CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics History => Topic started by: Moranis on October 14, 2016, 10:29:09 AM
-
I thought it would be interesting to see which players in league history were widely regarded as the best player in the world for an extended period of time.
Mikan
Pettit
Russell/Chamberlain (back and forth for much of 60's)
Kareem
Bird/Magic (back and forth for much of 80's)
Jordan
Shaq
Lebron
There are only a couple of years in between those guys where other players could get in there, but I think those are the 10 guys that you would call the greatest of their generation with the two ties of course (at least a 5 year period). Obviously there are players that would hit for a couple of years Duncan/Garnett between Shaq/Lebron, Hakeem during Jordan's break, etc.
-
I counted up the number of championships these ten players won and attempted to only count championships when players were the best in the league. This meant:
Chamberlain's second championship didn't count
Kareem and Magic shared 5 titles, so these were counted once
Shaq only gets credit for his first 2 titles
These ten guys have won 38 of the 67 available titles while they were the dominant player in the league since 1949. Also keep in mind that, as Moranis said, there were a number of other guys who were clearly the best player in the league for a year or two that also won titles.
I think the lesson here is that often, no one guy dominates everyone else in the league, but when there is, their team has historically won the title a very high percentage of the time.
-
I have to go with Wilt as the best player to ever play in the NBA. I know he has his detractors but the guy was the most dominant presence the league has ever seen. You need a player who can score, well no one ever did it better. Keep in mind, Wilt scored 50 or more at least 10 times more in one season then MJ did in his career!
You need rebounding, Wilt was the best rebounder the league has ever seen, leading it 11 times in his 13 year career. Russel was a close second but I give the edge to Wilt due to his height and strength.
If you need defense Wilt can supply that at whatever level you need it. I know Russ gets credit for being a better defensive player, and maybe he was, but let's not forget that Wilt's teams asked him to do both, play D and score as well as rebound. Russ really was not counted on to score to make his teams win.
Now, if you think another player should be listed try substituting Wilt onto that team and take away the other player. Would the Celts have won 11 titles in 13 years with Wilt as their starting center instead of Russ? It's hard to say for sure but they may have won em all!
How about MJ's Bulls? With the teams they faced putting Wilt in their instead of MJ might have made them much better. Wilt could do everythig Jordan did and much more!
-
I don't think you can say Russell and Wilt went back and forth. That's like saying Peyton Manning and Tom Brady and Ben Rothlisburger went back and forth. No they didn't
-
I don't think you can say Russell and Wilt went back and forth. That's like saying Peyton Manning and Tom Brady and Ben Rothlisburger went back and forth. No they didn't
Sure you can, Bill and Wilt were very close and some seasons one was clearly better, some the other was clearly better. I mean MVP's were 5 to 4 (4 each while the other was in the league). I think you could actually make the stronger case for Wilt as the better player more years than Russell (MVP's aside), but with the team success it does skew a bit back towards Russell.
-
I don't think you can say Russell and Wilt went back and forth. That's like saying Peyton Manning and Tom Brady and Ben Rothlisburger went back and forth. No they didn't
Sure you can, Bill and Wilt were very close and some seasons one was clearly better, some the other was clearly better. I mean MVP's were 5 to 4 (4 each while the other was in the league). I think you could actually make the stronger case for Wilt as the better player more years than Russell (MVP's aside), but with the team success it does skew a bit back towards Russell.
It's just that rings are the only thing that matters.
-
To me, it's about who is the second best player of all time. Wilt is clearly number one.
-
I don't think you can say Russell and Wilt went back and forth. That's like saying Peyton Manning and Tom Brady and Ben Rothlisburger went back and forth. No they didn't
Sure you can, Bill and Wilt were very close and some seasons one was clearly better, some the other was clearly better. I mean MVP's were 5 to 4 (4 each while the other was in the league). I think you could actually make the stronger case for Wilt as the better player more years than Russell (MVP's aside), but with the team success it does skew a bit back towards Russell.
It's just that rings are the only thing that matters.
Not at all. Was Pau better than KG? I mean they were pretty similar as a possible best player (but more likely 2nd best player) on their title teams, of course Pau got 2 to KG's 1. Was Kobe better than Lebron? Kobe has more rings, must mean he is better. Rings are won by the best team. Bill was surrounded by HOFers. Wilt generally was not. That matters to rings, not to who is the better player. Now there are definitely seasons where Bill was better than Wilt, but if you were really going to pick who the better player was and did so not on a Celtics web-site, I would imagine Wilt would get the nod.
-
I feel like Tim Duncan should be on the list if you're including more than one guy per time period.
