Top 10 players in NBA History

im saying that it was a weaker era than the current era. as time passes by, the nba gets stronger, more competitive, etc.

im not only comparing stats. i just said that stats are the fairest way to compare. i think you look sillier by comparing players by only in what era they were in. by your standard, brendan haywood is better than bill russell, because haywood's in a tougher era. and by looking at the HUGE discrepancy in rebounds, (Russell- 25) (Miles-5.9) I would say Russell was a better rebounder. If the numbers were a little closer, maybe i would think about it, but when a point guard averages more rebounds than a power forward, saying that that power forward is better than one of the all-time greats in rebounding is complete disrespect.

it would be "jackish" or whatever you said, if i were comparing Rodman and Russell, and only looking on the outside, but when you compare an elite player to someone like Darius Miles (no offense to him), you dont really need to look deeply, because its too obvious. When comparing two players like kareem and elton brand (elton's a great player), but you dont look deeply in that comparison, you normally would just say, "Kareem's better because of higher points, rebounds, etc."

Originally posted by RecSpecs110
im saying that it was a weaker era than the current era. as time passes by, the nba gets stronger, more competitive, etc.

R U SIRIOUS!? The 80's was a LOT more harsher on D thanks to less restrictive defense rules (hell Scottie even commented on how scoring in the 80's was tougher then the current league thanks to lack of hand-checking and such) and the competition was at it's very peak (granted you had dynasty's but you never had anything like what the Lakers had back in the early 00's and what MJ did to the 90's) oh and the athleticism was just as good back then as it is now (I mean you have not even 5'9 players winning dunk contests for crying out loud).

And even if you put the 80's on the same plain as the current league look at the people who's stat line rivals 'Niques (keep in mind most aren't as good as him)

Kobe
LeBron
Arenas
Iverson
KG
Stoudemire
T-Mac
Nowitzki

looks like pretty elite company to me

i just said that stats are the fairest way to compare. i think you look sillier by comparing players by only in what era they were in.

Contradiction ftw.

by your standard, brendan haywood is better than bill russell,

And he is.

by looking at the HUGE discrepancy in rebounds, (Russell- 25) (Miles-5.9) I would say Russell was a better rebounder.

By era's he was but there's no way he averages more then 5.9 in this day and age unless he gets stuck on a team with NO rebounders and all offense (like the Knicks).

a point guard averages more rebounds than a power forward, saying that that power forward is better than one of the all-time greats in rebounding is complete disrespect.

Darius Miles is a power-forward? Thought he was small :/. Oh and Oscar Robertson averaged more rebounds then Duncan. Is it disrespectful to say Duncan > Russell.

Oh and IMO it's complete disrespect to say any oldie from that era would do anything in the current league other then handing out the water.

but when you compare an elite player

See that's your problem, you're calling Russell elite when you just admitted earlier that the NBA got better, stronger, faster and more competive as time went on. Russell was elite FOR HIS DAY but nowadays you put a clone of him on any team and he gets demolished by said improvements. Whereas I guaruntee you that if you put someone with Miles's athleticism and quickness in his era he's a god.

When comparing two players like kareem and elton brand (elton's a great player), but you dont look deeply in that comparison, you normally would just say, "Kareem's better because of higher points, rebounds, etc."

Kareem also played in a credible era, Bill, on the other hand, did not.

see, you keep saying he wont do anything in this era, when you dont have anything to prove it. i talked earlier that people adapt, which you completely ignored. being fair, we both dont know how he would perform these days, and we cant. but we do know how he did earlier, and he exceled greatly. so given that fact, we can at least call him a great player, instead of assuming that if the league changed a little, he would automatically drop.

🤨 are you saying that players in the 80's were bigger, stronger, more athletic, and more competitive than current players? maybe thats why you dont agree with me. so you're saying that the earliest era was least competitive, then it got a lot more competitive, and then the competition dropped in the current era? not only does that not make sense, its contradictory. you first say, oldie's like russell wont manage in the current era, because the competition has rised through the years. but then you say that an oldie like kareem was in a tougher league than the present.

and brendan haywood better than russell? 😆 😆 🤣 🤣

Originally posted by RecSpecs110
see, you keep saying he wont do anything in this era, when you dont have anything to prove it.

