Reply With Quote
Russell like Duncan made all his teammates better. This is the difference between Timmy and KG.
You just come across as a Laker's fan that is pissed because Russell and co kept on spanking Baylor's ass so he couldn't get a championship. I am sorry that Russell could adequately defend Wilt one on one.
Russell was the best player on those Celtics teams and he was the only player that was on all of them. He was the foundation. Cousy, Havlicek, Hensohn, the Jones bros et all all came and went but Bill was there the entire time. Heck he even coached some of those teams.
Furthermore you make it seem as if he is offensively inept. He averaged 15 ppg but for the core of his career it was closer to 17. Russell wasnt in te same position as Wilt on those Wariors teams or the Big O where everything had to go through them for them to have a shot at winning. He had Cousy, Havlicek etc to take the load off of him.
The dude was the best player on the best dynasty in the history of basketball.
Russell like Duncan made all his teammates better. This is the difference between Timmy and KG.
How winning championships is flawed reasoning? That is one of my essential points in judging the best players of all time.
Regarding Tim Duncan...... He is the reason the San Antonio Spurs have reached the golden age of their franchise. Players like a Jordan, Duncan, Shaq, Bird, & Magic are judged by how many championships they have won.
In my mind...that is what separates Duncan from Karl Malone. Malone was a great power forward but he didn't win any championships...Sorry!!! I know he played in 2 NBA Finals against the Bulls.
Also, you have to play in the era of your time. So you can't penalize Duncan and say well....he wouldn't have won anything since he didn't play against Jordan. You play against the opponents of your era.
Otherwise...you will have a what if scenario for every great player?
What if Bill Russell played against Shaq? What if Shaq played against the Wilt?...etc
There are four questions I have for the greatest players of all time:
1) Did they elevated their position while they played? (Duncan at the PF; Jordan at SG, Magic at PG, Shaq at C......)
2) Did They win multiple championships? (Jordan-6, Magic-5, Shaq-4, Duncan-4
3) Did they dominated the era...they played in?
4) Did they change their franchise's history?
Duncan answers yes to all four of those questions.
He is in the 8-12 range of all time.
Well, maybe you perceive me that way, but if you knew my post history, I am about as unbiased as they come. Except when it comes to Wilt, lol. And I acknowledge that Wilt's best years were pre-Lakers. To quote Wilt: "I would always beat the pants off Russell, but his 4 guys would whip my 4 guys". You could however say that if Boston traded Russell to the Warriors for Wilt when he was a rookie, Boston would have won until Wilt retired.
See, you are falling for the perception that to make a top player, you must win les. This thread is about individual players. I have pointed that out already numerous times.
Last edited by Lakers_55; 07-07-2008 at 10:16 PM.
I am one that goes against this reasoning. I have no problem if you want to rank MVP's in a new topic, then Russell and TD go way up. It isn't an individual player's fault his teammates don't perform. This topic is about individual players.
Oscar Robinson: 1 le
Jerry West: 1 le
Wilt Chamberlain: 2 les
Julius Erving: 1 le
The first 3 played during the Russell era, Dr. J.'s twilight years were during the Bird/Magic era. I have them all in my top 10, and quite a few people have at least the Big O and Wilt on theirs.
Uh, even Barkley has said Tim is the best PF of all-time. I think I'll take Barkley's word over you or any other Spurs hater.
Dude youre a Lakers fan at the very least you have to admit that you are biased. Im sure you get all up in a tizzy anytime someone puts Bird over Magic its just the nature of things. I know for a fact that Lakers fans the world over resent Russell and the Celtics because they kept Baylor from getting a ring and Wilt just couldn't beat them.
What it boils down to is that you cannot look at the individual and take out the context of the team. Its a team game and as such the individual is just one of 5 players working together on the court. This is not gold where its a guy hitting his own ball or even baseball where its one guy up at the plate by himself. Those Celtics teams played as a team.
i will not disagree that Wilt was a better player. Any man that can grab 50 rebounds gets my nod but basically what you do is the exact opposite of what you accuse everyone else of doing: you're penalizing Russell for being on a good team.
if you put a good player around other good players his numbers are not going to be as good. That has been the bane of Team USA in the past. it takes a particular type of player to not demand all the touches and make his team better. Duncan is one of those players, his numbers have dipped since parker and Manu have rolled in. Does that make him less great? Look to 2003 for the answer to that question.
Again Russell was the best player on the best team of all time. that means something even if youre not willing to admit it.
How would Russells Celtics of even fared against the teams from the 80s like the Celtics, Rockets, Pistons, or the 90's Bulls and Rockets, or the Spurs over the past 10 years or Shaq and Kobe's Lakers. Im not so sure they would be as dominant.
i would resent Bird over Magic, because Magic was better.
just like i would resent Kobe over Jordan.
I go by who was better.
Barkley is definitely below Timmy and DRob..the fact that both Duncan and Robinson are 2 of the best defensive players of all-time easily beats out Barkley, who only played decent defense at best, even that only for parts of his career..