-
I don't think you can say Russell and Wilt went back and forth. That's like saying Peyton Manning and Tom Brady and Ben Rothlisburger went back and forth. No they didn't
Sure you can, Bill and Wilt were very close and some seasons one was clearly better, some the other was clearly better. I mean MVP's were 5 to 4 (4 each while the other was in the league). I think you could actually make the stronger case for Wilt as the better player more years than Russell (MVP's aside), but with the team success it does skew a bit back towards Russell.
It's just that rings are the only thing that matters.
Not at all. Was Pau better than KG? I mean they were pretty similar as a possible best player (but more likely 2nd best player) on their title teams, of course Pau got 2 to KG's 1. Was Kobe better than Lebron? Kobe has more rings, must mean he is better. Rings are won by the best team. Bill was surrounded by HOFers. Wilt generally was not. That matters to rings, not to who is the better player. Now there are definitely seasons where Bill was better than Wilt, but if you were really going to pick who the better player was and did so not on a Celtics web-site, I would imagine Wilt would get the nod.
So you theorize that if you trade Pau for KG straight up Pau's teams get worse and KG's get better or there's no change at all?
Very interesting. I always felt the implication was in an apples to apples way. If we assume Bill and Wilt are both apples (and they aren't anyway) then only rings will matter.
Now if you want to go across eras the rings aren't quite the same because Bill played before globalization. But within the era...when comparing alphas to alphas.....only rings matter. Especially when they went head to head so much. That's why they play the championship games. Otherwise you're like Euro soccer with no post season or something
-
Is it only rings that matter when determining the 'best player'? If the Warriors and Cleveland meet and Lebon outplays everyone but the the Warriors win the title, does that make Durant the best player? Or would it be Curry who is then the best player in the league? After all, his team beat Lebron's so he must be better, right?
Rings are the factor in the 'best team' but not necessarily the best player. Wilt's teams took the Celtics to I think 4 game seven's and lost by a total of nine points. If Wilt's teams win those games they probably win the title that year. If so, does that then make him a better player then Russ?
I have played many sports and I do understand that some players just know how to win. They are willing to do whatever the team needs to do to win and even more impressive is that they can do those things, and do. But what about the players who carry their team the entire game? The players who have already done everything the team needs to get to within a few points of the victory? Doe that make them less of a player when that team doesn't win? I think the word 'team' answers that question.
-
Is it only rings that matter when determining the 'best player'? If the Warriors and Cleveland meet and Lebon outplays everyone but the the Warriors win the title, does that make Durant the best player? Or would it be Curry who is then the best player in the league? After all, his team beat Lebron's so he must be better, right?
Rings are the factor in the 'best team' but not necessarily the best player. Wilt's teams took the Celtics to I think 4 game seven's and lost by a total of nine points. If Wilt's teams win those games they probably win the title that year. If so, does that then make him a better player then Russ?
I have played many sports and I do understand that some players just know how to win. They are willing to do whatever the team needs to do to win and even more impressive is that they can do those things, and do. But what about the players who carry their team the entire game? The players who have already done everything the team needs to get to within a few points of the victory? Doe that make them less of a player when that team doesn't win? I think the word 'team' answers that question.
Take Duncan and put him on any team and that team becomes the Spurs. Take Jordan. Same thing. Take Bill Russell. Same thing. That's why dynasties are usually built around one or two players.
-
Ok, let's put Duncan on Wilt's teams and take Wilt off. Does that mean Duncan's team beats Russell's Celtics?
-
I think players like Wilt and Lebron get hyped up by the masses and annointed the greatest before they even win anything mainly due to their physical ability. Russell was still considered an underdog against wilt and not as good even thugh Russell was beating him all the time. People still don't consider Russell to be that good. There's just something inside players like Russell who have a higher understanding of the game and team basketball. Most people wouldn't even mention Pierce in the same sentence as Lebron because Lebron has better stats.
I don't consider those players the best because if you really watch them they are beatable and take away from other players on the floor.
Duncan didn't need to be the leading scorer on those spurs teams. Neither did KG here. Lebron took his teams to the conference finals and bad teams much like KG did. It wasn't until Lebron had Wade and Bosh and the same thing with KG here. Allen Iverson even lead teams to the finals on his own. Pierce took this team to the conference finals. They all needed each other. The fact of the matter is Russell was better than Chamberlain when he had that. It's arguable Duncan was better than Lebron too for the same reasons.
Kidd did the same stuff in Nj and then when he had Dirk they were able to beat Lebron.
The fact of the matter is there were better players than Lebron when they all had that. Russell was better than Chamberlain too.
