Originally posted by RecSpecs110
Message for B Dot Rob:a little too long for me to read. and yeah exactly, this thread is not "top 10 in history pound per pound." that means that even if wilt was playing in a weak era and he was the tallest by far in that era, you cant use that as a negative factor towards him and say, "he was a dominant player, only cuz he was much taller than everyone." i could use the same lame excuse and say that shaq is so much bigger and heavier than everyone in the league, so nobody can stop him, and thats why he gets so many points, rebounds, etc. but im not saying that, and while you said size matters, you excluded wilt because of his size.
and as for oscar, what are you crazy? oscar has the record for most triple-doubles, and as you mentioned he even averaged a triple-double in a season. yes, averaged one. you know how difficult that is? and dont give me this bull, "oh, he played in a weak era, or he got a lot more shots and oppurtunities for assists." i think oscar deserves to be in front of one of your current top 10 members.
So what you are saying is that inferior players get a pass?
Originally posted by Templares
Whats your definition of athleticism?Russell is very athletic. He is the original alley-oop finisher , not to mention he's been described as having some sort of "double jumping" ability because even when the opposing player was able to fake him, he was still able recover quickly and STILL block the shot. In addition, Russell often throws accurate outlet passes to the point guard shortly after rebounding even while in mid air.
Players from back in the day often have their athleticism over-exaggerated because there was none. Double jumping comes from the fact that he was one of the maybe 5 players during his era that could dunk the ball with consistency. And nothing you've mentioned impresses me at all. Hell I bet you could put D-Miles in the era and get similar results as all the skills you described are things I've seen him display, not to mention his jumpshot is probably better 🤣 .
The only time Russell will be a trash/garbage if you put him in the current league without updating him on basketball developments since he retired which is an INACCURATE way of comparing players.
If you put him the current league and somehow managed to upload the current rules into his brain and do all that shit he'd still be trash.
Its not a matter of "poor management", its a matter of lack of funds.
Do you even know how EASILY the Celtics acquired Bill Russell?
And another thing, NBA at 50 declares the Russell-era as "the greatest influx of talent that the League has ever seen." Sucky era? None sense.
What does this have to do anything? The league sucked.
I'll quote the text from the link:
"College basketball has changed so much that it would be imprudent to suggest a team a half-century ago could beat any team in the2006 NCAA Tournament."
"San Francisco's Dons probably could, though."
First off, the link is NOT saying what you said.
Yes it does. The very first sentence says that it would be retardation to suggest any team from the Russell era could beat ANY (which includes bottom of the barrell teams) team from this era, then it goes on to say Russell's PROBABLY could (which also includes crappy teams). Here's an even better question, have you ever actually seen Russell's team play?
I certainly wouldnt put Russell or any old timers inside a modern basketball game WITHOUT UPDATING THEM on modern basketball concepts, training, rules etc. . . . . oh wait iv'e already type this.
Even if you updated him on training and rules he'd still not make the D-League. Wait, never mind, he's 6'10, I'm sure the Knicks have a spot for him.
Seriously what part of the stipulation "WITHOUT UPDATING THEM on modern basketball concepts, training, rules etc" could you NOT understand?
The part where you made it up.
Modern players have the undue advantage because they have the benefit of learning ACCUMULATED KNOWLEDGE from previous eras.
So that's supposed to somehow make them worse?
This is besides the benefits afforded by developments in science and technology - modern shoes, modern first aid techniques, modern training equipment, diet etc.
Which is why no 60's players belong in a top 10.
If youre putting modern players in the 60's you have to FACTOR OUT alot of these accumulated knowledge and modern benefits.
If youre putting old players into the modern era, you have to update them.
So what you are saying is that in order to make Russell an arguable even top 500 player you'd have to water down the current players while beefing him up? 🤣
Originally posted by B dot RobKobe will be number 1 someday ✅
And people say Kobe isn't top 10http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxy7np0dH5Q&NR
At the age of 20 😱
Originally posted by B dot Rob
[BHell I bet you could put D-Miles in the era and get similar results as all the skills you described are things I've seen him display, not to mention his jumpshot is probably better 🤣 .If you put him the current league and somehow managed to upload the current rules into his brain and do all that shit he'd still be trash.
Do you even know how EASILY the Celtics acquired Bill Russell?
