Options
The NBA 50 greatest
jad22
Posts: 535 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
Who stays and who goes? Pippen, Walton, Thurmond, DeBusschere out. Dominique Wilkins, Tim Duncan added.
0
jad22
Posts: 535 ✭✭
jad22
Posts: 535 ✭✭
jad22
Posts: 535 ✭✭
Comments
Without looking, I would say Kobe Bryant was not on the list, but should be now.
Shane
When issued in the 1990's it covered players through the time it was issued. In 100 years will the same "50 Greatest" players listed in the 1990's still be the 50 Greatest or will some players in the intervening 100 years be even "Greater" thus supplanting some (or all) of the original 50?
My solution is to have the NBA issue a "50 Greatest" list every 15 years (except for the first list issued in the 1990's, leave that list alone). For each list, only include on it players who retired from the league during the 15 year period (except ignore those players who made it on the 1990's list and retired thereafter). Ignore when they started playing. In that manner, no one worthy of consideration will be passed up. The "50 Greatest" during the 15 year period will be determined and a new 15 year period would commence.
When multiple "50 Greatest" lists have been complied, then the fans can have endless fun arguing who from the various lists are the "50 Greatest Of The Greatest".
<< <i>..... Fred Lindstrom belonging in the baseball Hall of Fame. >>
Go Phillies
"On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the release of the fiftieth anniversary team, fourteen broadcasters employed by the American television network Turner Network Television, a broadcaster of NBA games and the network on which the programs The NBA on TNT and Inside the NBA air, including four former players and two panelists who voted on the initial NBA list, released a list of the Next 10 Greatest Players, considering for selection contemporary players who were unestablished in 1996 and historical players not already included on the original list. Released on February 18, 2006, the ranked list was presented in conjunction with the NBA's 2006 All-Star Weekend."
Tim Duncan
Kobe Bryant
Dominique Wilkins
Allen Iverson
Bob McAdoo
Kevin Garnett
Reggie Miller
Connie Hawkins
Jason Kidd
Gary Payton
One thing on the bashing of Scottie Pippen, and it has nothing to do with 'measuring' a player based on a team accomplishment(team titles won), but the Bulls defense was the key element for that team to be so darn good! Yeah, MJ or course, but it is their flat out suffocating defense that allowed them to win the volume of titles. Scottie Pippen may have been the best defender on that team, and MJ was exceptional. He could guard different positions as well. He was something like 5th all time in steals at one time. He may have actually been overshadowed by Jordan(as opposed to riding coattails like is usually said).
Pippen should definately be on any top 50 list. Skinpinch makes a good point about his D and his over-all offensive game was superb. Pippen is under-rated historically. If he had gone on the court in that play-off game against the Knicks instead of pouting and pulling himself from the game because the last second shot was designed for Toni Kukoc his legacy would be different.
He was a great rebounder for a small forward, a good passer and a scoring threat. The year Jordan took off from the game he averaged 22 points, 8.7 boards and 5.6 assists and led the Bulls to 55 wins. He also shot 49.1% from the floor which was higher than the previous year and the next two seasons with Michael. You could certainly make the case that the Bulls had the best and second best players in the NBA during their championship run with Michael and Scottie.
He might not have been the best offensive player but he was the most dominant defensive player ever. Best shot blocker, rebounder, outlet passer.
<< <i>Wilt might me the best but I would choose Russell over Wilt anytime anyplace. 11 championships in 13 years in the NBA. Two college championships and an olympic gold medal.
He might not have been the best offensive player but he was the most dominant defensive player ever. Best shot blocker, rebounder, outlet passer. >>
Point taken and Russell as a "team player" was probably superior to Wilt, but even Russell has stated numerous times that Wilt was a better player than he was.
1957 Topps PSA
1961 Fleer SGC
<< <i>Wilt might me the best but I would choose Russell over Wilt anytime anyplace. 11 championships in 13 years in the NBA. >>
I think it is reasonable to assume that those Celtic teams would have won at least as many titles with Wilt at center instead of Russell. It's possible that they would have won just as many with Walt Bellamy or even Red Kerr. The entire starting lineup (at least at one point) was made up of Hall of Famers.