Being 6'10 210 lbs and having actually watched some of his games (most likely unlike you) is proof enough for me.

i talked earlier that people adapt, which you completely ignored.

The only people who adapt are people who already have talent to compete at the level of the current-NBA quota. Bill Russell doesn't.

being fair, we both dont know how he would perform these days,

I do. You don't.

but we do know how he did earlier, and he exceled greatly.

That's because his era sucked.

so given that fact,

True indeed.

we can at least call him a great player

Great as in accomplishment wise or great as in good player. If it's the former I'll agree and say he's top 5 easy, if it's the latter I say you are on crack. He was a great player but things change, nowadays he's terrible.

instead of assuming that if the league changed a little, he would automatically drop.

Except we aren't assuming that the league changed a little, because it did in fact, change a LOT (you've even said this), and we know that if he played in this day and age there's nothing he could do that D-Miles couldn't.

🤨 are you saying that players in the 80's were bigger, stronger, more athletic, and more competitive than current players?

No, if you actually read the posts instead of skimming them, you'd see that I'm saying the players in that time are about equal except the rules that defined that era made scoring a LOT more tougher (see Jordan rules) thanks to being so lax. Players like Pippen and Reggie who've played in both era's back up this FACT with personal testaments. I mean, damn, just look at the 2006 finals (which shall now be known as the touch series NH) in comparison to those Pistons finals in the late 80's.

so you're saying that the earliest era was least competitive, then it got a lot more competitive, and then the competition dropped in the current era?

Yup the overall competition level has dropped from the 80's (when there were quite a few stacked teams that were all competitive). Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. I mean up until recent it was basically one team you knew couldn't be touched for three or so years. In the 90's it was the Bulls, until Jordan retired, then it was the Spurs for a few years then the Lakers came on and couldn't be stopped. Recently, though, the comp has picked back up.

not only does that not make sense, its contradictory.

Not if you know what you are talking about.

you first say, oldie's like russell wont manage in the current era,

Which is true

but then you say that an oldie like kareem was in a tougher league than the present.

Wow you make it seem like Kareem wasn't playing at the same time as Jordan, Iceman, Dr. J, Pistol Pete, Karl Malone, Magic, Larry, etc while doing his numbers. All stellar athletes (except Larry who was still a great player) as opposed to the trash from the Russell era.

and brendan haywood better than russell?

What can Russell do that Brendan can't/what has Russell shown to you that Brendan hasn't?

😆 😆 💃 💃 💃 😆 😆 💃 💃 💃

lol this is heating up, its making me and recspecs argument look like sex, although not as many insults have been thrown around.

Originally posted by Lord Evolution
😆 😆 💃 💃 💃 😆 😆 💃 💃 💃

lol this is heating up, its making me and recspecs argument look like sex, although not as many insults have been thrown around.

no way, man! our's had the most fire. nothing else beats it. it took up like 3 pages, and we got really gruesome with the words. lol

B dot:

alright chief...whatever makes you happy. i have to ask you tho, what does russell look like in longer shorts? does he still have the same hairdo as in the old days? please tell me, what would be his exact stats now? Im sure, the scientist you are, you obviously invented a time machine to transpot russell into the future. didnt you? oh yeah, thats right, he didnt even make the D-League. my bad, next time, maybe i should praise every player in the nba. i should give them all awards for being better than one of the primier legends in the history of basketball. yeah, im sure your best friend darius miles would love the honor.

yeah, those 80's guys are really intimidating, when now, we have kobe, iverson, shaq, garnett, nowitzki, duncan, nash, and soon to be lebron. who are all quicker, more deft with the ball, more muscular, and have a greater knowledge of the game, obviously because the knowledge of basketball increases, as time passes by. btw, kareem was more 70's than 80's. so yeah, he wasnt playing with some of them.

about the skimming crap you said, i already proved to you that i read posts thoroughly.

being great in accomplishment and as a good player go hand in hand. you dont accomplish as much, if you're not as good. he didnt accomplish stuff just because he accomplished stuff, he did it because he was a great player.

wow this is getting sad.

