR="Black"]c[/COLOR]k, just telling you how someone like me who remembers that time would think.

Bird's arrivial coincided with the resurection of Tiny Archibald's career and the peak of Cornbread Maxwell's. The Celtics also made a very significant trade the next year acquiring McHale and Parrish from Golden State for Joe Barry Carroll. (And started winning titles that year) They also picked up Dennis Johnson shortly after (and won two more because no one on their roster could check Andrew Toney prior).

Like Russell he had Auerbach making the moves (Unless foolish owner John Brown was forcing his hand) so that kept solid role players coming in.

But unlike Russell he had free agency and the Celtics legacy (which Bill built) which led to Dj (leaving Phoenix) and Danny Ainge (giving up baseball) and Bill Walton signing as a free agent from LA.

Now I believe Bird is the one who made it all work, but certainly he caught as many or more breaks than Bill Russell.



Jordan and Russell have a number of career paralells (sp?)

1st: They were drafted by a franchise with no titles before them.

2nd: They played for the best and most prolific coach of their era and the two greatest all-time in terms of titles won as a head man.

3rd: After they were established stars their teams drafted a player who would become the best two-way swingman of his era. (Hondo and Pip)

4th: When they left their team for good, the franchise collapsed.

Now the differences in "luck"

Russell joined a team with more quality players, but to be fair all teams had several quality players. The Celtics had three all-stars (trade one to get Russell) but so did most teams after all there 20 or more all-stars and 9 teams.

Still The Celtics were a middle of the pack team and the Bulls bottom feeders.

Jordan's luck really started in the 1990's. The stars like Magic and Bird saw their careers cut short by disease and injury respectivley and the NBA had enough of the "Jordan Rules" and started calling more fouls. It was the begining of the modern superstar calls.

In the late stages of his career Jordan had way more "luck" due to his era because of modern free agency and international players being a new trend. When the supporting cast from the first three titles faded the Bulls reloaded with free agent former all-stars like Rodman and Ron Harper and the top European player Kukuc.

The Celtics reloaded with Don Nelson (cut by Lakers), Larry Seigfried (rights waived by Syracuse), Bailey Howell (considered washed up by Baltimore and traded for Mel Counts) and Em Bryant (a six ppg scorer traded by NY for a 2nd round pick)

Jordan also had his GREAT coach his whole career whereas Russell had to take over the team as coach when the roster was weakest.[/QUOTE]

Regarding McAdoo, my point was that it's not like they added much to the team other than Bird and that they took away the one guy on the team capable of getting them 20 points per game. Bird gave them a go to guy offensively right away. And as far as Archibald's resurrection. Well don't you think that playing with a guy like Bird might have had something to do with that? You talk a lot about Russell's ability to make his teammates better, but wouldn't you agree that Bird had the same quality? Afterall, Archibald was there the year before and Cowens was declining.

Bird didn't come into a good situation his rookie year, he turned it into a good situation right away. He turned it into a good situation which is what kept good players coming to the Celtics. Don't forget that Boston faced 2 teams with more talent than them. The Showtime Lakers and the Moses Malone/Dr. J Sixers.

Jordan had talent and a great coach later, but he didn't have that coach until his 6th season and that's really when the championship caliber talent came around as well. Russell had a great coach and a great team in his rookie year.

Granted they were not a championship caliber team without him, but they did finish 6 games over .500 and they added hall of famer Tommy Heinsohn in Russell's rookie year as well.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Regarding McAdoo, my point was that it's not like they added much to the team other than Bird and that they took away the one guy on the team capable of getting them 20 points per game. Bird gave them a go to guy offensively right away. And as far as Archibald's resurrection. Well don't you think that playing with a guy like Bird might have had something to do with that? You talk a lot about Russell's ability to make his teammates better, but wouldn't you agree that Bird had the same quality? Afterall, Archibald was there the year before and Cowens was declining.[/QUOTE]

Agree with all of this, I gave Bird that credit in my last post. Just saying that without the Parish \McHale steal and the later additions, maybe he doesn't win three titles...Not saying that should be held against him, just saying that's as much luck as Russell joining a team of good players that had never won anything prior to his arrival. Bird made the Celtics contenders, Russell made the Celtics Champions.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Jordan had talent and a great coach later, but he didn't have that coach until his 6th season and that's really when the championship caliber talent came around as well. Russell had a great coach and a great team in his rookie year.[/QUOTE]

I disagree (sort of), they were a good coach and good team before Russell, Bill made them great.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]Granted they were not a championship caliber team without him, but they did finish 6 games over .500 and they added hall of famer Tommy Heinsohn in Russell's rookie year as well.[/QUOTE]

Is Tommy Heinsohn a HOFer if he doesn't play with Russell? He doesn't think so.

No way Bailey Howell, Frank Ramsey or KC Jones get in without winning those titles and even Sam Jones is iffy. If he's not on the Celtics he might have to be the man on a team, he never wanted that.