1957 Topps PSA
1961 Fleer SGC
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Nate Archibald
Paul Arizin
Charles Barkley
Rick Barry
Elgin Baylor
Dave Bing
Larry Bird
Wilt Chamberlain
Bob Cousy
Dave Cowens
Billy Cunningham
Dave DeBusschere
Clyde Drexler
Julius Erving
Patrick Ewing
Walt Frazier
George Gervin
Hal Greer
John Havlicek
Elvin Hayes
Magic Johnson
Sam Jones
Michael Jordan
Jerry Lucas
Karl Malone
Moses Malone
Pete Maravich
Kevin McHale
George Mikan
Earl Monroe
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'Neal
Robert Parish
Bob Pettit
Scottie Pippen
Willis Reed
Oscar Robertson
David Robinson
Bill Russell
Dolph Schayes
Bill Sharman
John Stockton
Isiah Thomas
Nate Thurmond
Wes Unseld
Bill Walton
Jerry West
Lenny Wilkens
James Worthy
I would probably add these players:
obvious: Kobe, Duncan, Iverson, Garnett, Kidd
not so obvious: Payton, Nash, Mcgrady
on the horizon, but not yet: Carter, Nowitzki, Ming, Brand, Wade, Lebron, Carmelo
thanks
John
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
He did not start, was put into the game with a couple of minutes to go in the first half, started the second half and played a total of about 24 minues in the game. His stats: 35 points and 23 rebounds
No one could compare with Moses Malone that night (and many other nights).
1957 Topps PSA
1961 Fleer SGC
<< <i>Dallas as much as I may agree with your hypothetical Russell/Chamberlain switch not making a difference with the old Celts as both were great shot blockers and help defenders. I think you should rethink the Bellamy switch notion. I personally saw "Bells" play with the Knicks in the 60's and believe me they would not be shoo-ins for any rings with him back there. He may have been a ''Big" but he did not play that type of game especially on the "D". And thats what Auerbach preached to his troops pressure on the Ball and funnel the drivers in to the Center. I think an argument that this type of basketball would be a little less effective with the 3 point line could be made but lets face it the really goood teams today as in years past win it with Defense. >>
Of course, I'm just supposing what might have happened, but my point is that I don't think any one player on most of those Celtic teams was all that important. Switch out Russell, switch out KC, switch out Havlicek (pick any one, not all of them) and they are still easily the best team in the league in most if not all of their championship years.
I mean, the 1927 Yankees could have put any bum off the street in right field and still won it all that year. While it's certainly not the case that any bum could have played the Celtics to a title, I think anybody capable of playing center in the NBA could have done it.
My point is not to denigrate Russell - I think he's one of the top 50 players of all time, and one of the top 3 centers. My point is just that counting championships is no way to decide who the beter player was. The Yankees won five World Series in a row with Hank Bauer in the outfield - the argument that Russell was better than Chamberlain because he won more titles is EXACTLY the same as the argument that Bauer was better than Ted Williams. That it is has been repeated for 40 years by players and broadcasters who really ought to know better does not make it a good argument.
Before Russell arrived the C's never won a title. The year after he left they did not make the play-offs.
In college Russell led San Fransisco to two championships. I suppose they had a Hall of Fame line-up.
The notion that all of the Celtics were equally important or Russell was not more important is like saying Jim Rice would have had the same stats had he played in the Astrodome. With the C's Russell played 13 seasons and won 11 titles. The one constant is Russell. The whole system was built around him. The years they did not win, Russell was injured in the championship and the other was his first year as player-coach. His Hall of Fame teammates are for the most part, Hall of Famers because of him.
While in baseball championships might not be relevant in an evaluation of a player they carry far more weight in basketball. Russell often played the full game as did Wilt. At the minimum they were 20% responsible for what happened on the court.
1957 Topps PSA
1961 Fleer SGC
But there is also a danger in simply looking at titles won for a player, as those are greatly influenced by other factors...factors outside of the ability of the player in question. I think it is very safe to say that a single basketball player has much greater influence on W/L than a single baseball or football player. So there is a little more merit in asking if a basketball players team(as opposed to a FB or BASE) won in order to measure the ability of the player. But that has to be tempered with the realization that others play a large role.
In basketball, the final seconds of the game is almost a showcase of who's star will get it done. There is such a game winning element to it. Imagine if baseball were able to do a free pinch hit at any crucial moment, like basketball gets to choose its stud to take the final shot. St. Louis would always give Pujols the bat with men on in the ninth, like MJ got the ball for the Bulls all that time. Actually, wouldn't that be kind of cool?
The question then is, how much of Wilt's scoring is a result of team philosophy, and how much did his quest for scoring hurt his team's chances at winning? Then how much exactly was Russell dominating the basketball game in areas that aren't readily measureable...but keeping a close eye on how much other Celtic players were contributing. Aro makes a great point in the Hall of Famers on the Celtics...some may simply be Hall of Famers because of how much they won...and they may have won so much because they may have had the best player.