Originally posted by RecSpecs110
B dot:

alright chief...whatever makes you happy. i have to ask you tho, what does russell look like in longer shorts? does he still have the same hairdo as in the old days?

||

please tell me, what would be his exact stats now?

When extrapolated (using current averages and the rate) his career rebound numbers fall to somewhere between the 8-11 mark and his scoring is even worse, and that's giving Russell the benefit of the doubt.

didnt you? oh yeah, thats right, he didnt even make the D-League.

*wouldn't

my bad, next time, maybe i should praise every player in the nba.

Or stop celebrating mediocrity.

i should give them all awards for being better than one of the primier legends in the history of basketball

Not really, happens all the time.

yeah, im sure your best friend darius miles would love the honor.

Best friend?

yeah, those 80's guys are really intimidating, when now, we have kobe, iverson, shaq, garnett, nowitzki, duncan, nash, and soon to be lebron. who are all quicker, more deft with the ball, more muscular, and have a greater knowledge of the game, obviously because the knowledge of basketball increases, as time passes by

vs.

Jordan, 'Nique, Kemp, both Malones, Hakeem, Ewing, Thomas, Barkley, Magic, Rodman, Richmond, Stockton, etc etc etc. Those 80's players sure are a great deal smaller/slower/lesser knowledgeable about the game. 🙄 Hell even D-Rob played in the 80's.

btw, kareem was more 70's than 80's. so yeah, he wasnt playing with some of them.

You're right about him playing 2 more years in the 70's then he did in the 80's, but you are wrong in that he played with all of the guys I mentioned (in the previous post).

about the skimming crap you said, i already proved to you that i read posts thoroughly.

🤣

being great in accomplishment and as a good player go hand in hand.

Not really. Steve Kerr has what 5 rings vs. Iverson's how many? Bill Walton has how many more MVP's then Scottie Pippen? How many more scoring titles does Wilt have over Shaq?

because he was a great player.

And played in a bad era

Originally posted by B dot Rob
wow this is getting sad.

When extrapolated (using current averages and the rate) his career rebound numbers fall to somewhere between the 8-11 mark and his scoring is even worse, and that's giving Russell the benefit of the doubt.

Jordan, 'Nique, Kemp, both Malones, Hakeem, Ewing, Thomas, Barkley, Magic, Rodman, Richmond, Stockton, etc etc etc. Those 80's players sure are a great deal smaller/slower/lesser knowledgeable about the game. 🙄 Hell even D-Rob played in the 80's.

You're right about him playing 2 more years in the 70's then he did in the 80's, but you are wrong in that he played with all of the guys I mentioned (in the previous post).

Not really. Steve Kerr has what 5 rings vs. Iverson's how many? Bill Walton has how many more MVP's then Scottie Pippen? How many more scoring titles does Wilt have over Shaq?

i said EXACT numbers, not a range, since you seem so confident that russell would suck today, i want EXACT stats. and also, for each stat tell me how you got it. give me all the details. because otherwise, your hypothesis is not credible at all.

yep you said it, and you're correct, those guys are slower and less knowledgable. 🙂 but, i never said smaller.

most of those guys you mentioned only played like 5 or 6 seasons with kareem, out of their like 20 year career. i wouldnt call that being in the same era. 🙄

yeah, but russell was the leader of the celtics when they won, steve kerr was just a member of the bulls. and all those guys you mentioned are great players and have many accomplishments. i said making accomplishments and being a great player go hand in hand, i didnt saying that if player A has 3 more rings than player B, than player A is automatically better. im just backing up russell, after you say he's trash, which he's absolutly not.

Originally posted by RecSpecs110
i said EXACT numbers, not a range, since you seem so confident that russell would suck today, i want EXACT stats. and also, for each stat tell me how you got it. give me all the details. because otherwise, your hypothesis is not credible at all.