-
Based on that list. Id go most dominant player. Because there are a ton of better skill players than some of those big guys. If you go dominant player then the list makes sense. And you can put Wilt or Russell without issue or debate.
-
Kobe deserves to be in there. So does Duncan. Even KG's career was very similar to Lebron. The difference is lebron jumped ship earlier to get his ring where KG remained loyal to minnesota. If anything Lebron has been very beatable and has lost to quite a few guys in the finals. I'm not sure that spells dominance. Kobe was just as dangerous if not moreso. Jordan was similar in that he didn't win anything until those celtics and lakers teams were gone. He beat the Patrick Ewings, Reggie Millers and Barkleys and Malones of the world. He went and played baseball while Olajuwan and Drexler were winning. Lebron has been beat up pretty good.
Does that make KG an idiot and a self defeatist for staying in Minny? I don't think so it more just speaks to the kind of person he was.
I think Lebron is overrated that way though. Dude jumped ship did whatever he could to put himself in the best situation for him alone and still lost.
Russell did not do that.
-
Kobe was just as dangerous if not moreso.
Kobe won quite a few titles on the backs of the bigs he was playing with like Gasol and Shaq.
-
Kobe was just as dangerous if not moreso.
Kobe won quite a few titles on the backs of the bigs he was playing with like Gasol and Shaq.
I agree. I think Lebron is overrated though. Same with Kobe. Pierce is underrated. His stats aren't as good but if you look at situations he did a lot of the same things. Obviously pierce isn't going to be challenging for scoring titles and mvp and popular vote but he lead his team to the conference finals. Won when he got help just the same.
Duncan out of anyone is the most underrated. I think what he did in san antonio is the most impressive thing. He had a good coach and GM though. He was lucky enough to have that.
KG was stuck in Minny and stayed. Lebron bailed on Cleveland and went and got his ring in miami. Does that make Lebron better? I don't know.
The Celtics also had to beat those lakers teams.
I've heard people use the term idiot like it's someone who acts in a self defeating manner. That would make KG an idiot and Lebron smart in this case. I personally think an idiot is something else and the definition actually is just a stupid person. Lebron is an idiot to me. KG is a good person. He'd probably kick the crap out of lebron in a bar fight too.
I also think if both were matched with similar talent KG would win too. I think just who KG is underneath is a stronger player. Different but he's more team oriented and out for other people vs himself.
-
I think players like Wilt and Lebron get hyped up by the masses and annointed the greatest before they even win anything mainly due to their physical ability. Russell was still considered an underdog against wilt and not as good even thugh Russell was beating him all the time. People still don't consider Russell to be that good. There's just something inside players like Russell who have a higher understanding of the game and team basketball. Most people wouldn't even mention Pierce in the same sentence as Lebron because Lebron has better stats.
I don't consider those players the best because if you really watch them they are beatable and take away from other players on the floor.
Duncan didn't need to be the leading scorer on those spurs teams. Neither did KG here. Lebron took his teams to the conference finals and bad teams much like KG did. It wasn't until Lebron had Wade and Bosh and the same thing with KG here. Allen Iverson even lead teams to the finals on his own. Pierce took this team to the conference finals. They all needed each other. The fact of the matter is Russell was better than Chamberlain when he had that. It's arguable Duncan was better than Lebron too for the same reasons.
Kidd did the same stuff in Nj and then when he had Dirk they were able to beat Lebron.
The fact of the matter is there were better players than Lebron when they all had that. Russell was better than Chamberlain too.
Which team is better?
Team A
John Havilcek
Sam Jones
Tom Heinsohn
KC Jones
Tom Sanders
Frank Ramsey
Willie Naulls
Clyde Lovellette
Team B
Nate Thurmond
Tom Meschery
Guy Rodgers
Al Attles
Gary Phillips
Wayne Hightower
Gary Hill
George Lee
-
I think players like Wilt and Lebron get hyped up by the masses and annointed the greatest before they even win anything mainly due to their physical ability. Russell was still considered an underdog against wilt and not as good even thugh Russell was beating him all the time. People still don't consider Russell to be that good. There's just something inside players like Russell who have a higher understanding of the game and team basketball. Most people wouldn't even mention Pierce in the same sentence as Lebron because Lebron has better stats.
I don't consider those players the best because if you really watch them they are beatable and take away from other players on the floor.
