Here is a good thread starter...

[WayOutWest]

I wish I took Spanish in high school so I could write in a language you might understand.

Your entire post tells me English was not your first language.

Yeah that's right, the OTHER 5 HOFs beat the stilt.  Yeah I forgot, Cousy was the one guarding Wilt.  I remember when 6 foot 3 Sharman was blocking Wilt's shot.  That's right bench warming HOFer K.C. Jones was beating Wilt all those times.  Listen carefully because I'm really sick of repeating this over and over--half those Celtic jokers on that roster wouldn't have been allowed IN the building that houses the HOF much less get voted if they didn't play on Bill Russell's team.  You want to know the difference between "Stilt" and the greatest player of all time--Russell made 7 ppg bench scum like K.C. Jones a Hall of Famer while Mr. Stilt couldn't make 18 ppg starting STUD Chet Walker one.  That's the difference!

Wilt got his monster numbers against Russel, THAT is my point.  Wilts teams still lost the games but Wilt had his way with Russel.  I can't make it any simplier than that.

We're talking GAME 7 OF THE GOSHDARN, FREAKIN' NBA FREAKIN FINALS!!!  If as you keep repeating Stilt OWNED Bill Russell why did Russell always, always, ALWAYS get the best of him while fools like you keep whining, crying, and using excuses about coaching decisions and fake injuries and how heartless Wilt was.  FACT:  GAME 7 FINALS, make-or-break time.  FACT:  Russell made Wilt his little girl even though he was 2 years older.

Like I said, Wilt still got his numbers, Russel at 6'9 would not be the defensive stopper against 5's like he did back in the day against smaller centers but I agree he would still own the paint against most 4's, 3's, 2's and 1's like Zo and Wallace do.

Fine we'll play it your way.  If Aliens abducted Russell in 1960, cryogenically froze him until now, released him back into today's NBA, he'd STILL be a lock for 5 or 6 straight Defensive Player of the Year awards and his team would be in Finals contention every single year until he retired.  That's right Bill Russell "as is" would still dominate.

You're the one who started with the "what if" BS.  And NO Russel would not dominate.

Yeah I remember just how much he absolutely OWNED the crap out him in the 2004 NBA Finals.  Come again.  Oh yeah, it was all of Detroit's HOF players that beat Shaq that year.

 

Just like Wilt, Shaq was unstoppable but the Lakers still lost the game.  Nobody really stops Shaq with the exception of the Spurs twin towers and Vlade.  Vlade of all people LOL!

You're comparing Russell to Zo, are you comparing Russell to Zo, am I here, is this happening, is this man comparing Zo to Russell.  ZO!! Russell!!  Are you comparing Zo to Rus...Zo!! Zo!! Are you serious!! 

I'm at a loss . . . 
. . . how do you argue with a guy whose comparing the greatest defensive player in history with a player who couldn't get past the Sprewell-Houston Knicks in the first round while losing a girly slap-fight to Grand Mama!! 

I spelled it out, an undersized defensive center taking on a monster like Shaq, no other attributes came into the discussion.  No amount of spinning and red herrings are going to pull this point away from center.

I hope you're just kidding with your pointless points, you are pulling a Randy/Lurker/Reality and spinning off into space.

[Skandery]

Your entire post tells me English was not your first language.

I know enough about the language not to label the opponent's argument with the dubious "spin" adjective and hang my entire rebuttal on that meaningless assertion.

Wilt got his monster numbers against Russel, THAT is my point.  Wilts teams still lost the games but Wilt had his way with Russel.  I can't make it any simplier than that.

Why couldn't Wilt get his monster numbers against Russell when it mattered the most?  I can't make the question any simpler (not simplier) than that. 

Like I said, Wilt still got his numbers, Russel at 6'9 would not be the defensive stopper against 5's like he did back in the day against smaller centers but I agree he would still own the paint against most 4's, 3's, 2's and 1's like Zo and Wallace do.

By your logic, then, all these monstrous modern-day Centers would still get their numbers but Russell would still win all the championships, much like what happened with Wilt, right?

I spelled it out, an undersized defensive center taking on a monster like Shaq, no other attributes came into the discussion.  No amount of spinning and red herrings are going to pull this point away from center.

An undersized center taking on a monster like Shaq still outrebounded Shaq by 3 rebounds in that series and contained him enough for his team to defeat Shaq's team with 4 future HOFer's in embarrassing fashion.  No amount of use of the words "spin" and "herring" will change that truth. 

