Top 50 All-Time List - Shot Clock Era = #1

[QUOTE=8Ball;14426074]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]


Look at the terrible spacing and dumb teammates that Wilt had to deal with.


This incredibly dumb Warriors player decided to park himself and his defender right in front of Wilt.


People say that Wilt wouldn’t be good today when he was putting up 50 points a game and leading the NBA in FG% with this spacing around him.


[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ey4-1d-WUAkS6b4?format=jpg&name=900x900[/IMG]



If You want to know how talented Wilt was as a player? Take a look at the 63-64 Warriors.


Before the season even started, the Warrior's new coach, Alex Hannum, conducted a scrimmage, sans Wilt, between the veterans, and a team comprised of rookies and rejects. To his horror, the rejects won.


Wilt then took basically that same roster, which may have been the worst roster ever surrounding a GOAT player in his prime to the finals and while it might be true that his team lost in five games to the Celtics and their eight HOFers.



Wilt somehow managed to keep his team in most of the games with only one other player (Tom Meschery) shooting above 35 FG% in those finals.


As in those Finals, he finished with 29.2 PPG on a +2.4 rTS% against the greatest defense of all-time


There is no way in my mind people think that Wilt should’ve been passing it to these utter scrubs on his team instead of putting up 30 shots a game.


[url]https://twitter.com/StokesIsland/status/1381997079933882372[/url]



Don't judge the entire era based off this clip btw as most players weren't nearly as incompetent as Wilt's teammates.

[QUOTE=8Ball;14426074]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]

Even if we assume that's true that no team today gets better replacing a top 15 player for Russell, that still means nothing.

We are evaluating Russell and all other players according to what they did in THEIR ERA. Of course a defensive center that blocked 8-10 shots a game and closed down the paint in an era with almost no outside shooting where all efficient shots were at the rim would have his impact greatly diminished in an era of 3pt shooters. Obviously... but that does not take anything away from Russell. I can say that Curry playing in the 60's NBA being hit hard by defenders, not being allowed to palm the ball and with no 3pt line would struggle mightily. This talk is irrelevant over what the player in question actually did. Russell led his teams to 4 out of 5 best defenses in terms of rDRtg (defensive rating relative to league average) in NBA history. That's what he should be judged on. That's at least how I see it.

Imagine having Wilt, 7'2", 300 lbs. Strongest player in the league. With 4 shooters around him.

That's already a good modern team that any fanbase would be happy with.


Russell and 4 shooters doesn't go very far in today's league.


If I am wrong show me the arguments.

[QUOTE=dankok8;14426082]Even if we assume that's true that no team today gets better replacing a top 15 player for Russell, that still means nothing.

We are evaluating Russell and all other players according to what they did in THEIR ERA. Of course a defensive center that blocked 8-10 shots a game and closed down the paint in an era with almost no outside shooting where all efficient shots were at the rim would have his impact greatly diminished in an era of 3pt shooters. Obviously... but that does not take anything away from Russell. I can say that Curry playing in the 60's NBA being hit hard by defenders, not being allowed to palm the ball and with no 3pt line would struggle mightily. This talk is irrelevant over what the player in question actually did. Russell led his teams to 4 out of 5 best defenses in terms of rDRtg (defensive rating relative to league average) in NBA history. That's what he should be judged on. That's at least how I see it.[/QUOTE]

The 10 best playoff defenses in NBA history (Relative to Opponent) *7+ Games*

1. 1964 Celtics: -12.4

2. 2004 DET: -10.7

3. 1996 Knicks: -9.9

4. 1971 Bucks: -9.5

5. 2019 Bucks: -9.2

6. 1972 Bucks: -9.0

7. 2016 Spurs: -8.9

8. 2019 Raps: -8.6

9. 2000 Heat: -8.4

10. 1996 Bulls: -8.3



Kareem was a defensive monster from 1970 to 1974.



How those 1971 to 1974 Bucks teams came away with only one ring in those four years I will never know as they should have at least gotten two titles in that time fame.

[QUOTE=dankok8;14426082]Even if we assume that's true that no team today gets better replacing a top 15 player for Russell, that still means nothing.