Duncan didn't need to be the leading scorer on those spurs teams. Neither did KG here. Lebron took his teams to the conference finals and bad teams much like KG did. It wasn't until Lebron had Wade and Bosh and the same thing with KG here. Allen Iverson even lead teams to the finals on his own. Pierce took this team to the conference finals. They all needed each other. The fact of the matter is Russell was better than Chamberlain when he had that. It's arguable Duncan was better than Lebron too for the same reasons.
Kidd did the same stuff in Nj and then when he had Dirk they were able to beat Lebron.
The fact of the matter is there were better players than Lebron when they all had that. Russell was better than Chamberlain too.
Which team is better?
Team A
John Havilcek
Sam Jones
Tom Heinsohn
KC Jones
Tom Sanders
Frank Ramsey
Willie Naulls
Clyde Lovellette
Team B
Nate Thurmond
Tom Meschery
Guy Rodgers
Al Attles
Gary Phillips
Wayne Hightower
Gary Hill
George Lee
Those celtics teams were better but they also won. But I agree teh celtics were more about the celtics as an organization and had a good team and gm much like Duncan had in san antonio. It would be great if every team is like that but they aren't. But basketball is a team game ultimately. Players that can play within that style not everyone can do that either. I've seen it where superstar players go to great teams and hork it up. I've never understood the argument that russell was a better team player and chamberlain was a better player though. Basketball is a team game. The celtics won all those titles and russell and chamberlain were at the forefront of all of that. Russell's team got it done.
Anyone who can be that great and be a part of that is the best imo. That's the whole thing right there. The celtics didn't win until Russell got there. They then strung off how many in a row. It was that combination that got it done.
I've seen superstars scoff and situations and go elsewhere. There's no guarantee how Durant is going to work out in GS.
It's the emmitt smith vs barry sanders debate. People used to argue you put barry behind that line. people miss the fact that line had zero pro bowlers and didnt win before emmitt smith got there. They also couldnt run when he sat out and lost every game. barry used to dance around too much. Sure as far as highlight reel runs but Emmitt had his share. Barry was not the hardnosed hit the hole runner emmitt was. The cowboys used to play a precision timing posession offense with Aikman and Irvin and Novecek and Alvin Harper for the deep ball but they would run the ball down teams throats. just because Barry was more electifying doesn't mean he was better. I really think Barry wouldn't have worked as well in that instance.
-
It's Jaylen Brown, and I can't wait to quote myself in 8 years ;D
-
jaylen brown can be that. I think he has all the tools. Just needs to be a better shooter. Pierce was a workhorse and a more well rounded offensive player. Jaylen is a ferrari right now. He is physical defensively and takes it to the basket. He's the closest thing to jordan this team has seen not named Russell or Reggie lewis or len bias. He has the whole package and being a celtic will only make him better. He is that kind of talent I feel.
He has potential to be our version of that. He is a guy who can stick here 15 years and be our superstar i feel. He still has a ways to go though. But not that far.
He is our most talented player right now. He is going to be our best player in 3 years max. Horford probably is that. Isaiah's really good but is a bit overrated imo. I think Marcus is better than Isaiah in ways already.
-
most dominant vs greatest is different imo. The greatest players for each era are
Russell/chamberlain
magic/bird
jordan
kobe/duncan
duncan/lebron
The late 70's lacked some of that so i didnt really mention that. It was more a team oriented game. shaq probably belongs at the end of the jordan era and beginning of the kobe era.
I consider
Russell > Chamberlain
Magic and Bird were equals. Could be argued Magic was better.
jordan didn't have much competition once they were gone and the pistons.
Kobe, Shaq, Lebron and Duncan are all fairly equal. KG and Pierce and Ray have to take a backseat. Same with Dirk.
right now it's lebron and steph curry. Durant has to take a backseat but it's really debateable between him and Steph.
-
Weird thing is I think our 08 team would have beat any prime lebron team. I think the heat beat us once we were aging and didnt have perk anymore. But those 3 guys kg, pierce and ray were still better than any lebron team. I think KG is just as good a player as lebron in his prime too. Lebron is overrated that way.
Lebron just jumped ship on cleveland earlier where KG stayed loyal to minnesota so he looks better and more dominant.
I'll take that 08 team vs any prime lebron team to prove my point. Even Dwade. He is considered so much better than Pierce. Bosh vs Ray. I think that 08 team wins.
Lebron has proven to be vulnerable in his prime on great teams. Russell is different. He won every time as well going against Chamberlain.
You put a young Pierce with a prime shaq he'd be driving to the hoop all day like wade was when he won his first title too. unfortunately ainge signed shaq when he couldn't even walk on a court for 10 minutes and play meaningful minutes.