Even if you updated him on training and rules he'd still not make the D-League. Wait, never mind, he's 6'10, I'm sure the Knicks have a spot for him.[/B]
okkkkk..... hold off on the crack just a little bit there buddy. 😕 dont need to exagerate that much. darius miles vs. bill russell, it seems like your desparately trying to bash russell in any way possible.
dude, give bill russell some credit man. its one thing to say hes not top 10, its another to say hes trash, garbage, would not even make the D-League and the Knicks. while you cant say that the change of era has nothing to do with it, you also cant make it as a way to discriminate him. russell was one of the greatest back then, and you cant say that he would suck now. how do you know? did you bring his body to the future and test it? FYI, people adapt to their surroundings. you cant make a carbon copy of russell, bring him to the future, and say that that would be how he'd perform today. he'd adapt to the high level of competition. thats how guys like lebron improved so much. in high school, he was the tallest, heaviest, strongest, etc. but in the NBA, the competition grew so much, and he became challenged and motivated, and now look at him.
Originally posted by RecSpecs110
okkkkk..... hold off on the crack just a little bit there buddy. 😕 dont need to exagerate that much. darius miles vs. bill russell, it seems like your desparately trying to bash russell in any way possible.
Give me one attribute Bill Russell has over Miles (outside of height) and win a cookie.
russell was one of the greatest back then,
Back then was about 40 something years ago things change.
and you cant say that he would suck now.
But at the same time you cannot dare say that a player of Kobe Bryant's calibur is worse then one of Russell's.
in high school, he was the tallest, heaviest, strongest, etc. but in the NBA, the competition grew so much, and he became challenged and motivated, and now look at him.
In High School Lebron still only weighed about 5 lbs less then KARL FREAKING MALONE (keep in mind it was all muscle which btw is still more then Russell) and in High School Lebron wasn't the only person that could physically throw a ball in the basket.
Originally posted by RecSpecs110
no, not near of that sort! oscar robertson inferior? quite the opposite, he was superior. you're just making the impression that he was inferior. he definately EARNS his way to the top 10 list.
No he doesn't. Hell if you extrapolate his stats (ie forget that gawdy 12 boards a game stat and actually take a look at the RATE he was rebounding because remember in the Robertson era defense was BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD and chucking was GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD) you get a higher scoring Chris Paul. You telling me Chris Paul has earned his way on the list?
Damn Lebron was quite the manchild now that I think about it. A MUCH better comparison would have been Kobe who put on about 20-30lbs in muscle over the years but that would STILL be a suck comparison as the only thing that he's improved on through the years is his jump shot (which didn't really get better in aim but in power which he has said on Steven A's talk show), IQ, and SIZE. All his skill was already there in High School whereas with Russell what you see is what you got.
Originally posted by B dot Rob
Give me one attribute Bill Russell has over Miles (outside of height) and win a cookie.But at the same time you cannot dare say that a player of Kobe Bryant's calibur is worse then one of Russell's.
rebounding, points, assists, and...just about everything. 😄 maybe, athletic wise, miles is better, but the stats dont lie.
im not sure you can really compare players from different postions, but beside that, im not saying russell had more talent than kobe. im not even sure i'd put him on my top 10. maybe, maybe not. but to say hes trash, and he wouldnt even make the D-League is plain disrespectful.
Not really if you actually know the sport. Russell is one of the greats no doubt (maybe even the greatest to ever do it) but best as in skill wise? Hell no. And truthfully he would struggle to make the D-League. The players from back then just don't cut it now.
Oh and
D-Miles is a MUCH better passer, ball-handler (which is sad), scorer, and just about everything you can think of that Russell does D can do better. Why isn't D the one with the stats? He plays against ACTUAL COMPETITION.
Btw (food for thought) if stats don't lie then I guess it's pretty safe to say that Hawks Circa Shareef is better then current-Shaq.
Originally posted by B dot Rob
Not really if you actually know the sport. Russell is one of the greats no doubt (maybe even the greatest to ever do it) but best as in skill wise? Hell no. And truthfully he would struggle to make the D-League. The players from back then just don't cut it now.Oh and
D-Miles is a MUCH better passer, ball-handler (which is sad), scorer, and just about everything you can think of that Russell does D can do better. Why isn't D the one with the stats? He plays against ACTUAL COMPETITION.