Are you telling me that a 6'9, 240 pound player can win 5 straight DPOY awards, defeat Shaq in the NBA Finals, and be the cornerstone of a team that went to the ECF 4 straight years, but a 6'9, 220 pound player who is the greatest winner the sport has ever known can't.  Is the 20 pound difference THAT profound. It's a YES or NO question??  Just answer it.   

[WayOutWest]

Your entire post tells me English was not your first language.

I know enough about the language not to label the opponent's argument with the dubious "spin" adjective and hang my entire rebuttal on that meaningless assertion.

Wilt got his monster numbers against Russel, THAT is my point.  Wilts teams still lost the games but Wilt had his way with Russel.  I can't make it any simplier than that.

Why couldn't Wilt get his monster numbers against Russell when it mattered the most?  I can't make the question any simpler (not simplier) than that. 

Like I said, Wilt still got his numbers, Russel at 6'9 would not be the defensive stopper against 5's like he did back in the day against smaller centers but I agree he would still own the paint against most 4's, 3's, 2's and 1's like Zo and Wallace do.

By your logic, then, all these monstrous modern-day Centers would still get their numbers but Russell would still win all the championships, much like what happened with Wilt, right?

I spelled it out, an undersized defensive center taking on a monster like Shaq, no other attributes came into the discussion.  No amount of spinning and red herrings are going to pull this point away from center.

An undersized center taking on a monster like Shaq still outrebounded Shaq by 3 rebounds in that series and contained him enough for his team to defeat Shaq's team with 4 future HOFer's in embarrassing fashion.  No amount of use of the words "spin" and "herring" will change that truth. 

Are you telling me that a 6'9, 240 pound player can win 5 straight DPOY awards, defeat Shaq in the NBA Finals, and be the cornerstone of a team that went to the ECF 4 straight years, but a 6'9, 220 pound player who is the greatest winner the sport has ever known can't.  Is the 20 pound difference THAT profound. It's a YES or NO question??  Just answer it.   

What if aliens did build the pyramids?  That would change alot of assumptions.

[WayOutWest]

I wish I took Spanish in high school so I could write in a language you might understand.

Your entire post tells me English was not your first language.

Yeah that's right, the OTHER 5 HOFs beat the stilt.  Yeah I forgot, Cousy was the one guarding Wilt.  I remember when 6 foot 3 Sharman was blocking Wilt's shot.  That's right bench warming HOFer K.C. Jones was beating Wilt all those times.  Listen carefully because I'm really sick of repeating this over and over--half those Celtic jokers on that roster wouldn't have been allowed IN the building that houses the HOF much less get voted if they didn't play on Bill Russell's team.  You want to know the difference between "Stilt" and the greatest player of all time--Russell made 7 ppg bench scum like K.C. Jones a Hall of Famer while Mr. Stilt couldn't make 18 ppg starting STUD Chet Walker one.  That's the difference!

Wilt got his monster numbers against Russel, THAT is my point.  Wilts teams still lost the games but Wilt had his way with Russel.  I can't make it any simplier than that.

We're talking GAME 7 OF THE GOSHDARN, FREAKIN' NBA FREAKIN FINALS!!!  If as you keep repeating Stilt OWNED Bill Russell why did Russell always, always, ALWAYS get the best of him while fools like you keep whining, crying, and using excuses about coaching decisions and fake injuries and how heartless Wilt was.  FACT:  GAME 7 FINALS, make-or-break time.  FACT:  Russell made Wilt his little girl even though he was 2 years older.

Like I said, Wilt still got his numbers, Russel at 6'9 would not be the defensive stopper against 5's like he did back in the day against smaller centers but I agree he would still own the paint against most 4's, 3's, 2's and 1's like Zo and Wallace do.

Fine we'll play it your way.  If Aliens abducted Russell in 1960, cryogenically froze him until now, released him back into today's NBA, he'd STILL be a lock for 5 or 6 straight Defensive Player of the Year awards and his team would be in Finals contention every single year until he retired.  That's right Bill Russell "as is" would still dominate.

You're the one who started with the "what if" BS.  And NO Russel would not dominate.

Yeah I remember just how much he absolutely OWNED the crap out him in the 2004 NBA Finals.  Come again.  Oh yeah, it was all of Detroit's HOF players that beat Shaq that year.