Pierce is just as good a player as dwade easily but won't be seen as that. KG and Lebron are also closer than people think.
jordan is also different he didn't b eat bird or magic until those teams were dead and gone. He did beat charles barkley, karl malone, reggie miller and patrick ewing though. None of those teams were superstar laden teams though. Phoenix probably had the best shot at it. Houston too but Mike was playing baseball probably not coincidently at that time.
Russell to me is the greatest player of all time. I think as far as everything he did it. Magic johnson is probably my second best player of all time. jordan or bird is 3 and 4. I think jordan is a huge media darling and started that whole era. I think in ways Bird was better. Kareem or Chamberlain is debateable who comes next. Magic had Kareem and Worthy and Rambis and Cooper and those guys. Bird had Mchale, Parish, Ainge and Dj. Take your pick. Magic was lucky in ways to have Kareem and Worthy but the celtics weren't exactly a bad situation.
-
Lebron looks better and more dominate than KG because Lebron was and is better than KG. Virtually any metric you could look at would tell you that.
I mean let's just look at MVP voting. Lebron finished 9th his rookie year, 6th his 2nd year, 2nd his 3rd year and then 5th and 4th, and every year since has finished in the top 3 (that would be 8 years with 4 MVP's). KG finished in the top 3 just 4 times with just the 1 win (well deserved as he was great that year). KG finished in the top 10, 10 seasons, which is 3 less than Lebron already has.
It is threads like these when I actually think Lebron is underrated. A lot of people really don't appreciate just how good Lebron is and will regret not paying more attention while he is still in his prime.
-
I think Lebron is a media darling. So was jordan. honestly neither player won when other more dominant teams were around. I'm not saying that is the end all be all what player does? but it does come into play. They also jumped ship when the going was tough. Is that a bad thing or more seinfeld jumping the gun and winning the race? I think bill russell can't be questioned and even he did that and refused to go certain places. He just ran off so many in a row on a great team he did it all.
I also think Bird and Magic went head to head in their prime and Magic won more. I give Magic the nod there.
-
Lebron had Dwade and Bosh and lost to Dirk Nowitski. Russell did not do that. Michael JOrdan was also off playing baseball when he felt the tide turning and was going to lose to Olajuwan and Drexler. That was not a coincidence. Jordan really would do that.
They were as concerend with their image as they were with winning. Kobe was similar that way and ousted shaq. Russell was not that bad. He just won and won a lot.
Magic was lucky in ways to have Kareem there already but he created showtime. Bird's situation was similar but different and Magic won more. Take your pick. They had to play each other too.
I think Russell is the best of all time. Magic #2. Bird and Jordan are debateable for 3 and 4. Kareem and Wilt as 5 and 6. Most people will rank Jordan #1.
Jordan has an argument he dominated the league for a long period of time and had pippen and guys like rodman. I think the competition level, the fact he was never a threat to those great lakers or celtics team and played baseball when olajuwan was coming is sketchy though.
-
I have to go with Wilt as the best player to ever play in the NBA. I know he has his detractors but the guy was the most dominant presence the league has ever seen. You need a player who can score, well no one ever did it better. Keep in mind, Wilt scored 50 or more at least 10 times more in one season then MJ did in his career!
You need rebounding, Wilt was the best rebounder the league has ever seen, leading it 11 times in his 13 year career. Russel was a close second but I give the edge to Wilt due to his height and strength.
If you need defense Wilt can supply that at whatever level you need it. I know Russ gets credit for being a better defensive player, and maybe he was, but let's not forget that Wilt's teams asked him to do both, play D and score as well as rebound. Russ really was not counted on to score to make his teams win.
I would agree with this. For all of you youngsters out there, Wilt Chamberlain has 72 NBA records, 68 of which he holds by himself.
http://www.nba.com/encyclopedia/wilts_records.html
-
Did Russell even lose as a player or coach? I don't think he ever did. The throwing up apparently worked better than anything else these other guys were doing. He did this going up chamberlain who many consider the best of all time and owns all those statistical records so he was obviously dominating everyone else. Russell had to deal with a lot of great players and teams. The lakers with west and baylor and the lakers with west and chamberlain.
They beat that team in 1969 with russell on his last legs.
First mvp award and it went to jerry west. his team lost only time thats ever happened, even though they had chamberlain and elgin baylor.
The masses and the media overrate these guys. I bet if you do a poll most people will say chamberlain, jordan, lebron etc.. Overrated. That is what overrated is because it's the mass consensus. What I'm saying isn't.
They all probably picked chamberlain and the lakers all those years too. Nope. Most people thought the world was flat too.