EXACT NUMBERS AND EXACT STATS

0-0-0-0-0-0%-0%

He wouldn't make the league.

yep you said it, and you're correct, those guys are slower and less knowledgable. 🙂 but, i never said smaller.

Remind me when I said this?

PS:

more muscular

sounds like smaller to me.

BTW: outside of Iverson and Ford I don't think there's a faster player in the league today then Zeke in his prime.

most of those guys you mentioned only played like 5 or 6 seasons with kareem, out of their like 20 year career. i wouldnt call that being in the same era. 🙄

Oh so you can play with someone in their era but at the same time not played with them in their era? IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW!

and all those guys you mentioned are great players and have many accomplishments. i said making accomplishments and being a great player go hand in hand, i didnt saying that if player A has 3 more rings than player B, than player A is automatically better. im just backing up russell, after you say he's trash, which he's absolutly not.

You know what you did say that and you know what, Russell is trash. If you only play trash and only beat trash and only show the skills of trash then you are trash.

kareem is more with the era of walt frazier and wilt, instead of jordan, malone, bird, etc. because he played MOST of his seasons in the 70's. in case you didnt know, in order to be considered in the SAME era, two players have to share at least half of their careers together. saying those guys are in the same era as kareem is like saying karl malone is in the same era as allen iverson, because yeah, karl and iverson shared like 5 years together, but thats not adequate enough to be in the same era.

yeah, more muscular, as in they concentrate a lot more on fitness and weight training now then they did before. i didnt mean smaller as in shorter.

what r u talking about? the average nba player today is A LOT quicker than in the 80's, any basketball fan should know that. thats the main reason the nba has gotten more popular. because these days, the players are quicker, more athletic, more muscular: hence the many more spectacular dunks and creative moves we have these days.

im talking about stats if he were to make the league, you said his numbers would drop. i just want to know how you came up with the assesment that his rebounds would go from 25 per game to 8-11 per game, why not 4-7? see, and now that you cant come up with an answer, because you in fact DONT KNOW WHAT RUSSELL WOULD BE TODAY, you just spit out, "oh, he wont make the league." yeah, uh huh, i didnt think so.

you just call him trash for nothing, and you REALLY underestimate who he was. (cough...denial...cough)

Whoever said Duncan>Russel needs to do a little research and Dominique is one of the best players he just never got a ring.

Good debate guys, its always tough to compare players from different era's because of all the variables.
As great as Russell was in his day his dominance wouldnt translate to todays NBA imo. On the other hand he is certainly not trash and i dont believe he wouldnt make the league either, one thing Russell has over the scrubs that he is being compared to is the knowledge of the game. He is very smart and understood the game as well as any player ever has, you only need to listen to him commentate on a game (which he used to do alot in the 80) to understand that. That coupled with solid fundamentals and average skills would have got him in the league today.
In term of athleticism he would be average today but if thats all it took Darius Miles would be a top 5 player instead of a lazy basket case with a bad attitude. If players like Reggie Evans can make a living as a rebounder in this era im sure Russell could to.

Dominique wasn't even on the list of 50 greatest players ever ten years ago. He also didn't get into the hall of fame in his first year of eligibility. I think that shows that even within the NBA he is not recognized as that amazing. He was a great player, but no where near top 10 material.

Originally posted by Myth
Dominique wasn't even on the list of 50 greatest players ever ten years ago. He also didn't get into the hall of fame in his first year of eligibility. I think that shows that even within the NBA he is not recognized as that amazing. He was a great player, but no where near top 10 material.

thank you 💃

Originally posted by B dot Rob
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 🤣 .

Unfounded speculation on your part. I really would like to know whats your definition of what athleticism is?