One certain thing I will say about Wilt, is that I have an extremely hard time annointing anybody the best player ever, when they may actually be a liability in the final seconds of the game...and we know Wilt's free throw shooting does such a thing to him. In my Albert Pujols example above, Wilt fails miserably with the likes of Bird, Magic, or Jordan. Wilt's team's best player(him), is reduced to just another guy in the final moments, and when you can't utilize your superstar to its highest degree in those situations, then it hurts your team's chances at winning.
Russell wasn't a good free throw shooter either(a bit better than Wilt), he could pass and defend nicely, but Jordan, Bird, and Magic could also pass just as well or better...BUT they could also score much better, and Jordan at least, was a supreme defender as well.
There is a case for Russell being better than Wilt, but even though his number of titles are higher than Bird, Magic, or Jordan, I don't think there is a case against those guys for best ever. The number of titles in basketball do tell something, but it doens't create an automatic pecking order...especially when you consider that Russell and Wilt both dominated a league that was much smaller. It would be much harder to dominate with their skills when going against bigger men every night(and in some cases more than one guy bigger than he).
1957 Topps PSA
1961 Fleer SGC
I think this would only be true of the last 10 seconds of a game were more important than any other 10 second interval in the game. Now it may, in fact, be true that the final 10 seconds are more important, but it's not necessarily true. Also, whether or not Wilt was a liability at the end of the game doesn't take enough into account, since it's possible that Wilt's performance in the first 47 minutes of the game was so far above and beyond what could have been expected from anyone else who ever played that he (Wilt) could have spent the last minute of every game meditating in the lotus position at half court and STILL have no rival in history when it came to basketball players who improved their team's expected success.
Boo, the final moments give the opposing coach a chance to take out the best player(since he can't shoot free throws). A point is a point, regardless of when it occurs, you are correct.
But a coach can't employ the hack strategy during the course of a game, or he would foul his players out. During the end of the game when fouling out a player isn't a risk(or is known how much one can do), then that strategy takes on an importance that is not otherwise available during the course of that game. Basically, when the game is close at the end, you can employ a viable strategy to neutralize his value to the team, and hurt that team's chances of winning. So, yes, the end of the game workings in basketball do have a viable differnce than a minute in the second quarter.
I don't think he can be considered leaps and bounds above Bird, Magic, or Jordan, to negate his obvious defect. You can coach against a guy like Chamberlain on the offensive end. Bird, Magic, or Jordan can score from the outside, the post, or by driving to the lane. Wilt basically only has one option...over power the other guy and shoot above him. For the big three, you can only put your best guy on them, and pray they miss. You are at their mercy. Then given the fact that much of his 'numbers' are the result of being fortunate to play against smaller people, well, his over powering option becomes a little more less of a dominant factor.
<< <i>Wilt was physically a man among boys. It was pure size advantage that allowed him to dominate in such a way. Being tall in basketball is the inherent advantage, of course.
Boo, the final moments give the opposing coach a chance to take out the best player(since he can't shoot free throws). A point is a point, regardless of when it occurs, you are correct.
But a coach can't employ the hack strategy during the course of a game, or he would foul his players out. During the end of the game when fouling out a player isn't a risk(or is known how much one can do), then that strategy takes on an importance that is not otherwise available during the course of that game. Basically, when the game is close at the end, you can employ a viable strategy to neutralize his value to the team, and hurt that team's chances of winning. So, yes, the end of the game workings in basketball do have a viable differnce than a minute in the second quarter.
I don't think he can be considered leaps and bounds above Bird, Magic, or Jordan, to negate his obvious defect. You can coach against a guy like Chamberlain on the offensive end. Bird, Magic, or Jordan can score from the outside, the post, or by driving to the lane. Wilt basically only has one option...over power the other guy and shoot above him. For the big three, you can only put your best guy on them, and pray they miss. You are at their mercy. Then given the fact that much of his 'numbers' are the result of being fortunate to play against smaller people, well, his over powering option becomes a little more less of a dominant factor. >>
I believe a 'hack strategy' would be sub optimal even if there was no penalty for players/teams garnering 'x' number of fouls in a game. Even a 50% free throw shooter can be expected to hit 1 out of 2, which is the same as shooting 50% from the floor (or close to it). And shooting 50% from the floor will win you most games.