 

Just like Wilt, Shaq was unstoppable but the Lakers still lost the game.  Nobody really stops Shaq with the exception of the Spurs twin towers and Vlade.  Vlade of all people LOL!

You're comparing Russell to Zo, are you comparing Russell to Zo, am I here, is this happening, is this man comparing Zo to Russell.  ZO!! Russell!!  Are you comparing Zo to Rus...Zo!! Zo!! Are you serious!! 

I'm at a loss . . . 
. . . how do you argue with a guy whose comparing the greatest defensive player in history with a player who couldn't get past the Sprewell-Houston Knicks in the first round while losing a girly slap-fight to Grand Mama!! 

I spelled it out, an undersized defensive center taking on a monster like Shaq, no other attributes came into the discussion.  No amount of spinning and red herrings are going to pull this point away from center.

I hope you're just kidding with your pointless points, you are pulling a Randy/Lurker/Reality and spinning off into space.

Still looks right....

[Skandery]

It's like arguing with my 4 year old cousin . . .


. . . although, usually she makes more sense. 

<sigh>




YES or NO?

[WayOutWest]

It's like arguing with my 4 year old cousin . . .


. . . although, usually she makes more sense. 

<sigh>




YES or NO?

I've already answered all your questions, including the Yes/No.

What about the pyramids, why are you avoiding that one?

[rickortreat]

WOW,

You're way ahead on this argument, don't stoop to Skandery's level!

Wilt was always better than Russel.  It's that simple.  Russel's teams were almost always better than Wilt's.

The only person who ever stopped Wilt was he himself, it was old age that led to his defeat at the hands of Lew Alcindor. AKA Kareem.

But Moses Malone deserves more credit than he is getting from this group.  He was not a short man- he was 6'11" and he outrebounded and outplayed Boston's front line when they had Parrish, Maxwell and Bird.  He also outplayed Kareem and Rambis when they rolled through LA in 4 to win the title.  He was a one man wrecking crew-his support was Marc Iavaroni!

Only Shaq was too big for Moses to have been able to push around, but his protege' Akeem Olajuwon, clearly outplayed Shaq when they met up in the Finals.

Today there are no dominant Centers in the NBA, which is why Wallace can play the postion.  Shaq is too old to dominate the way he did in his prime.  There really isn't anyone else.  There are a lot of PF's pretending to be Centers.  TD, Garnett, these are decent players but if they played against Moses Malone, they couldn't compete. Moses outworked bigger and stonger people on the boards and ran them ragged/ It's that simple. There are no real centers left in the NBA, I don't know where they've gone, but there are even fewer of them now than in the 70's and 80's and the 90's.  TD doesn't go up head to head against a real Center- there aren't any!  Chicago won in the 90's without a real center.  Bill Cartwright couldn't hold a candle to Robert Parrish, let alone any of the real centers who played the game.

Anyone who saw Wilt and Russel play can see the difference.  The athleticism was less, but the basketball intelligence and sophistication of the players was much higher.  Watching teams in the 60's involved more strategy and technique and quality play than any time since.  The talent level was so much higher with so few teams, who saw each other so often, that the edge went to teams with better coaching.

And it was Wilt who changed the game, not Russel.  Wilt inspired the college ban against dunking.  They widened the lane just because of Wilt.  The whole league since that time has searched for the next Wilt or the next Kareem.  They just aren't there, if they were they'd be in the NBA!

KC Jones in the Hof and Chet "the Jet" Walker not?  What a travesty!

[Joe Vancil]

Rick,

KAREEM inspired the college ban on dunking - not Chamberlain.

And tell me...does stopping someone mean making them have bad numbers, or making them lose the game?

It's easy to talk about "Russell had all of those Hall-Of-Famers," but last time I looked, Chamberlain's teams had their fair share, as well.  And, in fact, I'll bet that Baylor and West figure a lot more prominently in terms of greatest players ever than whatever Celtic not named Bill Russell from those historic teams do.

[WayOutWest]

And tell me...does stopping someone mean making them have bad numbers, or making them lose the game?

Bad numbers, losing games is for the "Greatest Team Of All Time" discussion.

[rickortreat]

And tell me...does stopping someone mean making them have bad numbers, or making them lose the game?