In the meantime, here is further proof of Russell's athleticism:

http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/img/assets/18007/Griffin.pdf.

er&hl=tl&gl=ph&ct=clnk&cd=3

From Page 13
Darrell Wilson of the Chronicle opened his story this way: “Bill Russell, the nation’s basketball Player of the Year for 1955-56 at USF, walked on the track yesterday for the first time in two years and gave indication that he may be the high jumper of the century. After the meet, experts concluded that Russell stands only some practice sessions away from becoming the first jumper in history to clear seven feet."

Russell was dueling with Charles Dumas, a High Jump record holder, using an antiquated jumping technique.

from page 20
"He took third at 6’6 1/4” at the Compton Relays on June 1, won at 6’8” at the Pacific AAU meet on June 2, and won again at 6’8” at the California AAU championships on June 10. Would he compete in the NCAA championships and the Olympic Trials? The answer was no. The State Department had scheduled the USF basketball team for a good-will exhibition tour through Latin America beginning June 15. Russell said that he could not abandon his teammates in order to compete in an individual event. He had joined the trackteam just for fun . . . ."

Russell NOT athletic? NONESENSE.

Originally posted by B dot Rob
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.

Hell no. Russell is one of the smartest, if not the smartest player to play basketball. Adjusting to the current game would not be difficult for someone with his brains, athletic ability, and determination.

Originally posted by B dot Rob
Do you even know how EASILY the Celtics acquired Bill Russell?

Yup i know about it. Is this suppose to be an example of "poor management"? Bad choice.

Here is an excerpt: http://www.hoopsanalyst.com/tradeatl.htm

"The 1956 trade was probably the most important in franchise history as Russell was the best player on 11 Celtic champ teams. On the other hand, it was pretty much impossible that St. Louis was going to draft a black player in 1956 and for public relations reasons they made the trade. The Hawks did pretty well in the trade too as both Hagan and Macauley ended up in the Hall of Fame."

The Celtics needed a rebounder which Ed Macauley COULD NOT provide but something that Bill Russell would be able to. The St. Louis Hawks needed somebody TO SELL TICKETS which is something that a 6 time All Star, St. Louis native and hometown hero like Ed Macauley could provide but not by a racially outspoken african- american like Russell especially not in a racially insensitive state like Missouri (back in those days anyway). Hell its Russell's outspokeness that alienated many (even liberal minded) Boston fans from appreciating the Celtics; some of which vandalized his home. The trade that sent Russell to the Celtics and Macauley (and Cliff Hagan) to the Hawks is a sound deal to BOTH sides.

Originally posted by B dot Rob
What does this have to do anything? The league sucked.

It means one of the more respectable NBA documentaries celebrating the 50th anniversary of the League DEBUNKING your silly claim that the Russell-era is one sucky era.

Originally posted by B dot Rob
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?

It just shows you how good Russell's team was that even 50 years later people are still comparing it on FAVOURABLE terms with today's NCAA teams.

And yes, I watched several (grainy) black and white and some colored videos from our Celtic nut of a neighbor. Most of the videos though are missing a quarter sometimes even an entire half.

Originally posted by B dot Rob
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.

Riiiight and your basing this on what?

Originally posted by B dot Rob
So that's supposed to somehow make them worse?

No. Like i said earlier, it gives modern players an advantage that have to be taken out of the equation when comparing them with older guys.

Originally posted by B dot Rob
Which is why no 60's players belong in a top 10.

Riiiight and your basing this on what?

Originally posted by B dot Rob
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? 🤣

Wha? Im beginning to think youre twisting words or youre not reading what i wrote clearly.

Here is what i wrote earlier:
"If youre putting modern players in the 60's you have to FACTOR OUT alot of these accumulated knowledge and modern benefits."

It means if we are putting modern players like Kobe in the 60's you have to take away all the modern perks and basketball lessons that he would have learned and/or taught to him by his coach stemming from the accumulated knowledge acuired in 70's, 80's and 90's. Take DUNKING for example. It was only in the 70's during Dr. J's time that dunking was popularized. Dunking in Russell's time was discouraged by coaches. Hell, dunking was banned in the NCAA during 60's. If Kobe was playing in the 60's, he SHOULD NOT BE DUNKING because he would not be exposed or at least encouraged to do it. Instead, he would only be doing lay-ups.