It's my understanding that the reason coaches foul at the end of the game is that they know the opposition's expected point total is going to increase, but it's the only option available to them since they need to get the ball back. And while I see your argument re: the importance of the waning seconds of a game, I'm not sure I can completely buy it. Let's say the Heat are up three on the Cavs, Shaq goes to the line five times in the last 2 mintues and misses them all, and the Cavs win by 2. Well, yes-- that's certainly frustrating if you're pulling for the Heat. But what needs to be remembered is that if Shaq wasn't in there your team would have been down by 4, instead of up by 3, with two minutes remaining.
The second difference is that Chamberlain's perceived dominance is a result of his point and rebounding totals he put up. Those are a direct result of his environment, rather than his true ability. That is sort of like using the Babe Ruth outhomered every team in the league. That is a product of environment, and wouldn't be a possibility in 1984. Given the same amount of shot attempts, I see no reason to doubt that Patrick Ewing, or Olajuwon would have no problem scoring at the same rate as Chamberlain given the same small environment as Chamberlain.
Chamberlain led the league in FG% often early on, but I am astounded that he was only in the low 50%'s given his decided size advantage...an advantage that other centers never had the luxury of seeing(well at least when they left 8th grad
I'd also like to check exactly when they widened the lane too. I know rules changes were a result of him, but all that tells me is that he was a benificary of an easy time for a large athletic big man to dominate, and that the game needed to be adjusted for such a thing. That says right there that he was playing in a league that was an unfair advantage for a big man(compared to a later big man).
Boo, with Wilt's team down by two in the final odd seconds...you play defense as you normally would, but if Wilt gets the ball, then it is an automatic hack. Odds are against him hitting two free throws. Yes, it isn't a huge advantage, and hacking all game doens't really work(though the Bulls did it well with Shaq that one year). But minor advantages have an influence when elite teams play each other.
The debate for best ever can be looked at so many ways. Personally, I think it comes down to Jordan and Russell and depends entirely on your criteria. Yes, Jordan is vastly superior offensively. Jordan is a great defender, perhaps the best ever at the 2 spot. His over-all offensive skills are unmatched by any player in history. He is not as good a 3 point shooter or free throw shooter as Bird but if I had to pick one guy to take the last second shot it would be Michael and it would not be a debate.
However, if I was picking a team of all of the great players of all-time Russell would be my first pick. His skills are far easier to mesh with those of his teammates. He is the best defender of all-time by far at a more crucial defensive position, the best rebounder, and the best shot blocker. He can run the floor, he plays 48 minutes without fouling out. He is good enough offensively that he can score 20 points a game simply by running the floor, picking up offensive rebounds and scoring in one on one situations. Any player in the league would love to play on his team as he does not need the ball to dominate a game.
If I had four role players that could play a specific role (i.e one outside shooter, one post-player, one ball handler) I would prefer Russell. If I had 4 players with no outstanding skills but over-all average skills I would take Jordan.
I
"Point taken and Russell as a "team player" was probably superior to Wilt, but even Russell has stated numerous times that Wilt was a better player than he was."
Who better to determine whether Chamberlain or Russell was better, than Chamberlain or Russell themselves who played against each other many times. Again...Russell has stated numerous times that Wilt was a better player than he was. Wilt has never stated that Russell was a better player than he was, because Russell who was of course a great player, was not as good as Chamberlain.
My father personally saw Chamberlain play many times and in fact Chamberlain attended the same High School as my father, although not the same year. Chamberlain was lightening quick for a big man, especially inside the paint and although he wouldn't have dominated in today's game like he did in his time, he would have still been one of the top players, if not the top player in the league.
But please...comparing players of different eras on how they would do in today's game, although interesting, is basically invalid in my opinion - in any sport. Bottom line is that players need to be evaluated in the era in which they played simply because that's when they played.
Chamberlain set records which in my view are far more impressive than anything Gretzky ever did in hockey, as great as Gretzky was. Chamberlain it could be argued successfully was the greatest athlete of any sport - greater than say a Ruth, Gretzky, Jim Brown, etc were in their sport as far as how he dominated a particular sport at a particular time.
-
While they were active the players voted on who was the Most Valuable Player in the league. Russell won the award 5 times and Wilt 4.
Wilt had more skills but figuring out how to utilize them and help his team win without effecting his ego certainly plays a factor.
