By the way Koby, you have a little research to do yet. Since you used that NFL example, I posed a question and research topic for you to do...I also asked a question on Favre. While I'm waiting for your 'enlightened' responses, I think I may go see if Atlas needs a break from holding up the earth, being that you believe in myths and tend to discount evidence, I'm sure that Atlas must still be there in your world.
Again I say.... have you Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell fans ever seen any of that old footage? It is almost comical. I didn't even play college ball (even though I did average over 25 points per game in high school), and I really believe that even I could have played back then. You may think I'm trying to be funny or obnoxious, but I am very serious. Those guys (no disrespect intended at all) just did not have the skills that guys today have. Plus, they were much smaller. Wilt and Russell TOWERED over them. Many of those guys could only dribble with one hand.
Here is what I think a typical year would be for these guys, if they played today.
Wilt Chamberlain would average about 15 points, 10 rebounds, and a couple of blocks.
Bill Russell would average about 10 points, 12 rebounds, and a couple of blocks.
There is NO WAY that Chamberlain would have the stats that he had if he played against today's competition. And when I say "today's competition", I mean, say from the mid 80's until today.
But, let's turn that around. What if Michael Jordan or Shaq played in the 50's and 60's? WOW! Jordan would have averaged over 50 points for about 10 years in a row, not just one year. The same thing for Shaq.
The bottom line, Chamberlain and Russell were great in their time, but there is no comparison to Jordan.
By the way, this kid Lebron is something! Let's have this debate again in about 10 or 15 years!
Skinpinch, You are missing the boat completely. Can you read? Explain to me why I need to do research on Brett Favre again. When I brought up one football example, I wrote that Elway was not responsible for the defense on his team. Likewise, Favre is not responsible for the defense on his team. Likewise, Bill Russell and Michael Jordan were not responsible for the play of their respective teammantes. Your point is?
Nowhere did I criticize Jordan's play. Are his numbers impressive? Yes. Was he the most talented? Maybe. Did he win at every level that he played? Yes. What does Atlas have to do with sports? Are you comparing real sports figures to mythological characters? I think your analogy leaves much to be desired.
Skinpinch, Let me ask you this: What is your crieria for selecting the "best ever " in baseketball? I have already given you my criteria. I note that you have chosen Jordan followed by Bird, Kareem and Magic. That is a pretty diverse group with different positions and different sets of skills. How did you come to conclude these are the four best ever?
Koby, you said that 'because Elway won two champinships he put himself on a higher plane than Marino." The championships have NOTHING to do with who was better, yet you claim Elway all of a sudden was put on a higher plane after winning them. The point is put in my other posts. There are reasons why he won it and Marino didn't, and the same reasons can be applied to ALL of the QB's that won them. So to claim one guy is better than the other because his circumstances were better is stupid.
As for the myths. The myth that elite players have some kind of intangible that allows them to win titles, while superior players must somehow be lacking this intangible, and thus the reason why they have no champinshps, is what I am talking about. The fact of being on a title team, and not, is controlled by soo many circumstances that are out of an individual players control that to use titles as a criteria to decide who is better is probably the most flawed analysis one can do. Yet it is always done that way.
People believe strongly that some elite players have this rising to the occasion attribute in their play, and other elite players don't, and then they label them accordingly, totally discounting the factors that are Truly in control. It is a form of hero worship, and IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS DONE TO EASILY EXPLAIN THE DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND!! That is where the Atlaas analogy comes in, as back then people could not explain why things happened like they did, so they created these mythical Gods to explain. That made it easier for them to feel their place in the world etc..., but even though most held strongly those created myths, they just weren't true. Even though most people hold dearly to your myth of number of titles is the accurate way to rank a player and that a certain elite player has some strange ability to be resonsible for titles, it isn't true, and it is explained by many other factors. So you should discontue your pursuit of it.
Yes, I do look at the numbers for basketball players too. But I also look at the skill set on what they can do. Numbers can really lie in basketball. Scoring points could be done at the expense of your teammates, and could actually cause some games to be lost. But, sometimes a player has to do that in order to win if they dont have any other good scorers on their team. Chamberlain's and Russell's numbers are way inflated as they played in a league that had lots of small people. The 50's and early 60's was very easy for a good big man to domiinate because there just weren't many other decent big men to contend with them. Just look at the heights, as that is black and white. So I know that you can't take those numbers at face value.
Jordan= One of the absolute best defensive players in his league. A true difference maker on defense. He also happened to be the best scorer in the league. He could score by driving to the basket, by posting up, and by shooting. He had it all. He could also pass very well, and at the right time(even if it didn't lead to an assist). He also happens to have some of the best numbers, and coupled with his skill set, he is a logical choice. He was just as good a player in 1989 than he was in 1991. Yet 1989 Jordan had no titles, and '91 did. That is a non factor in what made him good, as the above is what did.
Larry Bird = the second best offensive player of his time, and maybe all-time. He could shoot from the outside with ANYBODY. He could post with anybody! The man was also virtually unstoppable on offense. He was also a superior passer, and rebounder. HIs defense is the only thing that keeps him ranked behind Jordan, but even as it is they should be neck and neck. None of his numbers are false and done because of losing efforts or weak league. He also has some of the best numbers ever to go along with a suprior skill set.
Magic Johnson= The third best offensive player of his time. He was basically unstoppable too. If he was denied a shot, he was going to find the right man to pass the ball too. WHen he wanted to score, he did so basically at will. He could have easily decided to score as much as Bird and Jordan, while cutting back the assists. As it was, he chose to do both, which made him every bit as good offesnively as those two. His defense was a touch below Jordan, but very well. His numbers also match his known skill set.
Wilt Chamberlain= A dominant force, but done against guys that were easier to dominate, so his 50 point average is obviousl not going to occur if every team had a seven footer to contend, but 50 points a game is FIFTY PONTS a game, which is probably the equal of Jordan's mid 30's. He really couldn't shoot well, and he was awful at the free throw line. Those two things make it possible for good coach's to take him out of some games, especially down the stretch....THAT COULD NOT BE DONE WHATSOEVER WITH BIRD, MAGIC, OR MICHAEL, and that is what truly separates Wilt from those guys.
Bill Russell= A guy that truly knew how to play within the framework of a team and his role. His defense was second to none during his time, though like Wilt, put a 7 footer on every team, and his rebounds go down to Rodman territory, still good but not astronimically and artificially high. He wasn't a polished offensive player. If he did not have teammates that can score and pass like he did, he would not be able to carry the load offensively, so he isn't a guy that could have done what Jordan did with some of his Bulls' teams. A coach could make him a non factor offensively, and Jordan was pretty darn near as good defensively(although a different position), that Jordan's offense doesn't even make it a contest. Russell gets all the credit for the defense, but he really didn't shut Wilt dow when they played, and just imagine if he had Jabbar, Moses, olajuwon, and David Robinson to contend with every night, instead of the sixt foot seven white stiff.
Jabbar/Alcindor= A mixture of attributes of all good centers. He was basically unstoppable in the post, something neither Wilt nor Russell could claim to. Jabbar was also very good defensively and a good passer. The fact is, when basketball gets to the final minute, and you need a guy to get a bucket Jabbar is the man. Plus he could hit his free throws, so coachs had to really account for him, which maeks the other players on his team get easier shots. You could just foul Wilt, and Russell you didn't even have to worry about in that situation.