We are evaluating Russell and all other players according to what they did in THEIR ERA. Of course a defensive center that blocked 8-10 shots a game and closed down the paint in an era with almost no outside shooting where all efficient shots were at the rim would have his impact greatly diminished in an era of 3pt shooters. Obviously... but that does not take anything away from Russell. I can say that Curry playing in the 60's NBA being hit hard by defenders, not being allowed to palm the ball and with no 3pt line would struggle mightily. This talk is irrelevant over what the player in question actually did. Russell led his teams to 4 out of 5 best defenses in terms of rDRtg (defensive rating relative to league average) in NBA history. That's what he should be judged on. That's at least how I see it.[/QUOTE]

I agree that GOAT talks include discussion with what they accomplished in their era. And Curry would not be as great in the 60s.

Russell still is in my top 10. But Wilt is ranked higher than him for me.


For GOAT talks being a better basketball player vs your other GOAT candidates matter to me.

[QUOTE=8Ball;14426089]I agree that GOAT talks include discussion with what they accomplished in their era. And Curry would not be as great in the 60s.

Russell still is in my top 10. But Wilt is ranked higher than him for me.


For GOAT talks being a better basketball player vs your other GOAT candidates matter to me.[/QUOTE]

Russell vs. Wilt full H2H stats against each other year-By-year.


1959-1960 regular season in 11 H2H's

Russell: 19.8 ppg, 23.7 rpg 3.5 APG 39.3 FG%

Wilt: 39.1 ppg, 29.7 rpg 46.5 FG%, 1.3 apg.


1960 ECF in six postseason H2H's

Russell: 20.7 ppg, 27.0 rpg, 44.6 FG%, and 2.8 APG.

Wilt: 30.5 ppg, 27.5 rpg,.50.0 FG% and 2.0 APG



1960-1961 in 13 H2H matchups

Russell: 18.8 ppg, 25.4 rpg, 39.8 FG%, and 3.6 APG

Wilt: 35.5 ppg, 30.6 rpg, 49.2 FG%, and 1.8 apg.


1961-62 in 10 regular season H2H's:

Russell: 18.5 ppg, 24.6 rpg, 38.3 FG%, and 4.4 APG.

Wilt: 39.7 ppg, 28.8 rpg, 46.8 FG%, and 2.1 apg.


1962 ECF in seven postseason H2H's

Russell: 22.0 ppg, 25.9 rpg, 39.9. FG%, and 4.6 APG.

Wilt: 33.6 ppg, 26.9 rpg, 46.8 FG%, and 2.9 apg.


1962 -1963 in 9 regular season H2H's:

Russell: 15.3 ppg, 27.8 rpg, 38.14 FG%

Wilt: 38.1 ppg, 28.9 rpg, 51.1 FG%


1963-1964 in 8 regular season H2H

Russell 14.3 ppg, 25.3 rpg , 5 APG 39.81 FG%

Wilt 29.1 ppg ,26.8 rpg, 3.6 APG 53.9 FG%


1964 finals in five postseason H2H's

Russell 11.2 ppg, 25.2 rpg, 5.0 APG 38.6 FG%

Wilt 29.2 ppg 27,6 rpg, 2.4 APG 51.7 FG%


1964 - 1965 in 11 regular season H2H

Russell 12.6 ppg, 22.2 rpg 4.6 APG, 28.1 FG%

Wilt 25.4 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 4.2 APG, 47.3 FG%



1965 ECF in seven postseason H2H's

Russell 15.6 ppg, 25.1 rpg, 6.7 APG,44.7 FG%.

Wilt 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, 3.3 APG 55.5 FG%.



1965 -1966 in 9 regular season H2H

Russell vs Wilt in 9 regular season H2H's:

Russell: 9.4 ppg, 21.2 rpg, 4.9 APG, .30.1 FG%

Wilt: 28.3 ppg, 30.7 rpg, 4.1 APG 47.3 FG%



1966 ECF in five postseason H2H's

Russell: 14.0 ppg, 26.2 rpg, 5.6 APG, 42.4 FG%

Wilt: 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, 3.0 APG 50.9 FG%


1966 -1967 in 9 regular season H2H

Russell: 12.2 ppg, 21.1 rpg, 4.1 APG .44.7 FG%

Wilt: 20.3 ppg, 26.7 rpg, 6.3 APG, .54.9 FG%



1967 ECF in five postseason H2H's

Russell: 11.4 ppg, 23.4 rpg, 6.0 APG, 35.8 FG%

Wilt: 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, 55.6 FG%



1967-1968 in 8 regular season H2H

Russell: 7.8 ppg, 17.5 rpg, 5.1 APG 29.1 FG%

Wilt: 17.1 ppg, 26.1 rpg, 8.5 APG, .46.1 FG%



1968 ECF in seven postseason H2H's


Russell: 13.7 ppg, 23.9 rpg, 4.1 APG, 44.0 FG%.