Recognizing the environements of when a player played has a big impact, and can be used to compare players from cross era's. You just said yourself that Chamberlain would not dominate a modern basketball game in the same way as before, so you recognize this fact too. He still would be among the top as you say...ala Shaq. But to simply ignore the reasons why he dominated the way he did is a mistake...just like it is to ignore the reasons why Ruth did.
Russell could be saying stuff like that just to be diplomatic or a sportsman.
Players do need to be evaluated in the era they played...that is the first step. The second step is neutralizing the environment. In this case it is very easy to do so...just look at the heights and sizes of players from the era's, as that has a big direct effect on what a player does or does not do. I don't think anybody can deny the implications of size for a basketball player. This must be considered whenever Wilt and his dominance is brought up. It is much easier to dominate a smaller league, then a bigger one.
It isn't really guessing what a guy would or wouldn't do in that era, but rather putting into perspective on how the enviornment allowed certain accomplishements to take place....accomplishments that would be nearly impossible to duplicate in the other environments that players endured. To ignore this will give a faulty analysis.
<< <i>stevek- Where has Russell ever said "Wilt was a better player than he was" >>
I've heard Russell say this on TV countless times - Russell gets asked this question countless times.
<< <i>SteveK,
Recognizing the environements of when a player played has a big impact, and can be used to compare players from cross era's. You just said yourself that Chamberlain would not dominate a modern basketball game in the same way as before, so you recognize this fact too. He still would be among the top as you say...ala Shaq. But to simply ignore the reasons why he dominated the way he did is a mistake...just like it is to ignore the reasons why Ruth did.
Russell could be saying stuff like that just to be diplomatic or a sportsman.
Players do need to be evaluated in the era they played...that is the first step. The second step is neutralizing the environment. In this case it is very easy to do so...just look at the heights and sizes of players from the era's, as that has a big direct effect on what a player does or does not do. I don't think anybody can deny the implications of size for a basketball player. This must be considered whenever Wilt and his dominance is brought up. It is much easier to dominate a smaller league, then a bigger one.
It isn't really guessing what a guy would or wouldn't do in that era, but rather putting into perspective on how the enviornment allowed certain accomplishements to take place....accomplishments that would be nearly impossible to duplicate in the other environments that players endured. To ignore this will give a faulty analysis. >>
Point understood. And I realize I made a comparison as well but it was in response to other comparisons. Again...I don't wish to discourage it because it is interesting and fun, and sportstalk should be fun, however in my opinion basically "meaningless" because realistically comparing players of different eras can never accurately be done.
And your analysis Skinpinch although I sometimes disagree, is usually always quite interesting!
1957 Topps PSA
1961 Fleer SGC
Heres mine.
Team #1
1-Big "O"
2-Jordan
3-Bird
4-Baylor
5-Russell
6-Havlicek
Team #2
1-Magic
2-West
3-Barry
4-Pettit
5-Wilt
6-McHale
1957 Topps PSA
1961 Fleer SGC
<< <i>Boo, yes the team is up more with Shaq or Wilt, but they are up just the same with Jordan, Bird, or Magic. The difference is then that those guys will be of more use in the close games.
The second difference is that Chamberlain's perceived dominance is a result of his point and rebounding totals he put up. Those are a direct result of his environment, rather than his true ability. That is sort of like using the Babe Ruth outhomered every team in the league. That is a product of environment, and wouldn't be a possibility in 1984. Given the same amount of shot attempts, I see no reason to doubt that Patrick Ewing, or Olajuwon would have no problem scoring at the same rate as Chamberlain given the same small environment as Chamberlain.
Chamberlain led the league in FG% often early on, but I am astounded that he was only in the low 50%'s given his decided size advantage...an advantage that other centers never had the luxury of seeing(well at least when they left 8th grad
I'd also like to check exactly when they widened the lane too. I know rules changes were a result of him, but all that tells me is that he was a benificary of an easy time for a large athletic big man to dominate, and that the game needed to be adjusted for such a thing. That says right there that he was playing in a league that was an unfair advantage for a big man(compared to a later big man).
Boo, with Wilt's team down by two in the final odd seconds...you play defense as you normally would, but if Wilt gets the ball, then it is an automatic hack. Odds are against him hitting two free throws. Yes, it isn't a huge advantage, and hacking all game doens't really work(though the Bulls did it well with Shaq that one year). But minor advantages have an influence when elite teams play each other. >>
Just to clarify, I'm not making an argument for Wilt. I just disagree that he, or anyone else, can be dismissed because of free throw shooting. Being a terrible free throw shooter is a liability, to be sure, but it's not the end of the world. And anyone's liabilities need to be weighed against their assets, and it's certainly reasonable to suggest that any given player, while a liability at certain points in the game, could be so utterly dominant in other facets of the game that even when this liability is factored in he still stands as the best player of all time.