Only Cousy and Hondo were great with Russell, the rest were good players that Auerbach and Russell got the most out of with a tireless work ethic and indomitable will to win.

Also I should I apologize to you for being an as[COLOR="Black"]s[/COLOR]hole; even though I think sometimes you're way too stubborn, you bring a lot to most discussions you are in.

Russell has even admitted that Wilt was better than him on D ... which was by far the strongest part of his game ... and couple that with Wilt being eponentially better on offense .. the answer is obvious ...

[QUOTE]And what did Shaq do pre-Kobe?

What has had he done before? Finals sweep? 1st round sweep? What has he done?[/QUOTE]

Even aside from being factually superior....the finals alone is more than they did.

[QUOTE]Cousy at least was playing at an MVP level, and was a Top 3 player in the NBA (like Shaq) during that time.[/QUOTE]

Winning the MVP doesnt mean he was the most valuable player and if he was...I already said there are a number of MVPs I wouldnt take over Shaq and a couple all stars with him.
[QUOTE]
You tell me, if you were Bill Russell, going into the NBA.

Would you rather go play in 57, where now you guys become the favorites, playing with 2 HOFs at their primes. Playing with league MVP and playmaker Bob Cousy. The best offensive player in the game arguably. Playing with GOAT coach Red, who is known to develop his players (And who Bill Russell said he would only want to coach him). And another future HOF who won ROY and was pretty good himself.

Or would you play with O'Neal, and an All-Star in Eddie Jones and role players. And have to go through the defending champion Chicago Bulls (72 wins), and other great teams in the league for your shot at a title.


I mean wtf?

You would rather play with "Shaq", have tough competition for title, play with a garbage coach, and no one special after that.

Versus, play for the championship right away, the league MVP, 3 HOFs, and the GOAT coach who is going to develop your game?[/QUOTE]

For one....what Russell would choose to do is not relevant to the matter of who was more lucky. It is Russell vs a number of others luck wise not asking if Russell would be better suited to join the league 40 years later and be thrown onto a team with Shaq. Its Magic on the Lakers, Kobe on the Lakers, and Russell on the Celtics. You said he was most lucky of any player ever to be where he was. It is irrelevant what his luck would be in a time machine situation. where we pluck him from 1956 and let him choose where to go. If we are gonna get into the era argument there is a lot more reason to be in the 90s than the 50s for a black athlete.

I might as well ask what Kobe would choose considering that he likely could own the 50s even more than he owns this league.

Issue is the players/coaches/situation and how much it does to help the player in each situation.

considering that Bill joined a team that did nothing with players he was better than and a coach who had accomplished zero in 16 years without him.....and that Magic would be joining the Lakers with the best player in the league, a star point to mento him, finishers everywhere and be one of 4 all stars and a guy who put up 24/9 the season before? Or Kobe joining a team with an all star level backcourt, the best bigman of the era, and tons of great role players as the core of the team comes together for 3 rings and 4 finals?

I mean...what evidence is there that either of them could have been dropped into a better situation?

Magic won 5 rings made 8 finals and was the finals MVP as a rookie. Kobe wasnt great early due to his age but cmon...he was an NBA all star at 19 and has half the fans now saying hes better than Jordan. Any evidence of his development being stunted?




[QUOTE]I mean, you ARE considering the chances of your title relative to competiion. On one side, you got the 97 Bulls, on the other side, the St. Louis Hawks. You DO want to win right? Bill Russell is that you? I mean, it probably doesn't matter to him, but luck says its easier to enter the league and go against the Hawks than the Bulls who are considered one of the GOAT teams. Another point for Russell's incredible luck please.[/QUOTE]

Magic won the title as a rookie and Kobe had 3 rings when he was what...24? Winning it all isnt an issue for any of them. They already did it It happened. Its just a matter of who came into the best situation. Magic joined a set of out of this world offensive players one of which the best weapon of his generation(if not any generation) with an all star mentor at his position in one of the worst conferences of all time depth wise.

And again....I used only one team. You are talking about him being the luckiest athlete ever and the Lakers alone have guys like Kobe and Magic dropped into the most perfect situation I can imagine for players of their type.


[QUOTE]And you ignored the coach remark. Once again, it's your rookie season, who do you want to help develop your game over the course of your career? Red (who maybe the best in history at it), or some garbage coach? [/QUOTE]

How did not having Red hurt Magic and Kobe again?

In what way have their skillsets suffered?

Again...you arent talking about hypothetical people. These things already happened. What is Magic gonna do as a rookie if Red is his coach? Win the title extra hard? How did ending up with Riley/Phil hurt these guys?