Wilt: 22.1 ppg, 25.1 rpg, 6.7 APG, 48.7 FG%.



1968-69: in six regular-season H2H

Russell: 6.7 ppg, 15.8 rpg, 5.8 APG on 34.0 %FG

Wilt: 16.3 ppg, 24.0 rpg, 4.8 APG on 50.7 %FG


1969 finals in seven postseason H2H's

Russell: 9.1 ppg, 21.1 rpg, 5.1 apg on 39.7 %FG

Wilt: 11.7 ppg, 25.0 rpg, 3.0 apg on 50.0 %FG

Coastalmarker,


Jordan was the biggest asshole to players he felt couldn't contribute the way Jordan wanted them to. Would bully them off the team.
LeBron gets players traded ASAP if they can't contribute the way he feels they should.

Meanwhile Wilt is called a team cancer.

Who cares about winning? Stats is where it's really at.

[QUOTE=8Ball;14426093]Coastalmarker,


Jordan was the biggest asshole to players he felt couldn't contribute the way Jordan wanted them to. Would bully them off the team.
LeBron gets players traded ASAP if they can't contribute the way he feels they should.

Meanwhile Wilt is called a team cancer.[/QUOTE]



Wilt had every right to feel angry with his teammates.


"When my teams played against Boston," Chamberlain said, "I'd play my heart out against Russell, and someone else on my team would blow the game."


Here is an example of this statement being true.

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 and they ended up losing the game.


In-game 5 of the '65-66 EDF'



Wilt shelled Russell with a 46 point and 34 rebound game along with 8 blocks on 55 per cent shooting.


Wilt's teammates? They collectively shot...get this... 24 out of 79 from the field, or 30.38 percent and they ended up losing the game.


In other words, people should understand that winning or losing is decided by teams.

We are comparing 2 individual GOAT candidates here.

Winning/losing should count too, but that should not be the basis for the argument about who is better as individual players.



If you swap the rosters between Russell and Wilt we all know it would have been Wilt holding all those rings as the great John Wooden said.

[QUOTE=000;14426095]Who cares about winning? Stats is where it's really at.[/QUOTE]

Basketball is a team game and one player doesn't win and one player doesn't lose. In the end, the best team usually wins.




I think fans and media make too much of winning. The mere fact of winning doesn't make you great.



If you put Duncan in place of KG on those Wolves teams with bad management and horrible teammates.



Do you think he still gets viewed the same way as he does nowadays by fans and media?

[QUOTE=coastalmarker99;14426103]Basketball is a team game and one player doesn't win and one player doesn't lose. In the end, the best team usually wins.




I think fans and media make too much of winning. The mere fact of winning doesn't make you great.



If you put Duncan in place of KG on those Wolves teams with bad management and horrible teammates.



Do you think he still gets viewed the same way as he does nowadays by fans and media?[/QUOTE]
I agree, personally. Turning your mediocre team into an insane defensive dynasty is meaningless. It's much more important to get stats and then blame your teammates when you lose.

[QUOTE=000;14426095]Who cares about winning? Stats is where it's really at.[/QUOTE]

I look back at my career...and there were five 7th games in playoff series. Five times I lost four of them by a total of nine points.


Now think about that. Nine points going the other way, and I might have had four or five more championship rings.


So I sometimes get a little frustrated when I hear people talk about,

"Yeah, well you only won two Wilt." I could have won seven rings but I would have been the same player.

When (John) Paxson goes out and shoots a 3-point shot that wins the game for Chicago (in 1993).

No one takes anything away from Jordan because he just won the championship.

But if Paxson missed that shot, they would have lost that championship. Well, that has happened to me five times... and that's frustrating.

You know you're playing as well as those guys who won. I remember one series exactly: I scored the last ten points, we were behind, within one, with a few seconds to go.

And one of the other guys on my team threw the ball inbounds and it's the famous, "Havlicek stole the ball!"

It was just one of those things that happened. The ball slips out of his hand, he throws it right to Havlicek, and we lose a game that we could have won.

It was the seventh game so you know that you had the ability, but the end result was that we lost. And that's the way it goes.

The worst was in 1968 when I was playing with the 76ers and we lost to the Celtics in the famous 7th game and they blamed me for not shooting the ball because I only took two shots in the second half.
Well, during those years, I was passing off a lot. I won the assist title.

The Celtics were smart, they put all four guys on me and let the rest of the guys shoot.


Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer, Chet Walker and Wali Jones -- all fantastic shots -- had a bad, bad day. 8-for-24, 8-for-25 and 8-for-22 and I am giving them the ball.


So when the game is over people say, "Why didn't you shoot, Wilt?" Well, I got four guys on me and here are four of the best shooters in NBA history -- we had just won 62 games that year -- but they were missing that night.

I was accused of not doing my job, not putting the ball in the basket, even though I had 34 rebounds, 13 blocked shots to go along with 14 points for the game.

But because I only took two shots in the second half, I get blamed. I think that sometimes that's a little bit unfair.

[QUOTE=8Ball;14426093]Coastalmarker,


Jordan was the biggest asshole to players he felt couldn't contribute the way Jordan wanted them to. Would bully them off the team.
LeBron gets players traded ASAP if they can't contribute the way he feels they should.

Meanwhile Wilt is called a team cancer.[/QUOTE]

Examples of Wilt getting let down by his teammates in the playoffs.


Game 1, 1960 ECF vs Boston

Wilt scores 42 points and grabs 29 rebounds and disses out 1 assist on 17-35 FG/FGA.


While Russell had 19 points and 30 rebounds plus 1 assist on 9-17 shooting


The difference was for this game


Was that Woody Sauldsberry went 3-21 and Wilt's teammates shoot 30% from the field in a 6 point loss in a series they lost in 6 games.



Game 1, 1961 ECSF vs Syracuse

Wilts teammates shoot 28.8% from the field after Wilt drops 46 and 32


Wilts teammates shot 33.2% from the field this series (8.3% below league average) and they were swept



Game 1, 1962 ECF vs Boston

Wilt scores 33 points and grabs 31 rebounds and disses out 3 assists on 13-25 FG/FGA.


While Russell had 16 points and 30 rebounds plus 4 assists on 7-22 shooting


Yet the difference in this game was that Wilts teammates shoot 23.5% from the field.



Game 4, 1964 Finals vs Boston

Wilt scores 27 points and grabs 38 rebounds on 52 percent shooting.


While Russell had 8 points and 19 rebounds plus 3 assists on 33 percent shooting.


Yet the difference in this game was that Wilt's teammates shoot 27.7% from the field in a 3 point loss.



Game 1 1965 ECF

Wilt scores 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.


Yet the difference in this game was that Wilt's teammates shoot 23.5% from the field in a 10 point loss.



Game 5 1966 ECF.

Wilt scores 46 points and grabbed 34 rebounds along with 8 blocks on 19-34 FG/FGA


While Russell had 18 points and 31 rebounds plus 6 assists on 4-7 FG/FGA


Yet the difference in this game was that Wilt's teammates shoot 30.8% from the field in a 6 point loss in a series they lost in 5 games.

[QUOTE=8Ball;14426074]No trolling response from me.


[B]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.[/B]


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]

I love how you say your response is not trolling and you proceed to clearly troll. I 100% guarantee you if you ask GMs about if they could trade embiid or jokic for russell, they would laugh at how ridiculously easy the answer is.

To answer the bold, literally every team would get better. Again, Russell showed he's a championship player even when his entire team around him changed to different players over the years. He's basically a richman's Tim Duncan which is saying something just like Wilt is a richman's Shaq. I also take Duncan over Shaq but again, that's based on what I've seen from their actual careers and what I personally value in what makes a player great. You can disagree and that's fine. Neither of us are wrong because there's no way to definitively prove any of it.

Anyway, I'm done commenting in this thread and think Dankock is probably going nuts. This thread's purpose is literally just to list your GOAT and your reasoning behind it. Not to debate other people or play out hypotheticals.

The greatest example I can use to say that basketball is a team game and that you shouldn't judge players on winning alone.


Is that in Lebron's three best postseasons of his career in 2009 2017 and 2018.


Lebron didn't come away with a single ring despite the fact that his play was GOAT tier in all three of those playoff runs.




In the two best postseasons of Kareem's career in 1977 and 1974, he also didn't end up with a single ring despite the fact that his play was GOAT tier.



Hell Hakeem Olajuwon put up (49 points, 25 rebounds, six blocks in a playoff game and yet he still lost the series against the Sonics in 1987.



That was only Hakeem's third season in the league at 24 years old and he averaged 29 ppg, 11 rpg, 1.3 spg, and 4.3 BPG for the 10 game playoff run in 1987



Just insane numbers and he kept doing that every single season and he kept losing in the first round because he had no help whatsoever around him.