I don't see how Russell, basically half a player, has any claim at all to the throne. And how Wilt, being a poor choice for a down the stretch option because of his poor free throws, can top the unstoppable offesnive players of Jordan, Magic, and Bird. The numbers of Russell and Chamberlain are false, as they wouldn't happend in the 80's to now(heck, even the early 70's). So you can't just say Russell average 20 boards, and Chamberlain 50 points, as those wouldn't occur now. The big three of the 80's do have real numbers(though Magic's kind of get a boost from the open style offense of his team and his division. That is another thing in favor of Bird and Jordan as they could excel in any type of offense). The big three also had the obvious physical attributes of offense(shooting, driving, and post up play. plus passing). And they were all good defenders, Jordan being the best of them. That advantage Jordan has in defense over the other two is what makes him a pubic hair ahead of them.
I didn't use titles as any of the analysis. It has no bearing, just like NO TITLE 1989 Jordan isn't any better or worse than 1991 Jordan with a ring.
Skinpinch, You picked Jordan, then Bird, Kareem and Magic.
ATHLETISM? Jordan and Kareem were athletic for they're respective positions. I don't think any would argue that Magic and Bird are particularlly athletic by most standards. I am not positive these two guys can jump over a paper cup.
FUNDAMENTAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE GAME? All four of the players that you selected meet this criteria. Unlike the young brash players who just dunk and dunk and dunk and then throw up a few threes, These four understand that the game consists of ten men on the court. In particular, I think Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers in the mid-eighties more than any other teams haveenabled me to appreciate the concept of team basketball.
WILL TO WIN? Certainly all four players had the psyche to win. (Before you insult me some more Skinpinch, I understand that this is somewhat subjective...ie we can't measure it by verticle leap or forty yard dash or bench press.) All four of these guys have proven time and time again that they can take control at the last minutes of the game and dominate. We have all seen players who at the last minutes of a big game treat the basketball like a hot potatoe. Not these four.
GOOD DEFENSE? No doubt, all four of these guys are great defenders. This criteria is often ooverlooked in measuring basketball players because it is not a stat than can easily be quantified. Kareem, Jordan and Bird are great scorers and Magic was at one time the all-time assist leader and those numbers often overshadow the fact that these guys are tenacious defenders.
GOOD ON INSIDE AND OUTSIDE Bird and Jordan are accurate shooters and powerful in the paint despite their size. Magic was an underrated shooter and decent in the paint. Kareem was awesome udner the basket or near the basket, however was only a decent shooter from over ten feet.
CHAMPIONSHIPS? Jordan 6 NAB Championships Magic 5 NBA Championships Bird 4 NBA Championships Kareem 6 NBA Championships
I never said they were bad picks. Bill Russell meets some of those criteria too. Some categories he is stronger than others. The one that stand out for me is the last one.
Koby, that analysis was much better. The thing with bird, jordan, and magic is how good they were offesnviely in outside shooting, driving to the basket, and post up play. There isn't anythiing else, besides passing, to define an offensive player. These three had it all. Russell lacked a lot of that, and Chamberlain was a liability at the line, so coach's could coach the last minute against Russell and Chamberlin. You just couldn't coach against the BIG THREE, all you could do is just pray they missed the shot. THat is what separates them from the two ancient big men. It isn't a knock on the big men, but they are a touch below.
Athleticisim. That is a term I don't like. What does it matter if Dominique Wilkins could jump out of the gym, and bird can't? An athlete doesn't have to run or jump. They could be good with their hands, coordination, and reflexes. Those make an athlete as well, and bird certainly had those. Not to mention consistency of accuracy, which is also an athletic trait. When it comes to bird, magic, and michael, you don't get any better or COMPLETE.
I apologize for insulting you. Sorry about that Koby. I just cringe every time I hear the title talk, becasue I always go back to '89 Jordan vs. '91 Jordan, and there were no difference between the two players, yet one of them had a title, and the other didn't, and it was the same man.
It's ok...always fun to talk about our sports heros of yesteryear compared with our more contemporary heros. It is always easy to say that a player would not fit in as well in today's game. Afterall, players are much faster, stronger, bigger than ten or twenty years ago. This applies to all sports. I think it is unfair, however, to fault Wilt and Russell just because they played in an era of short slow white guys. We can only measure athletes by what they do in their own era. Otherwise the comparisons are skewed.
In baseball for example, (without going into the reason why) the numbers today are staggering. Even your average second baseman can be the homerun kings from other years. Players like Bonds or Sosa or Pujols must be measured by their comtemporaries. Yes they kill most of the old records and year after year they can win triple crowns in the 40s and 50s, but compared to their contemporaries the numbers are less impressive.
This is the same for basketball. IMO you can only measure accomplishments by the era in which they were accomplished. Of course, if you place MJ or Lebron in the 50s and 60s, they would run circles around the other players. But then again, if you place lesser players such as Antoine Walker and Paul Pierce, they would do the same thing. Does this mean Walker and Pierce are better than Russell and Cousy? IMO they are not.
Great players adapt to the era they are playing. John Havlicek was a great player in 1963 and a great player in 1977. Kareem was a great player in 1969 and a very good player in 1987. Jordan was great in 1984 and still very good in 2003. The game changes but the stars change with the game. Wilt and Russell would do just fine today.
Depending on the criteria you select for greatest player you will probably get a different answer each time. In talking with Larry Bird he always mentioned he played for one reason only to win championships. Given all else is equal between him and Magic, and you would have a hard time picking one over the other - Magic wins out on the basis of 5 titles to 3. The superstars have a lot more say than 20% of the result. Bill Russell made his teammates better than any other player in history, and that is not really that close if you study the winning percentages with Russell in the lineup and without, compared to other players including Michael Jordan. Also, saying you could foul Russell down the stretch of games is wrong. Russell shot over 60% in the post-season from the foul line compared to only 56% in the regular season but in game sevens he was over 75%. Much has been written about his ability to not let that weakness affect him in crucial games. Conversely the point about Wilt is very valid. If Wilt was a 60% free throw shooter in 7th games Russell would have no where near 11 championships.
aro, there are not enough games with each guy in or out of the lineup to draw any valid conclusions. Kind of like when Derek Jeter got hurt two years ago for a couple of months and the Yanks were better WITHOUT him. That doesn't mean anything. Those types of analysis don't hold much water at all. Here is another guy who based things on champinships...I just shake my head. Magic bests bird 5 to 3 in titles so he is better? Again, I just shake my head in the ignorance.
RUssell and Wilt would do just fine in todays game, nobody said that, but they wouldn't average 20 boards and 50 points respectively.
Russell could not be counted on to carry the team offesnively, not because he wasn't a great shooter, but simply because he wasn't that much of an offensive force. He could be guarded quite well. If not for good teammates to put the ball in the hoop in those games, they don't win as much, plain and simple.
MJ, BIrd, and Magic all could dominate the game during any stretch, and importantly at the end. Russell could not. If a coach decided to take one of those three from taking the last shot, then most assuredly somebody else would be left open or given the easy defensive assignment, and those players would be good at finding that guy.
Of course, seing a Russell card in your line you know your going to get a bias account, that is typical sportsfandom.
As for the 20% in control of a player, that is an arbitrary number, but according to you title guys, then that number has to be 100% in order for number of titles to count as an accurate evaluation tool, and it most assuredly is not!
Lets get something straight here about Russell and your CLUTCH analysis aro. You act as if jumping from a 56% regular season free throw shooter(which sucks by the way), ALL the way to a 60% in the playoffs(which still sucks) is something. Then you say he shot 70% in game 7. That means crap as that is probably from about 30 free throws or something. So horrible analysis there.
Lets play your game though...Bill Russell had a lifetime FIELD GOAL percentage of 44%!!!!!!! ThAT IS TERRIBLE!! His lifetime field goal percentage in the playoffs is 43%!!!!!!! So using your logic by your free throw analysis, does he then get worse in the playoffs?