Russell in the 60's however needs no updating or handicapping.

Here is the second part of what i wrote earlier:
"If youre putting old players into the modern era, you have to update them."

This is pretty self explanatory. Yes, putting 60's old timers WITHOUT UPDATING them on modern basketball techniques, rules would make them easy prey for today's players but this is an UNFAIR way of comparing them to modern players.

Even supremely talented guys in the 70's like Julius Erving and Bill Walton would be below average players in today's game if we dont update them.

The only way to accurately gauge players talent is to put them in context of their era and that means updating the old timers with all the basketball developments leading up to that era. Imagine someone as athletic as Russell, Chamberlain and especially Elgin Baylor growing up watching Dr. J and Jordan doing their highlight dunks? Imagine someone like Bob Cousy, "the Houdini of the Hardwood", growing up immerse on Magic Johnson (In Cousy's time, assists are only counted if the receiver of the pass scores on the spot) and crossovers? Imagine somebody like Jerry West, "Mr. Outside", growing up in an era with a 3 point line and watching Jordan do fade-aways? Imagine all of this old timers growing up in the modern era where bus travel doesnt take up an entire team's schedule (hence more time for practice)?

Modern players in the modern era needs no updating or handicapping.

uhh when did you come into this argument???

hmmm you probaly go way back..LOL I dont even know where this started..but its gettin juicy, got ma popcorn popped and ma hot sauce ready, couple snapples and some gummy bears ready to go! </yummy>

<instigator> hey recspecs, bdot pm'd me talkin shit bout yo mamma </instigator>

flame on

Originally posted by Myth
Dominique wasn't even on the list of 50 greatest players ever ten years ago. He also didn't get into the hall of fame in his first year of eligibility. I think that shows that even within the NBA he is not recognized as that amazing. He was a great player, but no where near top 10 material.

The same top 50 list with Bill Walton and rookie Shaq (not that it's an insult or anything, because Shaq's #2 on my list, it's just it was Shaq's rookie year and he already made the list).

o i forgot to say that i was just playin

Unfounded speculation on your part. I really would like to know whats your definition of what athleticism is?

In the meantime, here is further proof of Russell's athleticism:

http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/img/assets/18007/Griffin.pdf.

er&hl=tl&gl=ph&ct=clnk&cd=3

From Page 13
Darrell Wilson of the Chronicle opened his story this way: “Bill Russell, the nation’s basketball Player of the Year for 1955-56 at USF, walked on the track yesterday for the first time in two years and gave indication that he may be the high jumper of the century. After the meet, experts concluded that Russell stands only some practice sessions away from becoming the first jumper in history to clear seven feet."

Russell was dueling with Charles Dumas, a High Jump record holder, using an antiquated jumping technique.

from page 20
"He took third at 6’6 1/4” at the Compton Relays on June 1, won at 6’8” at the Pacific AAU meet on June 2, and won again at 6’8” at the California AAU championships on June 10. Would he compete in the NCAA championships and the Olympic Trials? The answer was no. The State Department had scheduled the USF basketball team for a good-will exhibition tour through Latin America beginning June 15. Russell said that he could not abandon his teammates in order to compete in an individual event. He had joined the trackteam just for fun . . . ."

Russell NOT athletic? NONESENSE.

Page Not Found

The page you are looking for does not exist.

You can browse for the page you are looking for using the menu above,
or search for it below.

PS: Notice how there's NOTHING in the afformention quote about vert # or anything, just Russell dominating the assmatic "athletes" of his era.

Hell no. Russell is one of the smartest, if not the smartest player to play basketball. Adjusting to the current game would not be difficult for someone with his brains, athletic ability, and determination.

For HIS ERA. Put him in today's league and he's DEMOLISHED by the zone rules and such basketball wasn't nearly as complicated back then as it was now.

Yup i know about it. Is this suppose to be an example of "poor management"? Bad choice.