First, Baylor did get a ring, I mentioned it earlier in this thread. Now, ask yourself this: Suppose during the Russell era, he didn't win 11 les and they were equally distributed among the NBA teams. Also, suppose he played in that scenario exactly like he played in reality. Would many people rank him in the top 10 with his stats? Probably not. See, it all comes down to my argument that this discussion is about an invidual player's talents. Not what his team does for him.
To make it simple, think of one-on-one basketball. It's me versus you. If you win, you're better. Now, look at the greats in the NBA, how they played. Was what Russell did as individually great as what Dr. J. did? No, it wasn't even close!
Why don't you start a new topic about MVP's which will seperate the two mutually exclusive comparisons. Thanks for your input.
btw, the stats are skewed..Duncan has played on a team that has consistently ranked near the bottom of the NBA in pace, especially compared to many of the greatest players..so he hasn't always put up the best stats..also due to the fact that he isn't that type of player..even with that being said, he has put up monster stats..
as for the teammates argument..
I'll ignore the fact that IT'S RARE to win an NBA le without GREAT teammates, so that argument shouldn't even count..but Duncan is actually one of the few guys that led a team to a le WITHOUT a guy on his team that was even nearly an all-star..
Parker was a 15.5 and 5 APG guy in the 2003 regular season..that's definitely good, but nothing near all-star caliber..Manu and Robinson were 8 point scorers for the regular season..Duncan won MVP..pretty self-explanatory of what Timmy meant..
furthermore, Duncan's teammates got WORSE during the playoffs..Parker's numbers went down, and even worse, his FG% went down by 6% during the playoffs..Manu averaged more points, but shot 5% lower..Jackson played better, but shot 41% during those playoffs..
Duncan averaged 25(#1 on the team), 15.5 RPG(#1 on the team), 5 APG(#1 on the team), 3 BPG(#1 on the team) on 53% shooting(#2 on the team)..this is during a span of 24 games IN THE PLAYOFFS..where it matters most..
so Duncan's team was basically a star with role players..if you look at the numbers and look at the ratio of conference compe ion, Duncan's 2003 team is actually virtually the same as Lebron's supporting cast last year..what's the difference? the media..of course The King is gonna get the hype of playing with a poor supporting cast, but the media obviously ignores our guy CARRYING a team to a le with no other all-star caliber players, because he's "borring" and our team is "borring"..
if Duncan had the hype he deserves, he would be getting the credit he deserved..it's disgusting to listen to all these myths and false information that gets spread about him..the guy was undoutedly the best player in the NBA in 2003..had a GREAT argument in 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2005 to be the best, and many people would agree with me(maybe not in 2002, because Shaq was still in his prime)..disgusting..
Some won't start to appreciate Tim til hes done in the NBA. Even then, there will be haters who will refuse to recognize his place in NBA history. That's just the way it is. Either way he brought 4 championships to San Antonio, and he didn't for your city, so ha ha ha ha ha!
If my aunt had nuts hed be my uncle. hypotheticals are worthless. Imagine they played NBA out in space and Russell was teammates with Marvin the Martian then wouldnt he be the greatest. The fact of the matter is he was those things and playing fantasyland posits nothing.
When the NBA starts playing one on one then Ill care about your analogy. Basketball is a team game and you cannot seperate a player completely from his team.
Also Baylor never got a ring. i wasnt even alive when he played and i know that.
http://www.nba.com/history/players/baylor_bio.htmlBaylor never played on a club that won an NBA Championship.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 07-07-2008 at 11:34 PM.
LMAO. Barkley himself acknowledges he is only the second best PF of all time, behind Duncan. Charles isn't exactly known for humility.
Well, I was alive when Baylor got his ring. Let me tell the story. First, as mentioned earlier in this thread, Elgin retired 9 games into the 1971-2 season after he was told he was going to the bench in favor of Jim McMillian. Lakers then went on to win 33 games in a row. I still have a copy of the team photo that Der Weinerschnitzel gave away in the winter of 1972 with a purchase. I walked a mile to get that, I was in high school. Baylor appears in the photo, along with John Q. Trapp, who was acquired after Baylor left. The caption of the photo simply states "Longest winning streak in professional sports history". Keep in mind Elgin posed for this before the Lakers won the le.
I have an audio tape of the final game in 1972 versus the Knicks, including the post game locker room interviews. Elgin was in the locker room, celebrating with his friends. He is on the tape I have. It is common knowledge among Laker fans of that era that Elgin was given a ring. Chick Hearn, the longtime Laker broadcaster acknowledged that. I have the video too on DVD but the end is missing, lost forever it seems.
The internet is not always accurate. Your link doesn't know the whole story, given above.
As for the rest of your argument, I have said what I will say. No one is right anyway, it's all everyone's opinion.
A lot of overrating of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird going on here. They belong in the top 10, but how were either of these guys better than Wilt Chamberlain or Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, or even Oscar Robertson or Julius Erving?
Magic and Bird so captured the imagination of the public in the 80s that people just assume they were as good as the publicity would have you believe. If you go back and examine accomplishments and skills, I don't see any way they are shoe-ins ahead of the guys that I listed.