For a guy to be playing against a bunch of small people and have only a 44% field goal percentage, I Would say he IS Dennis Rodman transported back to 1958. I'm quite sure Dennis, grabbing all those boards and playing tough D against seven footers, would have done just the same as Russell in those departments back then. And based on Russell's ANEMIC shooting from the floor and the line, he probably could have equaled that too! So yes, Russell would be a liability down the stretch offesnively as I said.
Yeah, so he was a key cog on the best team, FILLED WITH THE BEST PLAYERS AT OTHER POSITIONS. So he was just in a good circumstance, and being in a good circumstance by no means makes you better than you actually are.
Also, the 1957 Celtics had FOUR other HALL OF FAME players on their team besides Russell, add Russell and you have five Hall of Famers. Yeah I know they improved a lot from the year before when Russell came, but they only had three Hall of Fame players on that team. So of course if you add two Hall of Fame players the next year, you are going to get better, but Russell doesn't get all that credit. The other guys weren't statues. Russell and another Hall of Fame player were added to a group of three existing Hall of Famers, and that makes for a wonderful mix. Russell doesn't get all the credit for those titles like you give. Take away four of those Hall of Famer and he wins squat! IT LOOKS AS THOUGH RUSSELL ALWAYS HAD THREE, FOUR, OR MORE HALL OF FAME TEAMMATES DURING HIS CAREER. He never once was a lone Hall of Famer, or with one other. Now that WOULD BE SOMETHING IF HE WON 11 TITLES being the only Hall of Famer or having one other. TEAMS WIN TITLES NOT INDIVIDUALS. WHEN ON EARTH ARE YOU GUYS GOING TO GET THAT??
Then he had sam Jones and Havlicek to help him later. Yeah, they dropped 12 games in record when Russell retired, but they got those 12 back the following year without him, added 12 more the following year, and then won 69 games and the title with Havlicek. Do not just look at one season and make assumptions, as other factors are in play.
Actually they only improved five games in Russell's rookie year, and that is adding another Hall of Famer besides him. They went from 42, 36, and 39 wins the three seasons before Russell. Then 44,49, and 52. That improvment is with adding two, and then three Hall of Famers from when before Russell got their. I would assume the other two new Hall of Famers had something to do with the improvement as well as russell.
So, with a 44% field goal percentage, and a 56% free throw percentage, he is basically dennis rodman, playing with an average of four hall of famers every year of his career. Some very good offensive Hall of Famers mind you. You don't put the ball in the bucket, Russell could play as much D as he wants. Actually my 20% figure is probably generous.
Please note that the Rodman is sarcasam. But in all sarcasam there is a hint of truth.
The 1963 Celtics had SEVEN Hall of Famers on that team, yet that title makes Russell better than everybody because he was in such a good circumstance? Where the he!! is the logic in that?
The 44% FIeld goal percentage against midgets, and the 56% at the line knock Russell right out of the discussion of all time best. He isn't even in the top ten. The glut of Hall of Famers knock that title talk back to pluto where it belongs.
That is what you call overwhelming evidence, and only a zealot of the highest religous proportions, or a biased or ignorant sports fan will refute it.
Although Rodman is one of the very few people ever who could guard either Michael Jordan or Shaq, and indeed did. He is very near the equal of Russell defensively.
You are going to fault Bill Russell because he played with other HOFers?
You listed Bird. His supporting cast was nothing to sneeze at. McHale, Parrish and Walton are HOFers. That's three. Ainge is a not bad at point and DJ was a serviceable guard.
You listed Magic. His supporting cast was not bad either. Hmmmmmm....Kareem, Worthy. Michael Cooper won several defensive player of the year awards. It's really hard to top that.
Even Jordan, although perhaps to a lesser extent, played with some decent players in Pippens, Cartight, Paxon and Rodman.
On one hand your deduct points from Russell because he had great players surrounding him. At the same time, you seem to forget that the very players that you have listed also played with strong teams. I think you are forgetting your first premise about this being a team sport.
I'M NOT DEDUCTING HIM BECAUSE HE IS PLAYING WITH HOFERS! Oh my god, that is the whole point! The point is you don't evaluate an individual player in a team sport because his team has titles! Why? Because other circumstances beyond that players control decide if the win a title, NAMELY THEIR TEAMMATES!! Bird doesn't win titles without those guys, no duh, neither does Magic, but that doesn't in one bit change on how good of a player they are, it only changes how many titles the team they played on one.
I say it again, Michael Jordan was ringless in 1989, and he was the best player in the league and did everything I mentioned above. In 1991 Michael Jordan had a ring, and he wasn't any better than he was in his ringless 1989 tenure. What changed were the circumstances, i.e. his teamates improved, and Detroit declined which also helped. That was why he had a ring, not because he changed.
The fact is Russell doesn't win ANY titles if he was the lone Hall of Fame player on those teams, neither does Bird, or Magic. So why on earth do people decide who was better based on titles, if the overwhelming majority of the circumstances are out of an individual players control as to whether their team wins a championship? You don't! You evaluate them based on what THEY did, and I did that in my evaluation of each individual player. Base it on their known skill set, and the numbers they put up(when put into context).
I never forgot it is a team sport, you guys did, and seems that you need constant reminding. I'll say it again, put Bird on 1983 Kings for his whole career and he will have zero titles, but he would be just as good a player. How good he is doesn't change, because the circumstances that are out of his control changed.
I think you guys need to reread and study all the posts. This is like trying to tell the first graders simple things that I have to repeat over and over again. Not that that is an insult, but that is how I feel.
Let me repeat, I deducted Russell because of a horrible 44% field goal percentage from a center playing in a time against midgets. I deducted Russell because of an awful 56% free throw percentage. I deducted Russell because he isn't a guy that could shoulder the load offensively when they need a bucket down the stretch. I added for Russell because he did know how to play in the framework of an oiled offense.
You guys added astronomical value to Russell because the Celtics had 11 titles. I am trying to point out to you that he was lucky to be laiden with an average of four Hall of Fame teammates per year for his career, and that that was the overwhelming reason WHY he was on a team that had 11 titles. Notice I ddint' say Russell had 11 titles, and that the CELTICS did.
You guys are turning basically a half a player into somebody who is the best ever because he was lucky enough to have more Hall of Fame teammates than anybody in history, therefore allowing them to garner all those titles. Becuase if he were the only Hall of Fame player on his team he wouldn't have any of those titles, then what leg would you have to stand on to vote the im the best? A 44% field goal percentage vs. Midgets?
Again, reread the individual evaluations I did on players, as I don't need to retype that. Read the reasons why bird etc.. are better again. Then read it again, and again.
Skinpinch, Like a lot of novice sports fans, you are too enamored with offensive production. That is the curse of only watching highlights of dunks on ESPN. You might miss some nuances of the game that a knowledgeable fan would appreciate.
I know things outside of points scored and Gatoraid slam dunk championships are not as exciting, but believe it or not, there are other aspects of the game. Like Dennis Rodman, Bill Russell led the league in rebounds four times. He had also 51 boards in one game, 49 in two others and a dozen consecutive seasons of 1,000 or more rebounds. I don't remember Dennis Rodman doing that. Nor do I remember Michael Jordan or Kareem doing that.
Did they count blocked shots in those days? Maybe that's why its hard for someone who doesn't follow basketball to appreciate the way to understand why coaches sometime put in tall immobile centers just to change the way offensive players take shot. Russell is by no means an immobile center; in fact he is not even particularlly tall. Nonetheless, Russell would change the game just by his presence on the court alone. I remember watching players being intimidated by the defensive play of Jordan, Payton, Mutumbo, and Olajwan. Now imagine that intimidation factor time ten.