Btw (food for thought) if stats don't lie then I guess it's pretty safe to say that Hawks Circa Shareef is better then current-Shaq.
if shareef had better stats than shaq last year, i'd say he was better than shaq last year. but as a career, shaq was much better. bad example.
bill russell averaged around 25 rebounds for most of his career. Darius Miles? his best rebounding season was at 5.9. thats about 5x as much rebounds per game. level of competition isnt that much of a factor. its not like russell played against high school players. and you have to make it even. Darius Miles is muscular and athletic, so he plays with muscular and athletic competitive players. russell, not so athletic and muscle-toned, so he played with not so muscular and athletic players. so its not as much of a discrepancy as you think it is. russell averaged more points, assists, blocks, etc. so, russell is much better.
Originally posted by RecSpecs110
if shareef had better stats than shaq last year, i'd say he was better than shaq last year. but as a career, shaq was much better. bad example.
Okay now I know where you stand.
bill russell averaged around 25 rebounds for most of his career. Darius Miles? his best rebounding season was at 5.9. thats about 5x as much rebounds per game. level of competition isnt that much of a factor.
Which if you readjust for RATE OF REBOUNDING (rebounding stats are inflated as Russell and company pretty much played in a run-n-gun era you want an example of what a average team in the 60's played like look at the Phoenix Suns - the athleticism which lead to more contested JUMP SHOTS which means more missed baskets which means more rebounds to grab and when you're pretty much the only athlete around it's basically a cherry pick) is only around 18-20% which to my knowledge is only about 2-6% higher then Miles who plays in THE era of athleticism.
its not like russell played against high school players.
Might as well had.
Darius Miles is muscular and athletic, so he plays with muscular and athletic competitive players. russell, not so athletic and muscle-toned, so he played with not so muscular and athletic players.
Which is exactly why Russell and his whole era is inferior and belong nowhere near a top 10 best list.
im only saying whats reasonable. thats where i stand. you, on the other hand, im clueless to where you are. if i really were to say shareef is better than shaq, i'd be crazy, but i was only comparing who had a better season. btw, you cant compare shareef's prime to shaq's retiring age. thats not ethical. as you can see, i like to compare by statistics, which is undeniably the fairest way to debate. Its called evidence, if you didnt know. your way of debating is by spliting the players by "era" and making a lame excuse as your backup. thats very unscientific. you're also completely discriminating many great legends, and saying they're inferior because they're old. and i thought your dominique wilkins campaign was unreasonable. but this is just ridiculous. if you say so, why dont you just say every current decent player is better than russell. ie. antawn jamison, elton brand, etc. why darius miles? thats what i dont get. you'd pick darius miles out of all those players in the NBA. i really dont know where you're going with this.
Originally posted by RecSpecs110
btw, you cant compare shareef's prime to shaq's retiring age. thats not ethical.
The same Shaq that is still considered a top 10 player in the league?
as you can see, i like to compare by statistics, which is undeniably the fairest way to debate.
True it is a fair way to debate but you also have to look at the right stats as well and look at the actual playing style. For example Dennis Rodman (who IS the best rebounder to ever do it) averaged about 18 boards a game in his prime whereas Wilt average something in the neighborhood of 28 or something (don't feel like looking up the stat). But if you look at the rate of rebounding (ie the average team during the run-n-gun era averaged a good 15-30 more rebounds then the average team now because defense wasn't as enforced) you'd see that Rodman's dwarfs Wilt's (I think Rodman averaged something like 55% of his teams boards in his prime which is just jawdrop whereas I don't think Wilt has even broke 30 not that that's a bad thing it just goes to show to look deeper then just the basic stats).
Quick question, who'd you think would be more likely to dominate in the paint (in their respective primes of course) if they were asked to play against the Spurs tomorrow, Shaq or Wilt?
(note: Not to sound like an ass or anything, but, if your answer is Shaq, then you basically just contradicted yourself.)
Its called evidence, if you didnt know. your way of debating is by spliting the players by "era" and making a lame excuse as your backup. thats very unscientific
What the **** are you talking about? Do you seriously think all era's are equal? And what lame excuse are you talking about? The FACT that Russell played in a garbage era and only truly dominated garbage players does not make him better then an average joe in this day and age?
you're also completely discriminating many great legends, and saying they're inferior because they're old.
Okay, pretend I'm slow. Explain to me why Bill Russell should be top 10. All I see is
"Who carez if z legue he played 4 suk, he still gudder then Dominique"
even though 'Nique is bigger, stronger, faster, much more athletic, a much better shooter, a much better passer, and probably rebounder as well.
and i thought your dominique wilkins campaign was unreasonable.