And I do believe that a player's performance in 'crunch time' is terribly overrated. If I have a choice between Robert Horry and Chris Webber I'm taking Webber every time, even if he only 'shows up' for three quarters of the game.
Take the pressure off!
Different players from different eras!
Without a doubt, make the list
The NBA 100 greatest
rd
edit: ...most of the great players mentioned so far should make the top 100 list!
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
Russell: 14.2 PPG, 22.9 RPG Chamberlain: 30.0 PPG, 28.2 RPG
Postseason (head-to-head)
Russell: 14.9 PPG, 24.7 RPG Chamberlain: 25.7 PPG, 28.0 RPG
I don't have the head-to-head but Chamberlain (surrounded by relative Keystone Cops compared to Russell's SWAT team) even averaged more ASSISTS per game than Russell, in case you were tempted to say that Russell didn't score as much because he was dishing it off so much more.
I will concede that it may simply be impossible to disentangle the vastly better teammates that Russell had over Chamberlain and we can just say there is no way to know who was better. But that's as far as I'm willing to go. On all objective evidence of their individual abilities Chamberlain was not only better than Russell, he was much better than Russell. With all respect to those who clearly believe otherwise, I do not see that a reasonable, objective argument that Russell was a better basketball player is even possible. I'm sure Hank Bauer was a really great teammate and a real team player, too, but bromides like that are not actual arguments that Bauer was the reason that the Yankees won all those Series, and they simply don't work as arguments that Russell was responsible for those titles, either - at least not nearly to the degree that he would have needed to be to make up the statistical Grand Canyon between himself and Chamberlain.
I will also say that I'm a bit surprised to see the championships argument being brought out by people who in the context of any other sport (Reggie Jackson, or Lou Brock, say) would be explaining that the fraction of a player's games played in the postseason can not erase what happened in the great majority of his career. Reggie Jackson was a great player, but he was not a better player than Hank Aaron - and what I am hearing are arguments that he was - although the people making those arguments may not recognize it.
It's disingenuous to make that analogy in this case. You're comparing apples and oranges. No one would claim that Reggie Jackson was a better baseball player than Hank Aaron, but many people do claim with some persuasion that Russell was the better all around player than Wilt, championships notwithstanding.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Fans typically measure basketball players by their numbers. The only problem with basketball numbers is that they can be contrived to a great degree! You can create a 20 point per game player simply by letting him shoot more, and designing the plays for such an accomplishment. However, it may be at the expense of the team's success. All bad basketball teams have a leading scorer(and on a good team, most often that leading scorer would not score as high). In baseball, you can't contrive a .540 SLugger, or .420 OB% hitter at all. That is all their doing, and the more they do it, the more it helps to win. It is good to be 'selfish' in baseball. The more a player shoots and scores in basketball doesn't necessarily equate to more wins.
But there is also a danger in simply looking at titles won for a player, as those are greatly influenced by other factors...factors outside of the ability of the player in question. I think it is very safe to say that a single basketball player has much greater influence on W/L than a single baseball or football player. So there is a little more merit in asking if a basketball players team(as opposed to a FB or BASE) won in order to measure the ability of the player. But that has to be tempered with the realization that others play a large role.
>>
Dallas, that is what I said about basketball stats and titles. Measuring baseball players by titles has ZERO merit, football QB's(maybe 2% more than baseball)...basketball, a little more, but in no way does it create some kind of pecking order based on titles won...Russell first because of his, then Jordan etc. Doens't work that way, teammates play a large role.
The main thing about Chamberlain's dominance is that dominance like that can be created simply by letting him shoot more. His points and rebounds are a direct result of him being excellent, and playing against guys who are all smaller than him...and many MUCH smaller. This dominance simply doens't occur with a daily grind against Eaton, Ewing, Daugherty, Smits etc.... There is also no way either Russell or Chamberlain play 48 minutes per game having to grind against those giants. Chamberlain wasn't a super skilled big man ala Olajuwon either. In his prime when he was scoring all those points, he was only a bit above 50% from the field. At his size, compared to the league, that isn't impressive at all(even though it led the league). He got that because he was fortunate enough that there weren't other big men like him.
All those above apply to Russell as well.