You must also be in the camp that thinks Bill Russell was undeserving of five different MVP awards? None of the players that you have listed besides MJ was voted MVP on five different occassions. Still you characterize Bill Russell as a one-dimensional player who was carried by all his supestar teammates.
Not in the top ten?
You would be laughed out of any room of knowledgeable sports fan.
Not that it matters but MJ would roast Russell, Wilt, Bird, Magic, Dr. J, pretty much anyone else I can think of in a game of one-on-one... the best part is he would want to gamble on it and he would take their cash, offer them double or nothing, and beat them again...
Bird would be the only one to have a shot b/c of his outside shooting ability...
Skinpinch - My Bird - Magic analysis is simply: Offensively they are very close - Bird is a better outside shooter, but Magic improved throughout his career, Bird is the best passing forward of all-time, but Magic is the best passer of all-time. Bird and Magic are both good post players capable of creating mismatches, both are good rebounders. Bird is a little better free throw shooter and Magic is a better penetrator. Defensively, both are excellent team defenders, and not great one on one defenders that can be exposed in certain match ups. So basically it depends on what you prefer. In writing a report on the matter and after discussing the issue with Bird the difference is titles. Magic has 5, Larry has 3. Head to head, Magic outplayed Bird in two of three finals. I find this statement difficult to make as Bird is my favourite player but there is no other discernable difference between the two. As for the Russell argument. He is the greatest winner of all-time in any sport. In his last two seasons of college basketball he won the National Championship. His first year he had K.C. Jones his second year he had no other significant player. He played with Hall of Famers because he helped make them Hall of Famers. The one constant for all the championships is Russell. For the era Russell played a 44% field goal percentage is not terrible. Plus, the midgets he played against in the middle included Wilt, Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy all Hall of Famers. You would be hard pressed to name 5 centers equal to that group in any other era. I have no problem with people saying Jordan is the greatest player of all-time. Certainly he is the best player most people have ever seen play and his skills and determination are undeniable. But he does not make those around him better to the extent Russell did. In his prime Jordan left the Bulls, and the 9 scrubs he left behind still won 55 games. If you ask most NBA players that have seen both Jordan and Russell you would be evenly split on who they would pick if they could pick one player to start a team.
Again, you guys need to re read, and learn some objective analysis. I'm going to go to the middle east now and try to convert some religous zealots to normalty, as I'm beginning to lump sports fans as the most biased, ill informed, illogical people on the face of the earth. It still amazes me how people need to defend guys like Bill Russell and his championships so they themselves can get a feeling of some worth by associating themselves with that. If they were to admit that their thinking on that was flawed, they are basically destroying their own self confidence.
You fellas can think how you want. Even thought it is irritating to read ignorant stuff, it is good as it allows me to take money from people with that type of thinking every year. So that is fine.
P.S. You guys need to check the average heights in the NBA from 1958 comapred to 1990. You bring up a few centers, some of which barely played in the years of Russell. Go ahead and look it up fellas, then talk. But lets bring some evidence to the table.
Aro, you still haven't answered, if you claim Russell raised his game with his free throw percentage in the playofs, how come he lowered his game with his FG%. See if you can answer your own faulty analysis.
Koby, don't for a minute lump me in with the highlight dunk fans of this modern time, as coming from a guy who has a picture of Koby Bryant as his sig line, you have a lot of nerve saying that to me. You worship the exact thing you just callled me. I actually despise the current NBA game, as it is junk. They dno't know how to play basketball, they can just jump and dunk. Shooting is terrible, that is why they struggle in international competition now.
By the way Koby, reading is a skill. Defense is the thing I mentioned that separated Jordan from Bird and Magic. Jordan, Bird, and Magic had all the skills I mentioned, AND they backed it up with their performance.
I like how you guys just gloss over things, and make points that have no bearing, or merit. FUn. Koby, you should probably go watch ESPN yourself, maybe KObe is on. He is a hero of yours after all.
Aro, last thing I want to do is destroy somebody's feeling of self worth, so I don't want to knock russell anymore. He was pretty darn good, just not near the best.
By the way, some of Russell's teammates did go on to a title without him(with the celtics). The one constant wasn't Russell, it was an average of four plus hall of famers every year, that is the constant.
<< <i>Again, you guys need to re read, and learn some objective analysis. I'm going to go to the middle east now and try to convert some religous zealots to normalty, as I'm beginning to lump sports fans as the most biased, ill informed, illogical people on the face of the earth. It still amazes me how people need to defend guys like Bill Russell and his championships so they themselves can get a feeling of some worth by associating themselves with that. If they were to admit that their thinking on that was flawed, they are basically destroying their own self confidence. >>
Middle East?
Religeous zealots?
Self confidence?
WTF? I thought we were just talking about former b-ball players.
Skinpinch - There are very few star players whose field goal percentage rises in the play-offs, and actually Russell dropping from 44% to 43% is rather impressive relative to other superstars . Studying free throw percentage and the amount of times they get to the free throw line compared to the regular season is far more important. Jordan's, Bird's, Magic's, Kareem's, Wilt's field goal percentages all drop. The stars, though, up their points per game, their assists and their rebounds. Russell improves in all three statistical areas in the post-season. So does Michael.
Skinpinch - It's okay to belittle Russell. No big deal. I assume you have never seen him play a complete game. Oh, and the four Hall of Famers per year you keep mentioning is misleading. K.C. Jones and Tom Heinsohn are hardly Hall of Fame material except for the fact they played with Russell.
This conversation starts and ends with Michael Jordan.
He did it all, from scoring, to top notch defense, to clutch shooting. Add to that mix 6 titles (would have been 8 had he not get the wild hair to play baseball), and you have the greatest to EVER play the game.
Anyone remember the 55 point clinic he put on in the Garden, while taking breaks to go throw up from the flu? What about clutch shot after clutch shot, turning away the Jazz, the Cavs, any and everyone they faced?
Everyone has their favorites, and that's cool, but to say anyone other than Jordan is the greatest ever is lunacy.
Aro, I believe you are probably correct that a couple of those Celtic players aren't Hall of Famers if on another team, just as a Pippen may not be either. I did check, and russell was in the top five a couple of years in FG%, so that isn't as bad as I figured. Yeah, he definitely is a top ten, but is a notch below the all around studs of the big three in the 80's.
The size of the league back then makes a huge difference. That is all in black and white, as the average height is a few inches lower. Yeah, that isn't Russell's fault of course, but it is a big circumstance to allow him to do things that players from the 80-'s to now had no way of duplicating because of the size difference. So that is an example of circmstance to help Russell achieve something beyond a true ability(cross referenced with other players from another era). HEck, even guys like Mark Eaton, who aren't super stars, would make life very difficult for Russell. GO through a list of all centers and power forwards from 1958, and do the same from 1988, and check the average height and weight, and then use logic to see if Russell's size would be able to do the same things against the '88 behomths. It just won't. That must certainly has to be taken into consideration, just like Rafael Palmeiro playing against four teams worth of players(plus less population) of minor league players, compared to 1985.
My first post on this topic was going to be "World B. Free."
When I think of the greatest player, I THINK OF SOMEONE THAT COULD DO IT ALL!!!!!!!!! Could Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain penetrate? Could they handle the ball? Could they shoot from the outside? Could they shoot from the foul line? Could they shoot a fade away jumper from 15'? Would you give them the ball with 10 seconds left and down by one? The answer is a big NO to all of the above.