That's the issue with the media too. Is it makes people think this stuff when most of the media are image conscious people who don't look deeper than that. It takes a certain kind of person to think that way and not everyone is like that.
Russell was not a huge fan of the media if I'm not mistaken. Russell did think he was the best though and for good reason. Because he was. Not in an egotistical way either. He actually was. He was so far ahead of everyone else mentally he turned the game around into a defensive team game.
Russell has got to be the most winning player in any major sport. And he's not the best in his own sport? I could understand under different circumstances but the guy never lost with him I don't think and the celtics didn't win before he got here either. He was also going up against guys like Chamberlain and West and Baylor. Shotblocks weren't even a stat then and he dominated that.
http://definitivedose.com/sports/general/the-25-winningest-athletes-of-all-time
That is good company he is in. Michael Phelps. jack Nicklaus. Tiger Woods. Dimaggio, Kareem is up there. Yeah rocky marciano may not have been the best in his sport but still impressive. Rocky Marciano is underrated. Beat joe lewis.
-
Russell always had at least 3 other HOFers on his team. Let's not pretend those teams didn't have a lot of talent and talent wins titles. Always has, always will.
-
I don't think you can say Russell and Wilt went back and forth. That's like saying Peyton Manning and Tom Brady and Ben Rothlisburger went back and forth. No they didn't
Sure you can, Bill and Wilt were very close and some seasons one was clearly better, some the other was clearly better. I mean MVP's were 5 to 4 (4 each while the other was in the league). I think you could actually make the stronger case for Wilt as the better player more years than Russell (MVP's aside), but with the team success it does skew a bit back towards Russell.
It's just that rings are the only thing that matters.
Rings reflect a teams success, MVP reflects an individuals success and influence on a team.
Russell was a great competitor, however I don't think he would ever say that he was better than Wilt. The key factor not being mentioned-Auerbach. I think you could make a strong case that if
Red coached Chamberlain, there would have been alot more rings on Wilts fingers.
-
Would the Celtics have won as many titles if Wilt played on those teams instead of Russ? It's really hard to answer. Everyone just assumes that Wilt's ego would make the team worse, but would it? Would he be the same player had he had Red to coach him?
Chamberlain had all the tools Russ did and then some. If a team needed him to just rebound and play D then he would have done that. The Celtics would have then also had the benefit of having a great scorer they could go to when needed. Chamberlain's teams didnt have the lluxury of just using him to rebound and play D though, he had to score and in bunches.
It's really not a fair comparison since his teams asked him to do so much more. Playing with several other HOF players really does make the difference. How many title would Jordan win without Pippen? Oh yeah, we already know that, none!
-
I don't think you can say Russell and Wilt went back and forth. That's like saying Peyton Manning and Tom Brady and Ben Rothlisburger went back and forth. No they didn't
Sure you can, Bill and Wilt were very close and some seasons one was clearly better, some the other was clearly better. I mean MVP's were 5 to 4 (4 each while the other was in the league). I think you could actually make the stronger case for Wilt as the better player more years than Russell (MVP's aside), but with the team success it does skew a bit back towards Russell.
It's just that rings are the only thing that matters.
Rings reflect a teams success, MVP reflects an individuals success and influence on a team.
Russell was a great competitor, however I don't think he would ever say that he was better than Wilt. The key factor not being mentioned-Auerbach. I think you could make a strong case that if
Red coached Chamberlain, there would have been alot more rings on Wilts fingers.
But that wouldn't mean Bill wasn't the best player of his era.
This ignores that Bill was a great player well before he got to Red. He had two NCAA championships and an Olympic gold before Red. Wilt had none of that.
-
When you read Wilt's bio it's mostly just a long list of reasons why he didn't win that much.
-
When you read Wilt's bio it's mostly just a long list of reasons why he didn't win that much.
again which team is better?
Team A
John Havilcek
Sam Jones
Tom Heinsohn
KC Jones
Tom Sanders
Frank Ramsey
Willie Naulls
Clyde Lovellette
Team B
Nate Thurmond
Tom Meschery
Guy Rodgers
Al Attles
Gary Phillips
Wayne Hightower
Gary Hill
George Lee
-
Kobe deserves to be in there. So does Duncan. Even KG's career was very similar to Lebron. The difference is lebron jumped ship earlier to get his ring where KG remained loyal to minnesota. If anything Lebron has been very beatable and has lost to quite a few guys in the finals. I'm not sure that spells dominance. Kobe was just as dangerous if not moreso. Jordan was similar in that he didn't win anything until those celtics and lakers teams were gone. He beat the Patrick Ewings, Reggie Millers and Barkleys and Malones of the world. He went and played baseball while Olajuwan and Drexler were winning. Lebron has been beat up pretty good.