[QUOTE]Once again, Bill Russell said he would only play for Red. That's how close their relationship was. That's how good Red was. Both meant a lot to each other.[/QUOTE]

I didnt say Red wasnt good or that they were not close. I said Russell won without every single player and coach. They did not do so without him. Russell was arguably the greatest winner in NCAA history, went on to be the greatest winner thus far in Olympic history(54ppg average margin of victory...Russell the captian and leading scorer), joins the Celtics and a coach and players who had won nothing become the greatest winners in history next to him.

And hes the lucky now. Not them. Hes the luckiest.....ignoring that everything he did with them he did without them right down to coaching 2 title teams.

How is he luckier for playing with them than they are for playing with him...if you admit hes the primary reason they won? How is the guy leading lesser people to success more lucky for that success...than the people riding his coattails to it?

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Even aside from being factually superior....the finals alone is more than they did.
[/quote]

Getting swept out of the Finals is not a major accomplishment. Shaq did not do a lot more than Cousy/Sharman. So I don't see the point of "What did Cousy/Sharman accomplish previous to Russell". Because just like Shaq, they had insignificant accomplishments. So at best, it's a really weak argument.


[QUOTE]
Winning the MVP doesnt mean he was the most valuable player and if he was...I already said there are a number of MVPs I wouldnt take over Shaq and a couple all stars with him.[/QUOTE]

Yes of course. But this is relative to era. Cousy was a Top 3 player in the league back then. So was O'Neal. Neither were the best (57 vs. 97). This isn't Shaq vs. Cousy as much as Shaq relative to the league vs. Cousy relative to the league. I hope you understand why. There is no time machine. Kobe joined Shaq in 97, and Russell joined Cousy in 57.



[QUOTE]
Issue is the players/coaches/situation and how much it does to help the player in each situation.

considering that Bill joined a team that did nothing with players he was better than and a coach who had accomplished zero in 16 years without him.....and that Magic would be joining the Lakers with the best player in the league, a star point to mento him, finishers everywhere and be one of 4 all stars and a guy who put up 24/9 the season before? Or Kobe joining a team with an all star level backcourt, the best bigman of the era, and tons of great role players as the core of the team comes together for 3 rings and 4 finals?

I mean...what evidence is there that either of them could have been dropped into a better situation?

Magic won 5 rings made 8 finals and was the finals MVP as a rookie. Kobe wasnt great early due to his age but cmon...he was an NBA all star at 19 and has half the fans now saying hes better than Jordan. Any evidence of his development being stunted?

[/QUOTE]

I'll give you that Magic was also very fortunate.

But it wasn't a dream entrance either. Funny how you don't mention Norm Nixon. He was also a great passer/playmaker who played Magic's game. Who played Bill's game in Boston? He immediately became the defensive anchor and was able to do what he did best, defend. On the other hand, Magic's playmaking ability was limited. So let's not ignore this.




[QUOTE]

Magic won the title as a rookie and Kobe had 3 rings when he was what...24? Winning it all isnt an issue for any of them. They already did it It happened. Its just a matter of who came into the best situation. Magic joined a set of out of this world offensive players one of which the best weapon of his generation(if not any generation) with an all star mentor at his position in one of the worst conferences of all time depth wise.[/QUOTE]

I'm saying at the entrance level. Kobe/Shaq did not immediately start winning. They needed Phil for that. But coming into the league, Kobe did not have Phil. So let's stick to 97.

You tell me. 97 Bulls (69-13), or 57 Hawks (34-38), who had the more fortunate opponent contending for title? This is also part of luck.





[QUOTE]
How did not having Red hurt Magic and Kobe again?

In what way have their skillsets suffered?

Again...you arent talking about hypothetical people. These things already happened. What is Magic gonna do as a rookie if Red is his coach? Win the title extra hard? How did ending up with Riley/Phil hurt these guys?
[/QUOTE]

It didn't hurt them possibly, we'll never know. But we do know that it helped Bill Russell and we do know that he is good at developing players.

[quote]

I didnt say Red wasnt good or that they were not close. I said Russell won without every single player and coach. They did not do so without him. Russell was arguably the greatest winner in NCAA history, went on to be the greatest winner thus far in Olympic history(54ppg average margin of victory...Russell the captian and leading scorer), joins the Celtics and a coach and players who had won nothing become the greatest winners in history next to him.

And hes the lucky now. Not them. Hes the luckiest.....ignoring that everything he did with them he did without them right down to coaching 2 title teams.

How is he luckier for playing with them than they are for playing with him...if you admit hes the primary reason they won? How is the guy leading lesser people to success more lucky for that success...than the people riding his coattails to it?[/QUOTE]

What he was able to do without them has nothing to do with my argument. I'm arguing he was put in a very fortunate situation. And you are replying with even without the fortunate situation he would have done very well. Those are 2 different arguments.


And of course his teammates were also fortunate (more) for playing next to him. But we are talking about Top 10 players here. Of the Top 10 players, he was the most fortunate.