Now, let's take Jordan. All of the above applies to him. But, let's add a few more things to that. He was on the First Team All NBA Defense for for a record 9 times. He could block shots. No guard could block shots like Jordan. I saw him block a Patrick Ewing shot one time, and threw it in the stands. He could rebound. He could pass. HE DID MAKE HIS TEAMATES BETTER!! He could post up BETTER than most big men, and he was only 6'6".
He was regular season MVP 5 times (and should have been about 5 more times). He was the Finals MVP all six times, and the All Star Game MVP 3 times. Oh, and by the way, in 1996, his team won a record 72 games. I could go on and on.
Shaq could have been one of the top five, IF he actually tried every game. As it is, he takes too much time off during the game and doesn't give it his all every time he's on the floor. The truly great never coasted through games like Shaq does.
Because of that, I'd say he belongs in the list of the top 10, but definitely not the top 5.
Well put frankhardy. I still go back to that comment about russell getting 50 rebounds one game. Well yeah, lets see him do that against a front line of a 7 foot 2 center, 6 10 power forward, and a 6 8 small forward. Russell never stopped Wilt. Yeah, Russell's teams won more, but again, nobody had more Hall of Fame teammates than Russell, and that certainly helped them to win against the Wilt teams. Russell would get worn down going night in and night out against Akeem, Eaton, Ewing, Smits, David Robinson, Moses etc....Then add the big power forwards to go along, and he is reduced significantly. He would average more like 10 to 12 rebounds a game, and throw in his 15 points a game, and he would certainly not lead the league at all in blocked shots. That doesn't equate to best ever at all.
I bet that if there were over 100 graded gem mint cards of Wilt's RC, or Russell's RC, or Bird/Magic's RC they wouldn't still be going for $6000 a piece and rising like Jordan's... anyone agree?
Jordan is most popular player ever too, apparently...
<< <i>I bet that if there were over 100 graded gem mint cards of Wilt's RC, or Russell's RC, or Bird/Magic's RC they wouldn't still be going for $6000 a piece and rising like Jordan's... anyone agree?
Jordan is most popular player ever too, apparently...
This conversation has almost come to an end. >>
Jordan's rookie card used to be $30k +. No one's card has fallen as far.!
I didn't know anyone dumb enough to pay $30,000 for a PSA 10 '86 Fleer Jordan. The fact that there are over 100 Gem mint '86 Fleer Jordans btw PSA, SGC, and BGS alone and they still go for a minimum of $5K tells me that demand has not waned since the bubble-days of $25K Jordan RC's, but that the supply has been diluted, but not by a % that would take it down 75%... simply a condition sensitive rarity of the greatest player ever imo...
I do not own one but I will if I can find one for the right price... I would gladly own an SGC 98 for $4000 or less and cross it over into a PSA holder and be done with it.
If I were going to start a franchise and select anyone past or present to 'lead' my team, I'd have a tough time deciding against Wilt or Kareem, but I'd be leaning heavily towards Magic.
* '72 BASEBALL #15 100% * C. PASCUAL BASIC #3 * T. PEREZ BASIC #4 100% * L. TIANT BASIC #1 * DRYSDALE BASIC #4 100% * MAGIC MASTER #4/BASIC #3 * PALMEIRO MASTER/BASIC #1 * '65 DISNEYLAND #2 * '78 ELVIS PRESLEY #6 * '78 THREE'S COMPANY #1
There is no doubt that Jordan was the greatest player of his era. The greatest of all time is just opinion because of the changes in the way the game is played. If Jordan would have played in the 60's, the first time he waved his tongue and went to the hoop for a slam, he would have gotten knocked on his arse. Back then such play was considered showing up your opponent.
Kareem was a winner on every level he played at, won more MVP's than Jordan, scored more points and rebounds, blocks than Jordan and has just as many rings. One could make a good case for him.
Chamberlain is always bashed because of the perceived height advantage he had. Manute Bol, Randy Breuer, Mark Eaton, Burleson, and Yao Ming all have or had a similar height advantage and never came close to the domination of Wilt. earlier some one brought up overallskills such as dribbling, hitting the 15 footer etc...., with the exception of free throw shooting(ironically he holds the record for most made in a game), Wilt had some of these qualities, he even lead the league in assists one year. Russell's teams usually beat Wilt's teams, but Wilt's stats in those games were better than Russell's.
Russell was the greatest winner of all time. He had the intangibles that are hard to quantify statistically. His stats are good but don't give the whole picture as to the complete (free throws exempted) a player that he was. He was surrounded by great players and played for one of the best coaches in league history. I don't feel it is fair to downgrade his accomplishments on the floor because he was in a good situation, it wasn't his fault. Heart, determination, intimidation and basketball acumen defined him.
Cases could be made for Oscar Robertson, Magic Johnson, Jerry West and to a lesser degree Shaq, Elgin Baylor, Hakeem, Larry Bird, Rick Barry to at least be in the conversation.
To say Jordan is the best of alltime is subjective, but hard to argue with.
Collect vintage basketball and baseball,graded rookies allsports, Robin Yount,Brewers,Bucks,Packers Putting together a set of 61 Fleer Basketball PSA 7 or better. Trade references: T,Raf12,Coach Vinny,Iceman,McDee2,Lantz,JSA
Comments
When I read this question, I think "Who would I pick first for my team?"
Easy, Wilt in his prime. Kareem second.
Here is what I think a typical year would be for these guys, if they played today.
Wilt Chamberlain would average about 15 points, 10 rebounds, and a couple of blocks.
Bill Russell would average about 10 points, 12 rebounds, and a couple of blocks.
There is NO WAY that Chamberlain would have the stats that he had if he played against today's competition. And when I say "today's competition", I mean, say from the mid 80's until today.
But, let's turn that around. What if Michael Jordan or Shaq played in the 50's and 60's? WOW! Jordan would have averaged over 50 points for about 10 years in a row, not just one year. The same thing for Shaq.
The bottom line, Chamberlain and Russell were great in their time, but there is no comparison to Jordan.
By the way, this kid Lebron is something! Let's have this debate again in about 10 or 15 years!
Shane
Nowhere did I criticize Jordan's play. Are his numbers impressive? Yes. Was he the most talented? Maybe. Did he win at every level that he played? Yes. What does Atlas have to do with sports? Are you comparing real sports figures to mythological characters? I think your analogy leaves much to be desired.
As for the myths. The myth that elite players have some kind of intangible that allows them to win titles, while superior players must somehow be lacking this intangible, and thus the reason why they have no champinshps, is what I am talking about. The fact of being on a title team, and not, is controlled by soo many circumstances that are out of an individual players control that to use titles as a criteria to decide who is better is probably the most flawed analysis one can do. Yet it is always done that way.
People believe strongly that some elite players have this rising to the occasion attribute in their play, and other elite players don't, and then they label them accordingly, totally discounting the factors that are Truly in control. It is a form of hero worship, and IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS DONE TO EASILY EXPLAIN THE DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND!! That is where the Atlaas analogy comes in, as back then people could not explain why things happened like they did, so they created these mythical Gods to explain. That made it easier for them to feel their place in the world etc..., but even though most held strongly those created myths, they just weren't true. Even though most people hold dearly to your myth of number of titles is the accurate way to rank a player and that a certain elite player has some strange ability to be resonsible for titles, it isn't true, and it is explained by many other factors. So you should discontue your pursuit of it.
Jordan= One of the absolute best defensive players in his league. A true difference maker on defense. He also happened to be the best scorer in the league. He could score by driving to the basket, by posting up, and by shooting. He had it all. He could also pass very well, and at the right time(even if it didn't lead to an assist). He also happens to have some of the best numbers, and coupled with his skill set, he is a logical choice. He was just as good a player in 1989 than he was in 1991. Yet 1989 Jordan had no titles, and '91 did. That is a non factor in what made him good, as the above is what did.