As per Russell vs. Chamberlain, Russell's backers are that Russell's defense is superb, and he knew how to play well within a system. O.k. Russell's FG% was lower than Chamberlains, but in basketball Russell may be better at elevating his teammates field goal percentage(basketball smarts) in giving them the ball at the right time. Chamberlain, in his quest to score, may be passing up other higher percentage opportunities.
I don't know which is truly a better basketball player...the only thing I think I know is that Jabbar was better than both of them...and Jordan/Bird/Magic are Mt. Rushmore, and the fight is on for the fourth guy.
Here is a height breakdown...
From 1957-1967 there were a total of 27 cumulative seasons of 2,000 minutes(in a season) played by players 6 feet 11 or taller.
7-1 Chamberlain 9
6-11 Bellamy 6
6-11 Thurmond 4
6-11 Felix 2
7-0 Dukes 4
7-0 Harding 1
7-0 Bunce 1
That was Chamberlain's & Russell's competition in their heyday.
skinpinch - I agree that at best we can't know whether Chamberlain was better than more recent players and that in all likelihood Bird/Magic/Jordan were in fact much better. Although I prefer to avoid comparing guards to centers - a true apples to oranges comparison. But the comparison of Chamberlain to Russell is about as straightforward as we're going to get, and Chamberlain dominated the league to a degree that Russell never did and he dominated Russell in head-to-head play like nobody's business. You say that titles matter in basketball a little more than 2%; what else is there - that doesn't include the words "may" or "maybe" - that indicates that Russell was better? I mean enough better to make up for being outscored, outrebounded and outassisted for 1,000+ games?
To drive this analogy into the ground, if I want to make the claim that Hank Bauer was a better player than Ted Williams in the face of overwhelming statistical evidence to the contrary then the burden is on me to demonstrate in what ways Bauer was better and to document how Bauer's contributions led to more wins than Williams'. Well, there is overwhelming statistical evidence that Chamberlain was better than Russell and "maybe he makes his teammates better" and "he knew how to play within a system" are nice enough theories but (1) how do I know they're true? and (2) who says the same don't apply to Chamberlain? I mean, the "system" on Philadelphia was "get the ball to Wilt", because that was the only way that motley crew had a prayer of winning. Somehow, that is now being used to "prove" that Chamberlain wasn't a team player. I'm calling horse-hockey on that one, as are the different and better teammates on the championship teams from later in Chamberlain's career.
Championships in basketball are not like championships in baseball. There is far more relevance to championships in basketball. One player can make a huge difference. Plus, post-season stats cover enough games that they are very relevant. Take Bill Russell and give him one other decent player and his team can win the National Championship. Take Larry Bird and give him 4 role players and his team can play for the National Championship. Take Derek Jeter and surround him with 8 .200 hitters and his team will not win 40 games.
How do we know Russell made his teammates better? I guess the only evidence we have is that virtually every player that played with or against him said that Russell was the reason the Celtics won the titles. We can also say the C's never won a championship before he got there and the year after he retired they won 34 games. Players left and players came during his years but the one constant was Russell. Do we know Chamberlain made his teammates better? Ask Jerry West, Hal Greer or Elgin Baylor. One of Wilt's coaches said, Russell would ask, "What do I need to do to make my teammates better?" Then he'd do it.
Wilt honestly thought the best way for his team to win was for him to be in the best possible setting. He'd ask, "What's the best situation for me?"
On the teammate issue perception seems to be everything. Who had better teammates, Magic, Larry or Michael? Everybody would say Michael's teammates were by far the worst. In reality when Magic left the Lakers with HIV the team went from 58 wins to 43. When Bird missed a season due to injury in his prime, the C's won 42 games. When Jordan left in his prime the Bulls won 55 games without him. There was no trade to make the team better just their extisting teammates. The Bulls without Michael won 55 games. Maybe, his teammates were not so bad after all.
Russell did play with quite a few Hall of Famers but really other than Cousy, Havlicek and maybe Sam Jones who would be in the Hall without him. Wilt played with Hal Greer and Billy Cunningham who are in the Hall. Of course, we can look at the 68-69 season when Wilt had Elgin Baylor and Jerry West for teammates. They met the C's in the finals. The Celtics had Russell and Sam Jones in their last seasons and Havlicek. Who had the better teammates? Wilt had two of the top 10 or 15 players of all-time on his team. How could the Lakers lose that series? Where was Wilt in the last seven minutes of game seven? West averaged almost 35 points a game in that series.