Does that make KG an idiot and a self defeatist for staying in Minny? I don't think so it more just speaks to the kind of person he was.
I think Lebron is overrated that way though. Dude jumped ship did whatever he could to put himself in the best situation for him alone and still lost.
Russell did not do that.
Agree with all of this!!
-
When you read Wilt's bio it's mostly just a long list of reasons why he didn't win that much.
again which team is better
Which team is better?
Team A
John Havilcek
Sam Jones
Tom Heinsohn
KC Jones
Tom Sanders
Frank Ramsey
Willie Naulls
Clyde Lovellette
Team B
Nate Thurmond
Tom Meschery
Guy Rodgers
Al Attles
Gary Phillips
Wayne Hightower
Gary Hill
George Lee
Whichever one has Bill Russell on it.
Specifically I say if you trade Bill for Wilt Bill's team gets better and Wilt's team gets worse.
Wilt played with tons of HOFers. The idea that he had no good teammates is a myth.
-
Wilt’s record against Russell: 58-84
Russell’s record against Wilt: 84-58
-
When you read Wilt's bio it's mostly just a long list of reasons why he didn't win that much.
again which team is better
Which team is better?
Team A
John Havilcek
Sam Jones
Tom Heinsohn
KC Jones
Tom Sanders
Frank Ramsey
Willie Naulls
Clyde Lovellette
Team B
Nate Thurmond
Tom Meschery
Guy Rodgers
Al Attles
Gary Phillips
Wayne Hightower
Gary Hill
George Lee
Whichever one has Bill Russell on it.
Specifically I say if you trade Bill for Wilt Bill's team gets better and Wilt's team gets worse.
Wilt played with tons of HOFers. The idea that he had no good teammates is a myth.
When Wilt had 2 other HOFers in their prime, Wilt had the greatest team in NBA history to that point and demolished the Celtics in the playoffs.
-
When you read Wilt's bio it's mostly just a long list of reasons why he didn't win that much.
again which team is better
Which team is better?
Team A
John Havilcek
Sam Jones
Tom Heinsohn
KC Jones
Tom Sanders
Frank Ramsey
Willie Naulls
Clyde Lovellette
Team B
Nate Thurmond
Tom Meschery
Guy Rodgers
Al Attles
Gary Phillips
Wayne Hightower
Gary Hill
George Lee
Whichever one has Bill Russell on it.
Specifically I say if you trade Bill for Wilt Bill's team gets better and Wilt's team gets worse.
Wilt played with tons of HOFers. The idea that he had no good teammates is a myth.
When Wilt had 2 other HOFers in their prime, Wilt had the greatest team in NBA history to that point and demolished the Celtics in the playoffs.
I assume that was when he finally started passing.
-
When you read Wilt's bio it's mostly just a long list of reasons why he didn't win that much.
again which team is better
Which team is better?
Team A
John Havilcek
Sam Jones
Tom Heinsohn
KC Jones
Tom Sanders
Frank Ramsey
Willie Naulls
Clyde Lovellette
Team B
Nate Thurmond
Tom Meschery
Guy Rodgers
Al Attles
Gary Phillips
Wayne Hightower
Gary Hill
George Lee
Whichever one has Bill Russell on it.
Specifically I say if you trade Bill for Wilt Bill's team gets better and Wilt's team gets worse.
Wilt played with tons of HOFers. The idea that he had no good teammates is a myth.
When Wilt had 2 other HOFers in their prime, Wilt had the greatest team in NBA history to that point and demolished the Celtics in the playoffs.
I assume that was when he finally started passing.
Then that same team choked away a 3-1 series in the conference finals to the Celtics the very next year. And we all know what happened with Wilt after that. So I have no real idea what the point that is trying to be made there.
-
When you read Wilt's bio it's mostly just a long list of reasons why he didn't win that much.
again which team is better
Which team is better?
Team A
John Havilcek
Sam Jones
Tom Heinsohn
KC Jones
Tom Sanders
Frank Ramsey
Willie Naulls
Clyde Lovellette
Team B
Nate Thurmond
Tom Meschery
Guy Rodgers
Al Attles
Gary Phillips
Wayne Hightower
Gary Hill
George Lee
Whichever one has Bill Russell on it.
Specifically I say if you trade Bill for Wilt Bill's team gets better and Wilt's team gets worse.
Wilt played with tons of HOFers. The idea that he had no good teammates is a myth.
When Wilt had 2 other HOFers in their prime, Wilt had the greatest team in NBA history to that point and demolished the Celtics in the playoffs.