Those aren't mutually exclusive Joe.  Enough bad numbers from a player a team normally counts on to win can be enough to make that team loose.  If anyone could have stopped MJ from scoring, Chi wouldn't have won all those titles, it's just that no-one could.

In the old days, like when the Celts and Sixers went at it, it was only minor mistakes that led to victory or defeat.  IMO, the Sixers had more talent in several years where the Celts won and then took the championship.  Boston, had the better team and the better system, more experience in pressure situations and better poise.  No one stopped anyone, but one team did a better job of protecting the ball or keeping their heads in a tight situation. 

In other words you couldn't say, well, Hal Greer had a bad game that night- because that wasn't what caused it.  In a game decided by a point or two- anything could have caused the difference, a bad bounce off the floor in Boston, a bad call by the ref, who couldn't see what really happened.  An in-bounds pass where someone wasn't careful enough. 

How come no one talks about Hal?  He was a great point guard, threw up more points than most people ever to play the game, and was such a good shooter that on a break-away he wouldn't make a layup, but shoot from the free-throw line. Not as fancy a passer as Cousy, or West but a better shooter and a more sound defender.

[Skandery]

OMG!!

You're way ahead on this argument, don't stoop to Skandery's level!

WOW, you're getting a vote of endorsement from Rickortreat, the resident, self-contradicting, nonsense spewing, homer fanatic on the board.  I'll go ahead and accept the concession of your defeat. 

I've already answered all your questions, including the Yes/No.

Is a 20 pound difference that profound...YES or NO.  You're going to have to point out where you've answered that--I don't have my beer goggles on me. 

What about the pyramids, why are you avoiding that one?

Let's try to stay on topic, shall we.  We'll talk about pyramids, unicorns, and pretty rainbows after we've finished, will that be ok....good boy. 

=================

And now we've come to our regularly scheduled daily "Rickortreat Condradicts Himself" moment.  YAY. 

Rick astutely points out.

Today there are no dominant Centers in the NBA, which is why Wallace can play the postion.

. . . and goes on to make this well-expositioned assumption about 60s basketball . . .

Anyone who saw Wilt and Russel play can see the difference.  The athleticism was less, but the basketball intelligence and sophistication of the players was much higher.  Watching teams in the 60's involved more strategy and technique and quality play than any time since.  The talent level was so much higher with so few teams, who saw each other so often, that the edge went to teams with better coaching.

So when I argue that Russell COULD, in fact, play in today's NBA and dominate due to the lack of real Centers and his own intelligence, sophistication, understanding of strategy and technique (all that sound familiar Rick?), let alone his sheer will to win and unmatched competitive intensity (not seen until Michael Jordan came on the scene), while WOW stubbornly contends Russell has no shot against the monstrous modern Centers like Shaq, Kwame Brown, Chris Kaman, and Ilgauskas, Rick asserts . . .

WOW,
You're way ahead on this argument

He's never made sense a day in his life, ladies and gentlmen, but he's our loveable mascot anyway.
=======================

KC Jones in the Hof and Chet "the Jet" Walker not?  What a travesty!

Agreed, that's the difference between playing on a team with Russell and playing on a team with Mr. Stilt.

Bad numbers, losing games is for the "Greatest Team Of All Time" discussion.

You're not making any sense here, WOW.  Most of the credit for Bad numbers for an individual when a team is playing man-to-man defense should go the main defender guarding that guy.  If Jordan averages 32 ppg and a guy like Dan Majerle holds him to 23 points--you can't say Jorday destroyed him, man, he dropped 23 points on his head, you say Majerle held his own.  Same thing, when Wilt would average 40 and 50 ppg in a season but would routinely put up 20 and 25 points against Russell you can't say Wilt still got his numbers or that Russell was destroyed because Will put up 25 against him.  Russell did just enough to hold Wilt down for his team to win the game almost every time they stepped on the court, plain and simple.   

IMO, the Sixers had more talent in several years where the Celts won and then took the championship.  Boston, had the better team and the better system, more experience in pressure situations and better poise.  No one stopped anyone, but one team did a better job of protecting the ball or keeping their heads in a tight situation

 

Rick, you can give all the excuses you want for your Sixers failures: experience, poise, system, coach, whatever, you and WOW can't run away from this one inescapable truth.  When William Fenton Russell met Wilton Norman Chamberlain on the grandest stage, he got the better of him 9 out of 10 times.  And if he could bring down Wilt time and again, I hardly think he'd struggle against the likes of Moses, Shaq, Kareem, D-Rob, TD, Ewing, or any other modern day, MONSTROUS Center WOW wants to trot out.