Larry Bird = the second best offensive player of his time, and maybe all-time. He could shoot from the outside with ANYBODY. He could post with anybody! The man was also virtually unstoppable on offense. He was also a superior passer, and rebounder. HIs defense is the only thing that keeps him ranked behind Jordan, but even as it is they should be neck and neck. None of his numbers are false and done because of losing efforts or weak league. He also has some of the best numbers ever to go along with a suprior skill set.
Magic Johnson= The third best offensive player of his time. He was basically unstoppable too. If he was denied a shot, he was going to find the right man to pass the ball too. WHen he wanted to score, he did so basically at will. He could have easily decided to score as much as Bird and Jordan, while cutting back the assists. As it was, he chose to do both, which made him every bit as good offesnively as those two. His defense was a touch below Jordan, but very well. His numbers also match his known skill set.
Wilt Chamberlain= A dominant force, but done against guys that were easier to dominate, so his 50 point average is obviousl not going to occur if every team had a seven footer to contend, but 50 points a game is FIFTY PONTS a game, which is probably the equal of Jordan's mid 30's. He really couldn't shoot well, and he was awful at the free throw line. Those two things make it possible for good coach's to take him out of some games, especially down the stretch....THAT COULD NOT BE DONE WHATSOEVER WITH BIRD, MAGIC, OR MICHAEL, and that is what truly separates Wilt from those guys.
Bill Russell= A guy that truly knew how to play within the framework of a team and his role. His defense was second to none during his time, though like Wilt, put a 7 footer on every team, and his rebounds go down to Rodman territory, still good but not astronimically and artificially high. He wasn't a polished offensive player. If he did not have teammates that can score and pass like he did, he would not be able to carry the load offensively, so he isn't a guy that could have done what Jordan did with some of his Bulls' teams. A coach could make him a non factor offensively, and Jordan was pretty darn near as good defensively(although a different position), that Jordan's offense doesn't even make it a contest. Russell gets all the credit for the defense, but he really didn't shut Wilt dow when they played, and just imagine if he had Jabbar, Moses, olajuwon, and David Robinson to contend with every night, instead of the sixt foot seven white stiff.
Jabbar/Alcindor= A mixture of attributes of all good centers. He was basically unstoppable in the post, something neither Wilt nor Russell could claim to. Jabbar was also very good defensively and a good passer. The fact is, when basketball gets to the final minute, and you need a guy to get a bucket Jabbar is the man. Plus he could hit his free throws, so coachs had to really account for him, which maeks the other players on his team get easier shots. You could just foul Wilt, and Russell you didn't even have to worry about in that situation.
I don't see how Russell, basically half a player, has any claim at all to the throne. And how Wilt, being a poor choice for a down the stretch option because of his poor free throws, can top the unstoppable offesnive players of Jordan, Magic, and Bird. The numbers of Russell and Chamberlain are false, as they wouldn't happend in the 80's to now(heck, even the early 70's). So you can't just say Russell average 20 boards, and Chamberlain 50 points, as those wouldn't occur now. The big three of the 80's do have real numbers(though Magic's kind of get a boost from the open style offense of his team and his division. That is another thing in favor of Bird and Jordan as they could excel in any type of offense). The big three also had the obvious physical attributes of offense(shooting, driving, and post up play. plus passing). And they were all good defenders, Jordan being the best of them. That advantage Jordan has in defense over the other two is what makes him a pubic hair ahead of them.
I didn't use titles as any of the analysis. It has no bearing, just like NO TITLE 1989 Jordan isn't any better or worse than 1991 Jordan with a ring.
ATHLETISM?
Jordan and Kareem were athletic for they're respective positions. I don't think any would argue that Magic and Bird are particularlly athletic by most standards. I am not positive these two guys can jump over a paper cup.
FUNDAMENTAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE GAME?
All four of the players that you selected meet this criteria. Unlike the young brash players who just dunk and dunk and dunk and then throw up a few threes, These four understand that the game consists of ten men on the court. In particular, I think Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers in the mid-eighties more than any other teams haveenabled me to appreciate the concept of team basketball.
WILL TO WIN?
Certainly all four players had the psyche to win. (Before you insult me some more Skinpinch, I understand that this is somewhat subjective...ie we can't measure it by verticle leap or forty yard dash or bench press.) All four of these guys have proven time and time again that they can take control at the last minutes of the game and dominate. We have all seen players who at the last minutes of a big game treat the basketball like a hot potatoe. Not these four.
GOOD DEFENSE?
No doubt, all four of these guys are great defenders. This criteria is often ooverlooked in measuring basketball players because it is not a stat than can easily be quantified. Kareem, Jordan and Bird are great scorers and Magic was at one time the all-time assist leader and those numbers often overshadow the fact that these guys are tenacious defenders.
GOOD ON INSIDE AND OUTSIDE
Bird and Jordan are accurate shooters and powerful in the paint despite their size. Magic was an underrated shooter and decent in the paint. Kareem was awesome udner the basket or near the basket, however was only a decent shooter from over ten feet.
CHAMPIONSHIPS?
Jordan 6 NAB Championships
Magic 5 NBA Championships
Bird 4 NBA Championships
Kareem 6 NBA Championships
I never said they were bad picks. Bill Russell meets some of those criteria too. Some categories he is stronger than others. The one that stand out for me is the last one.
Athleticisim. That is a term I don't like. What does it matter if Dominique Wilkins could jump out of the gym, and bird can't? An athlete doesn't have to run or jump. They could be good with their hands, coordination, and reflexes. Those make an athlete as well, and bird certainly had those. Not to mention consistency of accuracy, which is also an athletic trait. When it comes to bird, magic, and michael, you don't get any better or COMPLETE.
I apologize for insulting you. Sorry about that Koby. I just cringe every time I hear the title talk, becasue I always go back to '89 Jordan vs. '91 Jordan, and there were no difference between the two players, yet one of them had a title, and the other didn't, and it was the same man.
In baseball for example, (without going into the reason why) the numbers today are staggering. Even your average second baseman can be the homerun kings from other years. Players like Bonds or Sosa or Pujols must be measured by their comtemporaries. Yes they kill most of the old records and year after year they can win triple crowns in the 40s and 50s, but compared to their contemporaries the numbers are less impressive.
This is the same for basketball. IMO you can only measure accomplishments by the era in which they were accomplished. Of course, if you place MJ or Lebron in the 50s and 60s, they would run circles around the other players. But then again, if you place lesser players such as Antoine Walker and Paul Pierce, they would do the same thing. Does this mean Walker and Pierce are better than Russell and Cousy? IMO they are not.
<< <i>1) Michael Jordan
2) Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3) Wilt Chamberlain
4) Shaq
5) Bill Russell
6) Julius Erving
7) Larry Bird
8) Magic Johnson >>
Depending on the criteria you select for greatest player you will probably get a different answer each time. In talking with Larry Bird he always mentioned he played for one reason only to win championships. Given all else is equal between him and Magic, and you would have a hard time picking one over the other - Magic wins out on the basis of 5 titles to 3. The superstars have a lot more say than 20% of the result. Bill Russell made his teammates better than any other player in history, and that is not really that close if you study the winning percentages with Russell in the lineup and without, compared to other players including Michael Jordan. Also, saying you could foul Russell down the stretch of games is wrong. Russell shot over 60% in the post-season from the foul line compared to only 56% in the regular season but in game sevens he was over 75%. Much has been written about his ability to not let that weakness affect him in crucial games. Conversely the point about Wilt is very valid. If Wilt was a 60% free throw shooter in 7th games Russell would have no where near 11 championships.