Two words.
Reggie Miller
🤣
if you say so, why dont you just say every current decent player is better than russell.
Every current player is better then Russell
why darius miles? thats what i dont get. you'd pick darius miles out of all those players in the NBA. i really dont know where you're going with this.
Because if you actually seen both play you'd notice how similar their styles are (most people would say that Ben Wallace is a better comparison, but most people forget that they are on a much different weight class and Darius Miles is a very good idea of what someone of Wilt's skill set could probably do on their best day).............................except Bill isn't as explosive, athletic, quick, or the jump shooter (let me reiterate 🤣 ) that Miles is (which just goes to show you how far the talent is now from back then).
saying reggie miller is better than dominique is WAY more reasonable than saying every current player is better than Russell, first off.
second, for the 100th time, you cant compare centers with forwards and guards. no duh wilkins is a better shooter and quicker than Russell. antawn jamison is quicker and a better shooter than shaq, but would you consider him better than shaq, Mr. Contradiction.
third, where the hell did Rodman come from? Im talking about Russell vs. Miles. Rodman averaged 18, as you said, which is CLOSE to what Russell averaged. but Miles? his best was 5.9, per game. thats just pitiful no matter what the era. my man jason kidd averages more than that, ok? and you're saying that Miles is a better rebounder? 😖
and where the hell did shaq vs. wilt come from? you're totally offline. once again, this is russell vs. miles.
i meant lame excuse as in no matter how lopsided the stats were between miles and russell, you're in denial. you keep saying, "oh, russell was in a garbage era, and miles was a better passer, scorer, ball handler, etc. when you cant really prove that, because russell kicks his ass in the stats. and you talked about the "right" stats, i mean they're no "right" stats to work with, as russell beat miles in basically every normal stat. we have to work with the stats we have. thats what i call a lame excuse. an argument where you cant prove its absolutly true. an argument that you didnt use when saying that dominique should be on the top 10. hey, i could find a decent current player, and say, "hes not as good as 'Nique, but 'Nique was in a weaker era, so this guy is overall better." see how your twisted logic works?
I'm only going to answer some (like always) as most of this stuff is contradictory fluff.
Originally posted by RecSpecs110
saying reggie miller is better than dominique is WAY more reasonable than saying every current player is better than Russell, first off.
Not even in bizarro world.
second, for the 100th time, you cant compare centers with forwards and guards. no duh wilkins is a better shooter and quicker than Russell. antawn jamison is quicker and a better shooter than shaq, but would you consider him better than shaq, Mr. Contradiction.
You can when the Forward is better built for the Center position then the center in question.
PS: Antawn Jamison is also not nearly as efficient, as aware, the defender, the rebounder, the passer, the scorer, the ATHLETE (people forget that when Shaq came to the league he had an >= 40), and as good on his feet as Shaq (in his prime) was. Hell I'd even say that Shaq was quicker then Antawn (not in actual floor running but in terms of one two step and back to basket game you'd be HARD pressed to find a quicker finisher).
third, where the hell did Rodman come from?
It's an example that shows how new jackish it is to just look at the numbers on the outside and not the fun stuff on the inside (like the rebounding rate which is MUCH more telling then 25 or w/e).
but Miles? his best was 5.9, per game. thats just pitiful no matter what the era.
It's still probably what Russell would be at if he played now.
my man jason kidd averages more than that, ok?
Your man Kidd is lightyears ahead of Russell as well.
and you're saying that Miles is a better rebounder? 😖
Yup.
and where the hell did shaq vs. wilt come from? you're totally offline. once again, this is russell vs. miles.
An example of how silly you look (from my point of view) by only comparing stats.
Oh and thanks for sidestepping the question.
If stats are all that matters, then who would dominate the paint more, the guy who averaged 50 ppg in a season (Wilt) or a guy who average 28 (Shaq)?
we have to work with the stats we have.
And rate of rebounding is a stat we have.
Quick question who do you think would average more rebounds
A guy who plays on a slow paced Spurs team, or a guy who plays on an unathletic Suns team (while being the only athlete on the team btw)?
hey, i could find a decent current player, and say, "hes not as good as 'Nique, but 'Nique was in a weaker era, so this guy is overall better." see how your twisted logic works?
Are you implying that the 80's was a weak era? 🤣