Duncan is anywhere from 5-12.
My list:
1. Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem-Abdul Jabbar
3. Michael Jordan
4. Oscar Robertson
I have a hard time separating the rest, so they are all on the same general level and occupy positions 5-13
Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Julius Erving, Tim Duncan, Bill Russell, Elgin Baylor, Shaquille O'Neal, Jerry West, Hakeem Olajuwon
If pressed, I'd have Shaq at 5 and then Duncan at 6
I did a little searching, found the official Laker team photo for 1971-2
Baylor is on the right, front row, next to John Q. Trapp. Trapp was added to the roster after Baylor retired. Baylor also got at least a partial championship share. Laker roster, stats: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/1972.html
Julius Erving is very underrated. He was every bit as good as Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, but gets overlooked because he played his best basketball during an era when basketball was overlooked and received little attention from the national media. If he began his career in 1981 instead of 1971, he'd be much higher on most lists.
Few people know about Dr. J's accomplishments in the ABA (2 championships, 3 straight MVPs, and perhaps the greatest Finals performance in basketball history in the 1976 ABA Finals). And the ABA was very much the NBA's peer during that time.
He sacrificed his scoring numbers when he got to the 76ers because they were a team filled with players who demanded the ball. People who look at stats will try to diminish just how great he was in the NBA (just like people 30 years from now will look at basketball-reference.com and conclude Duncan wasn't all that because he was "only" a 20 ppg scorer). Erving led a dysfunctional 76ers team deep into the playoffs every year, where they normally lost to more talented teams.
David Robinson does not belong in this thread. Other than that I agree with most people's rankings about Duncan. His consistency is what separates him from other great PF's in the game.
He only played 9 games that year and was not on the roster at the end of the year. He had been hurt the year before and if you look at that bball reference link you'll note that he didn't play any playoff games that year. He was done.
Thats why they say his career ended in 1971 because he never made into 1972 on that roster. The Lakers may have felt sorry for him and gave him a ring as an attaboy but the NBA does not recognize Baylor as being on a championship roster.
As for my link, its from NBA.com. You know the NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION....
In 1971 Baylor was on the roster at playoff time, suited up and practicing. Teams can't put a player on the bench in uniform if he isn't on the roster. I know, I saw it live. I went to my first Laker game vs. Chicago, game 7.
Why is Baylor on the official photo saying 1971-72 if he was done in 1971? Because he left on his own. He could have unretired anytime it was legal, but chose not to be an opportunist. He knew he would get his ring anyway, better if few people noticed it. However, it's fact. Or call Chick Hearn and Elgin liars.
Remind me later to show you material from my graduate studies that shows how much of the internet is unreliable. What you can trust, and what you can't. I don't have time now.
This isn't some random blog. Its the official site of the NBA. They take those team photos at the beginning of every year. He tried to go that year and couldn't. He went 8 games and then hung it up.
Probasketball reference who you linked shows him not playing in the 71 or 72 playoffs. He got hurt his career was over i don't care what you think you remember.
The problem I have with your list is that I think several guys on there themselves would say Bill Russell was the best player they ever faced. I think your list shows a clear bias for offense over defense, which is understandable, but I disagree. Wilt was the best offensive player of his time, but had a few weaknesses: one was outside shooting, and the second was free throw shooting. Like Shaq, having Wilt on the floor in a close game could actually work against his team, since fouling him was such a good strategy. In the 67-68 season, Wilt shot an abysmal 38% from the free throw line. In the 64-65 season, he shot 41.6% from the FT line. For his career he was just over 50%.You want the old folks opinions?
To be objective and fair about this, it's probably best to wait until his career is over. The NBA had a list of the top 50 players after 50 years, but that was before Duncan was playing. I don't know why they didn't keep adding a player every year. Duncan would be on the list.
After reading this thread, I don't think I saw Julius Erving mentioned. Or Elgin Baylor. Or even Elvin Hayes. I don't think Duncan is better than any of those forwards in their prime.
I don't rate Bill Russell as high as some people do, nor do I put Shaq up there...
My top 10 would be probably....(Yeah, it's mostly older players, but these guys rocked and I did see them all play).
1) Wilt Chamberlain
2) Kareem Abdul Jabbar
3) Michael Jordan
4) Magic Johnson
5) Elgin Baylor
6) Oscar Robertson
7) Jerry West
8) Julius Erving
9) Larry Bird
10) Elvin Hayes
I don't think the same can be said of Russell's defense. His post defense, shot blocking, rebounding, and box out abilities were all supreme, and his quickness meant he didn't become a defensive liability if his man tried to lure him away from the paint. He was a great man-defender, a great help- defender, a great weakside-defender... so what I'm arguing is that it was sometimes possible to neutralize Wilt's offense, if even for just certain crucial moments, but almost never possible to neutralize Russell's defense, which was even better in those same crucial moments. This is the crux of the whole "defense wins championships" philosophy, and, in my opinion, the reason why Russell was so great.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