Here is another guy who based things on champinships...I just shake my head. Magic bests bird 5 to 3 in titles so he is better? Again, I just shake my head in the ignorance.
RUssell and Wilt would do just fine in todays game, nobody said that, but they wouldn't average 20 boards and 50 points respectively.
Russell could not be counted on to carry the team offesnively, not because he wasn't a great shooter, but simply because he wasn't that much of an offensive force. He could be guarded quite well. If not for good teammates to put the ball in the hoop in those games, they don't win as much, plain and simple.
MJ, BIrd, and Magic all could dominate the game during any stretch, and importantly at the end. Russell could not. If a coach decided to take one of those three from taking the last shot, then most assuredly somebody else would be left open or given the easy defensive assignment, and those players would be good at finding that guy.
Of course, seing a Russell card in your line you know your going to get a bias account, that is typical sportsfandom.
As for the 20% in control of a player, that is an arbitrary number, but according to you title guys, then that number has to be 100% in order for number of titles to count as an accurate evaluation tool, and it most assuredly is not!
Lets play your game though...Bill Russell had a lifetime FIELD GOAL percentage of 44%!!!!!!! ThAT IS TERRIBLE!! His lifetime field goal percentage in the playoffs is 43%!!!!!!! So using your logic by your free throw analysis, does he then get worse in the playoffs?
For a guy to be playing against a bunch of small people and have only a 44% field goal percentage, I Would say he IS Dennis Rodman transported back to 1958. I'm quite sure Dennis, grabbing all those boards and playing tough D against seven footers, would have done just the same as Russell in those departments back then. And based on Russell's ANEMIC shooting from the floor and the line, he probably could have equaled that too! So yes, Russell would be a liability down the stretch offesnively as I said.
Yeah, so he was a key cog on the best team, FILLED WITH THE BEST PLAYERS AT OTHER POSITIONS. So he was just in a good circumstance, and being in a good circumstance by no means makes you better than you actually are.
Also, the 1957 Celtics had FOUR other HALL OF FAME players on their team besides Russell, add Russell and you have five Hall of Famers. Yeah I know they improved a lot from the year before when Russell came, but they only had three Hall of Fame players on that team. So of course if you add two Hall of Fame players the next year, you are going to get better, but Russell doesn't get all that credit. The other guys weren't statues. Russell and another Hall of Fame player were added to a group of three existing Hall of Famers, and that makes for a wonderful mix. Russell doesn't get all the credit for those titles like you give. Take away four of those Hall of Famer and he wins squat! IT LOOKS AS THOUGH RUSSELL ALWAYS HAD THREE, FOUR, OR MORE HALL OF FAME TEAMMATES DURING HIS CAREER. He never once was a lone Hall of Famer, or with one other. Now that WOULD BE SOMETHING IF HE WON 11 TITLES being the only Hall of Famer or having one other. TEAMS WIN TITLES NOT INDIVIDUALS. WHEN ON EARTH ARE YOU GUYS GOING TO GET THAT??
Then he had sam Jones and Havlicek to help him later. Yeah, they dropped 12 games in record when Russell retired, but they got those 12 back the following year without him, added 12 more the following year, and then won 69 games and the title with Havlicek. Do not just look at one season and make assumptions, as other factors are in play.
So, with a 44% field goal percentage, and a 56% free throw percentage, he is basically dennis rodman, playing with an average of four hall of famers every year of his career. Some very good offensive Hall of Famers mind you. You don't put the ball in the bucket, Russell could play as much D as he wants. Actually my 20% figure is probably generous.
<< <i> he is basically dennis rodman >>
The 1963 Celtics had SEVEN Hall of Famers on that team, yet that title makes Russell better than everybody because he was in such a good circumstance? Where the he!! is the logic in that?
The 44% FIeld goal percentage against midgets, and the 56% at the line knock Russell right out of the discussion of all time best. He isn't even in the top ten.
The glut of Hall of Famers knock that title talk back to pluto where it belongs.
That is what you call overwhelming evidence, and only a zealot of the highest religous proportions, or a biased or ignorant sports fan will refute it.
You listed Bird. His supporting cast was nothing to sneeze at. McHale, Parrish and Walton are HOFers. That's three. Ainge is a not bad at point and DJ was a serviceable guard.
You listed Magic. His supporting cast was not bad either. Hmmmmmm....Kareem, Worthy. Michael Cooper won several defensive player of the year awards. It's really hard to top that.
Even Jordan, although perhaps to a lesser extent, played with some decent players in Pippens, Cartight, Paxon and Rodman.
On one hand your deduct points from Russell because he had great players surrounding him. At the same time, you seem to forget that the very players that you have listed also played with strong teams. I think you are forgetting your first premise about this being a team sport.
I say it again, Michael Jordan was ringless in 1989, and he was the best player in the league and did everything I mentioned above. In 1991 Michael Jordan had a ring, and he wasn't any better than he was in his ringless 1989 tenure. What changed were the circumstances, i.e. his teamates improved, and Detroit declined which also helped. That was why he had a ring, not because he changed.
The fact is Russell doesn't win ANY titles if he was the lone Hall of Fame player on those teams, neither does Bird, or Magic. So why on earth do people decide who was better based on titles, if the overwhelming majority of the circumstances are out of an individual players control as to whether their team wins a championship? You don't! You evaluate them based on what THEY did, and I did that in my evaluation of each individual player. Base it on their known skill set, and the numbers they put up(when put into context).
I never forgot it is a team sport, you guys did, and seems that you need constant reminding. I'll say it again, put Bird on 1983 Kings for his whole career and he will have zero titles, but he would be just as good a player. How good he is doesn't change, because the circumstances that are out of his control changed.
I think you guys need to reread and study all the posts. This is like trying to tell the first graders simple things that I have to repeat over and over again. Not that that is an insult, but that is how I feel.
You guys added astronomical value to Russell because the Celtics had 11 titles. I am trying to point out to you that he was lucky to be laiden with an average of four Hall of Fame teammates per year for his career, and that that was the overwhelming reason WHY he was on a team that had 11 titles. Notice I ddint' say Russell had 11 titles, and that the CELTICS did.
You guys are turning basically a half a player into somebody who is the best ever because he was lucky enough to have more Hall of Fame teammates than anybody in history, therefore allowing them to garner all those titles. Becuase if he were the only Hall of Fame player on his team he wouldn't have any of those titles, then what leg would you have to stand on to vote the im the best? A 44% field goal percentage vs. Midgets?
Again, reread the individual evaluations I did on players, as I don't need to retype that. Read the reasons why bird etc.. are better again. Then read it again, and again.
I know things outside of points scored and Gatoraid slam dunk championships are not as exciting, but believe it or not, there are other aspects of the game. Like Dennis Rodman, Bill Russell led the league in rebounds four times. He had also 51 boards in one game, 49 in two others and a dozen consecutive seasons of 1,000 or more rebounds. I don't remember Dennis Rodman doing that. Nor do I remember Michael Jordan or Kareem doing that.
Did they count blocked shots in those days? Maybe that's why its hard for someone who doesn't follow basketball to appreciate the way to understand why coaches sometime put in tall immobile centers just to change the way offensive players take shot. Russell is by no means an immobile center; in fact he is not even particularlly tall. Nonetheless, Russell would change the game just by his presence on the court alone. I remember watching players being intimidated by the defensive play of Jordan, Payton, Mutumbo, and Olajwan. Now imagine that intimidation factor time ten.