Here is an excerpt: http://www.hoopsanalyst.com/tradeatl.htm

"The 1956 trade was probably the most important in franchise history as Russell was the best player on 11 Celtic champ teams. On the other hand, it was pretty much impossible that St. Louis was going to draft a black player in 1956 and for public relations reasons they made the trade. The Hawks did pretty well in the trade too as both Hagan and Macauley ended up in the Hall of Fame."

The Celtics needed a rebounder which Ed Macauley COULD NOT provide but something that Bill Russell would be able to. The St. Louis Hawks needed somebody TO SELL TICKETS which is something that a 6 time All Star, St. Louis native and hometown hero like Ed Macauley could provide but not by a racially outspoken african- american like Russell especially not in a racially insensitive state like Missouri (back in those days anyway). Hell its Russell's outspokeness that alienated many (even liberal minded) Boston fans from appreciating the Celtics; some of which vandalized his home. The trade that sent Russell to the Celtics and Macauley (and Cliff Hagan) to the Hawks is a sound deal to BOTH sides.

Sounds exactly like what I was talking about. The Hawks never won a ship again and Russell won 11. That's some real nice management we have there.

It means one of the more respectable NBA documentaries celebrating the 50th anniversary of the League DEBUNKING your silly claim that the Russell-era is one sucky era.

Where does it say that the league didn't suck? All I see is that it says the league actually started to get some athletes (see Russell and Chamberlain).

It just shows you how good Russell's team was that even 50 years later people are still comparing it on FAVOURABLE terms with today's NCAA teams.

The only thing I see is it saying Russell's team could PROBABLY (which is over-exaggeration at it's finest, no way in hell Russell's teams even come within 40 against DEVRY) take A team in the NCAA. Which means bottom-of-barrell to me. Doesn't make sense that the Russell team could probably knock out a 1-10 ranked team but not a 16.

Riiiight and your basing this on what?

Watching games + common sense.

No. Like i said earlier, it gives modern players an advantage that have to be taken out of the equation when comparing them with older guys.

Hold that thought.

Riiiight and your basing this on what?

No. Like i said earlier, it gives modern players an advantage that have to be taken out of the equation when comparing them with older guys.

Here you even admit that you have to hinder the modern guys to give the old timers a chance.

It means if we are putting modern players like Kobe in the 60's you have to take away all the modern perks and basketball lessons that he would have learned and/or taught to him by his coach stemming from the accumulated knowledge acuired in 70's, 80's and 90's.

Why? So you're telling me in order for Russell to be better then Kobe you have to LESSER Kobe and IMPROVE Russell? God get off the old school's dick. This happens in just about every sport. Times change players improve. Just the way things are. What you are saying is that no matter what Russell's better because he's lesser. He played in a lesser era, with lesser athletecism, with lesser competition, with lesser talent, with lesser knowledge, and now he's somehow better then Ray Allen, a player with more talent, more athletecism, more competition, more knowledge, better era etc. It's silly. I mean Jordan's my favorite player but even I'll admit in about 50 or so years he probably won't be top 10 best (hell he'd likely agree with this inference as would pretty much anyone not named Oscar Robertson). That's just the brakes.

Hell, dunking was banned in the NCAA during 60's. If Kobe was playing in the 60's, he SHOULD NOT BE DUNKING because he would not be exposed or at least encouraged to do it. Instead, he would only be doing lay-ups.

So Kobe dominates with lay-ups, quickness, superior defense, and would probably be THE premier jump shooter in the L (with the way his jumpshooting style is).

"If youre putting old players into the modern era, you have to update them."

FTW.

Even supremely talented guys in the 70's like Julius Erving and Bill Walton would be below average players in today's game if we dont update them.

🤣

BTW: Jules wouldn't really be below average players as he was pretty much built like the average 2 in today's league and would actually benefit from the current guard favored rules unlike Russell who has to deal with the Center-cockblocking Shaq stopping rules of today (that's assuming he makes the Center position with his skinny ass).

Modern players in the modern era needs no updating or handicapping

Which is exactly why they are better.

PS:

🤣