I assume that was when he finally started passing.
Then that same team choked away a 3-1 series in the conference finals to the Celtics the very next year. And we all know what happened with Wilt after that. So I have no real idea what the point that is trying to be made there.
Funny I didn't see Billy Cunningham's stats in that series. Oh you mean Cunningham was injured so it was just Wilt and Greer. Hmmm.
-
When you read Wilt's bio it's mostly just a long list of reasons why he didn't win that much.
again which team is better
Which team is better?
Team A
John Havilcek
Sam Jones
Tom Heinsohn
KC Jones
Tom Sanders
Frank Ramsey
Willie Naulls
Clyde Lovellette
Team B
Nate Thurmond
Tom Meschery
Guy Rodgers
Al Attles
Gary Phillips
Wayne Hightower
Gary Hill
George Lee
Whichever one has Bill Russell on it.
Specifically I say if you trade Bill for Wilt Bill's team gets better and Wilt's team gets worse.
Wilt played with tons of HOFers. The idea that he had no good teammates is a myth.
When Wilt had 2 other HOFers in their prime, Wilt had the greatest team in NBA history to that point and demolished the Celtics in the playoffs.
I assume that was when he finally started passing.
These are the assists per game for Wilt and Bill for their first 5 seasons. I will let you figure out which one is which.
2.3, 1.9, 2.4, 3.4, 5.0
1.8, 2.9, 3.2, 3.7, 3.4
Wilt did what was asked of him. His first few years his teams were so bad they needed him to score so he did. When he was on better teams, his coaches asked him to pass more, so he did and in fact led the league one year. He is the only player in history to have led the league in points, rebounds, and assists.
-
When you read Wilt's bio it's mostly just a long list of reasons why he didn't win that much.
again which team is better
Which team is better?
Team A
John Havilcek
Sam Jones
Tom Heinsohn
KC Jones
Tom Sanders
Frank Ramsey
Willie Naulls
Clyde Lovellette
Team B
Nate Thurmond
Tom Meschery
Guy Rodgers
Al Attles
Gary Phillips
Wayne Hightower
Gary Hill
George Lee
Whichever one has Bill Russell on it.
Specifically I say if you trade Bill for Wilt Bill's team gets better and Wilt's team gets worse.
Wilt played with tons of HOFers. The idea that he had no good teammates is a myth.
When Wilt had 2 other HOFers in their prime, Wilt had the greatest team in NBA history to that point and demolished the Celtics in the playoffs.
I assume that was when he finally started passing.
Then that same team choked away a 3-1 series in the conference finals to the Celtics the very next year. And we all know what happened with Wilt after that. So I have no real idea what the point that is trying to be made there.
Funny I didn't see Billy Cunningham's stats in that series. Oh you mean Cunningham was injured so it was just Wilt and Greer. Hmmm.
Edited. Forget it.
-
I don't know if people are saying they weren't equal talents. I think people are saying they weren't equal players.
Isn't it true that in 1965 the Warriors tried to shop Wilt, so the owner of the Lakers had his players vote on it and they voted 9-2 against?
-
I don't know if people are saying they weren't equal talents. I think people are saying they weren't equal players.
Isn't it true that in 1965 the Warriors tried to shop Wilt, so the owner of the Lakers had his players vote on it and they voted 9-2 against?
Wilt people will always have a tougher hill to climb than the Russell people. The rings will always ensure that.
-
I don't know if people are saying they weren't equal talents. I think people are saying they weren't equal players.
Isn't it true that in 1965 the Warriors tried to shop Wilt, so the owner of the Lakers had his players vote on it and they voted 9-2 against?
Wilt people will always have a tougher hill to climb than the Russell people. The rings will always ensure that.
That's what rings are about. They settle things.
-
Shaq and MJ were the most dominating players of my generation. No other players come close. It always felt that it would take a miracle to beat their teams.
I was too young to know much about Bird and Magic.
-
I don't know if people are saying they weren't equal talents. I think people are saying they weren't equal players.
Isn't it true that in 1965 the Warriors tried to shop Wilt, so the owner of the Lakers had his players vote on it and they voted 9-2 against?
No idea, but that wouldn't surprise me as Wilt had a bit of reputation of being a problem (though most of his coaches and teammates spoke very highly of him). Of course he ended up in LA and was a large part of LA winning its first title since moving from Minnesota, so there is that.
-
Shaq
-
Shaq
He is not even in the top-10 all-time.
-
Shaq
He is not even in the top-10 all-time.
and that has nothing to do with the thread. It wasn't just pick one.