You must also be in the camp that thinks Bill Russell was undeserving of five different MVP awards? None of the players that you have listed besides MJ was voted MVP on five different occassions. Still you characterize Bill Russell as a one-dimensional player who was carried by all his supestar teammates.
Not in the top ten?
You would be laughed out of any room of knowledgeable sports fan.
Bird would be the only one to have a shot b/c of his outside shooting ability...
As for the Russell argument. He is the greatest winner of all-time in any sport. In his last two seasons of college basketball he won the National Championship. His first year he had K.C. Jones his second year he had no other significant player. He played with Hall of Famers because he helped make them Hall of Famers. The one constant for all the championships is Russell. For the era Russell played a 44% field goal percentage is not terrible. Plus, the midgets he played against in the middle included Wilt, Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy all Hall of Famers. You would be hard pressed to name 5 centers equal to that group in any other era.
I have no problem with people saying Jordan is the greatest player of all-time. Certainly he is the best player most people have ever seen play and his skills and determination are undeniable. But he does not make those around him better to the extent Russell did. In his prime Jordan left the Bulls, and the 9 scrubs he left behind still won 55 games. If you ask most NBA players that have seen both Jordan and Russell you would be evenly split on who they would pick if they could pick one player to start a team.
You fellas can think how you want. Even thought it is irritating to read ignorant stuff, it is good as it allows me to take money from people with that type of thinking every year. So that is fine.
P.S. You guys need to check the average heights in the NBA from 1958 comapred to 1990. You bring up a few centers, some of which barely played in the years of Russell. Go ahead and look it up fellas, then talk. But lets bring some evidence to the table.
Aro, you still haven't answered, if you claim Russell raised his game with his free throw percentage in the playofs, how come he lowered his game with his FG%. See if you can answer your own faulty analysis.
By the way Koby, reading is a skill. Defense is the thing I mentioned that separated Jordan from Bird and Magic. Jordan, Bird, and Magic had all the skills I mentioned, AND they backed it up with their performance.
I like how you guys just gloss over things, and make points that have no bearing, or merit. FUn. Koby, you should probably go watch ESPN yourself, maybe KObe is on. He is a hero of yours after all.
Aro, last thing I want to do is destroy somebody's feeling of self worth, so I don't want to knock russell anymore. He was pretty darn good, just not near the best.
By the way, some of Russell's teammates did go on to a title without him(with the celtics). The one constant wasn't Russell, it was an average of four plus hall of famers every year, that is the constant.
<< <i>Again, you guys need to re read, and learn some objective analysis. I'm going to go to the middle east now and try to convert some religous zealots to normalty, as I'm beginning to lump sports fans as the most biased, ill informed, illogical people on the face of the earth. It still amazes me how people need to defend guys like Bill Russell and his championships so they themselves can get a feeling of some worth by associating themselves with that. If they were to admit that their thinking on that was flawed, they are basically destroying their own self confidence.
>>
Middle East?
Religeous zealots?
Self confidence?
WTF? I thought we were just talking about former b-ball players.
Skinpinch - It's okay to belittle Russell. No big deal. I assume you have never seen him play a complete game. Oh, and the four Hall of Famers per year you keep mentioning is misleading. K.C. Jones and Tom Heinsohn are hardly Hall of Fame material except for the fact they played with Russell.
He did it all, from scoring, to top notch defense, to clutch shooting. Add to that mix 6 titles (would have been 8 had he not get the wild hair to play baseball), and you have the greatest to EVER play the game.
Anyone remember the 55 point clinic he put on in the Garden, while taking breaks to go throw up from the flu? What about clutch shot after clutch shot, turning away the Jazz, the Cavs, any and everyone they faced?
Everyone has their favorites, and that's cool, but to say anyone other than Jordan is the greatest ever is lunacy.
That must certainly has to be taken into consideration, just like Rafael Palmeiro playing against four teams worth of players(plus less population) of minor league players, compared to 1985.
My first post on this topic was going to be "World B. Free."
Now, let's take Jordan. All of the above applies to him. But, let's add a few more things to that. He was on the First Team All NBA Defense for for a record 9 times. He could block shots. No guard could block shots like Jordan. I saw him block a Patrick Ewing shot one time, and threw it in the stands. He could rebound. He could pass. HE DID MAKE HIS TEAMATES BETTER!! He could post up BETTER than most big men, and he was only 6'6".
He was regular season MVP 5 times (and should have been about 5 more times). He was the Finals MVP all six times, and the All Star Game MVP 3 times. Oh, and by the way, in 1996, his team won a record 72 games. I could go on and on.
Case closed.
Shane
Let's ask every TV analyst - "Who's the Greatest?
Ask every coach.
Ask every current player.
Ask every former player.
Ask every fan.
I guarantee you 90% say Jordan!
Shane
Because of that, I'd say he belongs in the list of the top 10, but definitely not the top 5.
Jordan is most popular player ever too, apparently...
This conversation has almost come to an end.
Shane
<< <i>I bet that if there were over 100 graded gem mint cards of Wilt's RC, or Russell's RC, or Bird/Magic's RC they wouldn't still be going for $6000 a piece and rising like Jordan's... anyone agree?
Jordan is most popular player ever too, apparently...
This conversation has almost come to an end. >>
Jordan's rookie card used to be $30k +. No one's card has fallen as far.!
<< <i>Did I shut everybody up with the above arguement about being able to DO IT ALL? I hate to see the debate end. >>
NO, era debates are the lifeblood of the sports bar / forum.
I do not own one but I will if I can find one for the right price... I would gladly own an SGC 98 for $4000 or less and cross it over into a PSA holder and be done with it.
Shane
* C. PASCUAL BASIC #3
* T. PEREZ BASIC #4 100%
* L. TIANT BASIC #1
* DRYSDALE BASIC #4 100%
* MAGIC MASTER #4/BASIC #3
* PALMEIRO MASTER/BASIC #1
* '65 DISNEYLAND #2
* '78 ELVIS PRESLEY #6
* '78 THREE'S COMPANY #1
WaltDisneyBoards
id go with:
#1 Jordan
#2 Bird
#3 Magic
#4 Chamberlain
#5 Alcindor (Jabbar)
Kareem was a winner on every level he played at, won more MVP's than Jordan, scored more points and rebounds, blocks than Jordan and has just as many rings. One could make a good case for him.
Chamberlain is always bashed because of the perceived height advantage he had. Manute Bol, Randy Breuer, Mark Eaton, Burleson, and Yao Ming all have or had a similar height advantage and never came close to the domination of Wilt. earlier some one brought up overallskills such as dribbling, hitting the 15 footer etc...., with the exception of free throw shooting(ironically he holds the record for most made in a game), Wilt had some of these qualities, he even lead the league in assists one year. Russell's teams usually beat Wilt's teams, but Wilt's stats in those games were better than Russell's.
Russell was the greatest winner of all time. He had the intangibles that are hard to quantify statistically. His stats are good but don't give the whole picture as to the complete (free throws exempted) a player that he was. He was surrounded by great players and played for one of the best coaches in league history. I don't feel it is fair to downgrade his accomplishments on the floor because he was in a good situation, it wasn't his fault. Heart, determination, intimidation and basketball acumen defined him.
Cases could be made for Oscar Robertson, Magic Johnson, Jerry West and to a lesser degree Shaq, Elgin Baylor, Hakeem, Larry Bird, Rick Barry to at least be in the conversation.
To say Jordan is the best of alltime is subjective, but hard to argue with.
Putting together a set of 61 Fleer Basketball PSA 7 or better.
Trade references: T,Raf12,Coach Vinny,Iceman,McDee2,Lantz,JSA
100