I rest my case.   

[JoMal]

Hmmmm!!!

Are we talking about the greatest OFFENSIVE center of all time (Wilt), or the greatest DEFENSIVE center of all time (Russell)?

Since Wilt's main function on the court was to score, let's say, ALL the points for his team in every game, and Russell's main chore was to prevent the other team's center from scoring his "comfort" points, I think you have to judge which one was the better center on how their teams faired in the most important statistic of all - wins.

Regardless, that means Russell was better, period.

As for the more amusing and hypothetical arguement - whether Russell's talents could transfer to the modern era, I don't see why they could not. Nothing stated here contradicts any sound arguement as far as I can see to say he would not be successful in 2007 against the types of players we have now. His fundamentals were too good for that.

The one thing lacking in today's players is.....fundamentals. If Russell were given the exact, same opportunities that the Jamal Sampson's (I love these big galoots who come into the League expecting the party in their jocks to continue) are given, well, in my honest opinion, Russell would maybe get to an All Star game or two, but since he would have grown up in the ESPN highlight film era, he would have focused his "alone" time with the basketball and a strobe light on his dunking moves and behind-the-back passes, and not on blocking the ball and hook shots.

So let us leave Russell and Chamberlain in their own eras and not disrupt their focus on the fundamentals of the game.

And where is Wes Unseld in this arguement??? He was my personnal favorite 6'7" center of all time. No center ever stayed long enough in the paint playing against him because he routinely just threw them out of the lane and challenged them to try to budge him back into the basket. His was a unique talent that I feel went underappreciated by these so-called best ever popularity contests. Even Wilt was put airborne on occasion by Unseld. He should have been an offensive lineman in the NFL, though.

[Skandery]

And where is Wes Unseld in this arguement???

You gotta love Unseld!  Another thing almost no one mentions is he was probably the best outlet passer off a rebound since Russell and there hasn't been a Center anywhere near those two in that area since.

If you can't appreciate what guys like Unseld and Barkley did at their sizes, you're just not a fan of basketball.   

[WayOutWest]

WOW, you're getting a vote of endorsement from Rickortreat, the resident, self-contradicting, nonsense spewing, homer fanatic on the board.  I'll go ahead and accept the concession of your defeat. 

Dammit!

[rickortreat]

So when I argue that Russell COULD, in fact, play in today's NBA and dominate due to the lack of real Centers and his own intelligence, sophistication, understanding of strategy and technique (all that sound familiar Rick?), let alone his sheer will to win and unmatched competitive intensity (not seen until Michael Jordan came on the scene), while WOW stubbornly contends Russell has no shot against the monstrous modern Centers like Shaq, Kwame Brown, Chris Kaman, and Ilgauskas, Rick asserts . . .


I never said Russell couldn't play or be successful in today's NBA! If such a thing could happen Russell in his prime would be the equal of anyone playing now, and superior to most. But if both Russell and Wilt were available, even knowing what we know now about the records, I would choose Chamberlain.  And, I love Bill Russell, a great player and a great human being. 

The simple fact is that teams today are so inferior to the teams back then that one stud could make the difference and out a team over the top. And Wilt could carry a team on his back.  Russell never had to and never did.

Russell stayed with the same team his whole career, with the best coach of all-time. Chamberlain played with 3 different teams and won Championships with 2 of them.

The Celtics were a dynasty for years before the Sixers came along.  The Sixers worked their way up to Bostons' level after they came to Phila. from Syracuse.  Compared with Boston, the Sixers were a flash in the pan, but for that one year, they were the best team in the history of the game.

Prior to Alex Hannum's death, I had the chance to write him on line.  He felt that that team was the best ever, and could have competed today or in any era.  They had depth, size, strength and finness, great inside/outside shooting, all the elements that it takes to win today.

They would have destroyed this year's Spurs in a series, and so would have Russell's Celtics, or Chamberlain's Lakers.  It wouldn't have even been close, and the Spurs are the best of the best these days.  And they are a deep team, but depth these days means your bench players can play.  In those days the second teams the Celts or Sixers put out would be competitive in today's NBA, and might even have won the title.