Also, the greatest advantage Russell gave the Celtics was as mentioned by others his defensive prowess and shot blocking. No stats were kept in those days BUT you can see how many more offensive shots the Celtics took than their opponents to see the dominance in this area.
I don't believe Wilt's game would be nearly as effective. Same argument for why Mikan would not be a star today.
For Jordan's case, his team did play well for that first season without him...some may say they played a bit above their head(I probably watched 98% of those games). Pete Myers was a textbook example of a guy playing above his head...it seemed like he hit everything that year, and he set a career high with a .455 FG%(very good for a shooting guard!).
AND, there was one important acquisition in Toni Kukoc, who was a very good basketball player(superb at passing and finding the right man, among other things). He was a good system guy with the Bulls, and certainly helped fill the void.
The following season, you started to see how much they really missed Jordan...until he came back. Then they won 70 games the year after that.
P.S. I shutter to think how many times the Bulls would have won it, had Jordan never retired early twice.
When Jordan retired the second time, they went from 62 wins to 13. They lost both him and Scottie. So that would give Jordan a 20+ game worth at that time(accounting for Pippen), OR it gives him a +39 win value if taken at face value like all the other examples are. See what I mean?
When Jordan joined Washington, they went from 19 wins to 37. When he left, they went from 37 to 25.
For Russell, they went from 48 wins his last season, down to 34, but then back up to 44 the next. In fact Havlicek took his team to a 68 win season and an NBA title soon after that.
The year before Russell got there, they went from 39 wins up to 44 his first season, and Russell wasn't the only HOfer added, as Tommy Heinsohn was also part of the significant additions to spring them up.
Dallas, in relation to titles, it still carries very small significance in individual measurements, but just that in basketball it is a little more than other sports...doubles tennis is even more, singles tennis way more. I am marked by Wilt's severe drop in playoff scoring, and I think this is more of an indication of how certain basketball players can be 'coached' against. I don't know the strategies employed to curtail him, nor I don't know why it wouldn't be used more often, but it certainly needs further examination. Basketball doesn't have the same wild swings in production like baseball. The best bskb player doesn't score zero points on a given night(like a baseball player might get shut out). The best bskb players get their stuff.
I will say that Wilt's .465 FT% in the playoffs is appaling, and with over 1,600 attempts, there is a reason for it. Fatigue, could be one, and coaches being more rough and physical with him(and possibly a bit of hack strategy at work). I still would like to see how many close games they lost, and how much of a factor(or NON factor at the end) he was in them...especially in the playoffs. I can't imagine a coach not taking advantage of that obvious defect.
For a baseball analogy, it would be as easy as bringing in a lefty to face Willie McCovey. Guys with obvious defects that can easily be coached against, can neutralize their value and hurt win expectancy.
The year after Russell the Celtics won 36 games. If the Cetics did not select Cowens with the fourth pick, they would not have improved so dramatically as they did. If they selected Lacy they would have remained in the cellar even with the amazing coaching of Tommy Heinsohn.
Dallas like to use hyperbole when his arguments are not supported by the facts. He also believes Gene Tenace deserves furher consideration for the baseball HOF, so go figure.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Chamberlain was the greatest player in NBA history - period! In my opinion the only argument for any other player being the greatest could be made for Jordan. An NBA Mount Rushmore without Chamberlain? - that is total hogwash!
<< <i> The Hank Bauer argument is stupid.
Dallas like to use hyperbole when his arguments are not supported by the facts. He also believes Gene Tenace deserves furher consideration for the baseball HOF, so go figure. >>
Just so we're clear - OBVIOUSLY the Hank Bauer argument is stupid. But if you have an open mind, there is a point within it. And if those arguing for Russell would stop and consider it and adjust their arguments accordingly, they would improve their arguments immensely. I see that the Russell/Chamberlain argument is hotly contested, but what I see are a lot more facts on Chamberlain's side and a lot of supposing on Russell's side. Tell me what it is - exactly - that Bill Russell DID better than Wilt Chamberlain, tell me how you know he was better than Chamberlain at it, and tell me how much that skill is worth relative to scoring points, rebounding and dishing assists. And repeat as often as necessary until Russell has bridged the statistical chasm between himself and Chamberlain. The argument that he must have been better because look at all those titles is, to coin a phrase, stupid. Why is Bill Russell the greatest center and John Havlicek not the greatest forward? I have yet to see an objective argument that satisfactorily answers that question.
And I have never said (seriously, anyway) that Gene Tenace deserves to be in the HOF. What I have said, dead seriously, is that he was a better baseball player than Jim Rice.