magic johnson either the coach needs to go or the players

[JamStone]

Is Russell top 10? Judging by your posts, I'd assume not. I can take your exact same argument and claim Magic and Bird are overrated because their defense was not as good as some of the other greats that are in the top 10.

Because of his winning, Russell is around top 10 for me but probably not in the top 10. The unprecedented success he had still ranks him high, but I do disagree with people listing him as a top 5 player with the likes of Jordan and Wilt and Oscar. And as I mentioned earlier, I would rank both Hakeem and Tim Duncan as better players. I guess it goes back to how you define "greatness." Winning absolutely factors into the evaluation, but not sure I agree with how much weight some people give it compared to actual talent. Winning still takes more than one player.

As for Magic, yeah he wasn't great on defense but I think he made up for it with his rebounding and steals so that he wasn't a complete liability. I don't think Magic was as poor a defender as Bill Russell was as poor an offensive player, but it's certainly debatable. I guess I am more critical of players who are poor offensive players than I am of players who have defensive liabilities, right or wrong. Shrugs.

And I think Bird was actually a pretty good team defender.

I think people very much remember that Bill Russell wasn't known for his offense. Thats why you always hear talk about his defense, IQ, teamwork, intangibles, and winning mentality above anything else. People generally don't harp on a player's negatives if they have the career and the well-liked personality that Russell has but that doesn't mean his weaknesses aren't acknowledged.

So...if people realize Russell's weaknesses and the context of his career/era...is he still overrated?

That's what I'm saying. I don't think people acknowledge or realize it. They simply think because of all the championships and the history of his teams beating Wilt's teams that Bill Russell was a great and complete player. That's why I think a lot of people overrate him.

If they acknowledged his weaknesses on offense, I don't think he'd be as highly regarded. And if that were the case, no, he wouldn't be overrated.

[JamStone]

Well, Rodman should be, but you ignore that Russell was by far the best player on his team when you base your argument on this kind of "lulz steve kerr" sensationalism, as
ignores the difference in importance between pivots and wings.

I'd agree that he's overrated as well, but not for the same reasons that this Jew posits, nor for yours.

Russell was the best defender on those Celtics teams. He was the best player in much the same way Ben Wallace was the best player on the Detroit Pistons from 2002-2007. Bill Russell made the most impact on defense and was the heart and leader of the team. He never led the team in scoring. In most of those seasons, he was only the fourth leading scorer on the team. He is remembered as the best player because he is regarded as the main reason they won all those les. Russell and those Celtics teams are a very unique team in those regards. Not many other great teams had that same dynamic where the best player was such a weak offensive player.

And that's why I used the Bruce Bowen example. You're right, the difference in importance between pivots and wings is significant. But, you look down the history of the NBA, you won't find a great championship big man who was so weak on offense. You just won't. Had no exact comparison to give to make the point I was offering.

If anything's overrated, it's your own belief that you know anything about basketball. Not being personal, but anyone who's not crystal clear about Russell's status as one of the best players in NBA history is simply pig ignorant.

Examine his game with a fine tooth comb if you will, but don't be so blind as to put what you find in context. In Russell's case, the context is the greatest champion of all time.

I don't take things on here personal. You are more than en led to your opinion that I am pig ignorant. Your opinion. More power to you.

I have stated and I will repeat that Bill Russell is still one of the greatest players of all time. His status as one of the best is not in question. Rather, how highly he's regarded is what I call into question. Saying he's probably not a top 10 player is my opinion. Player. Individual greatness. As a winner, as a champion, I am right in line with anyone who says he was and is the greatest winner and champion in sports history. That's not why I think he's overrated. I think people who think as an individual player he ranks as among the greatest are overrating him. Winning, and especially winning championships, does not rest on one player alone. Teammates and coaching have a great deal of impact on that. For me, evaluating an individual player and how good he is does not consist of the same evaluation.

Bill Russell, greatest champion of all time in sports history.
Bill Russell, borderline top 10 individual talent in NBA history.

It's an easy distinction that I've been making this entire time.

[mogrovejo]

You could also say the rebounds he averaged was also inflated due to pace of play. His rookie year almost 3 players on that team averaged double figure rebounding. There's no way that would happen in today's NBA.

Yeah, the thing is that he was so dominant as a rebounder relatively to others who were playing at the same pace.

That argument was absolutely ridiculous . "He would have worked on his game more now! The mindset then was to suck on offense and be a terrible shooter!"

Seriously dude, when you've got a bum like Red in Auerbach as your coach, how the are you supposed to learn how to shoot a left handed layup or make your free throws. Talk to me when Bill Russell was coached by someone who the coach of the year award was named after.

The reason today players are way better than Russell and his peers, including Chamberlain, is solely because of superior training and coaching - especially at the developmental stages but also through out their NBA career.

Why do you think it is? A genetic evolution? In 40 years? If you do, then evolutionary biology is not your thing.

The natural abilities players from different eras have are the same. Players now are better because (1) there's more intensive scouting/recruiting of potential players (2) and essentially, because they practice a lot more, with much better guidance, since a much earlier age.

40 years ago ambidextrous players were extremely rare, even among guards. Cousy was one and only because he broke his right hand in an accident. Today every 12-13 years old kid is told to practice with his off-hand. To dribble around with his off-hand till he gets comfortable with the ball. And then he keeps adding. But stuff that today are fundamentals kids learn at a young age nobody knew about at that point in time. The proper way of sliding, the correct shooting motion, the importance of the follow through. Basketball fundamentals weren't revealed by Naimsmith. They are the product of a very slow evolution.

Just like in many other human activities, from science to art, the secret is in the ac ulation of knowledge.

This is valid for the skill-set of individual players and for team strategies.

Same thing happened with the 3pt shot. In the first season the league shot 28% from the 3 pt line while shooting 1/8 of the 3pt shots they shoot nowadays. Do you think those guys were just naturally bad shooters? Bull , they just didn't have the practice. Heck, Bird shoot below 30% in 4 of his first 5 seasons... and by the end of the decade he was a lights out shooter.

Give the greats of that era the coaching, the incentives to work all the time, the nutritional/tactical knowledge that current players have available and most of them would be equally great in this era.

----


I doubt people comparing Russell to Ben Wallace have seen a single minute of Russell playing, even with all the re-runs in ESPN classic. A single minute of footage. I can't prove it, but I know and they know this is true. The first two things that you notice when watching Bill Russelll are (a) his athleticism, his fastness (b) his big and soft hands, his ability to just put his hand close to the basketball and...slurp... the ball was on his hand and wasn't going anywhere. Wallace has hands of stone compared to Russell.

What Bill Russell lacked was touch, something for example Chamberlain (or Tom Heinsohn or Pet ) had- pretty much like Dwight Howard.

[Ghazi]

Another masterpiece by mogrovejo

[mogrovejo]

No wonder Ghazi wants LeBron playing for his team, he's great recognizing talent.

[Ghazi]

[mogrovejo]

Neat! When a team wins a le playing 4 perimeter players at once and having no half court offense other than pick and rolls, I'll admit I'm wrong.

Do guys like Odom and Horry count as perimeter oriented 4s?

Every NBA team relies heavily on the pick'n'roll for their half-court offense. Even if it's only to open things up and force the defense to commit to something.

Orlando's problem is that they rely a lot on the transition game + inside/out game from post-ups to generate offense, to generate the spot-up situations which is where most of their points come from.

Let's not pretend that Orlando's offense isn't good when they have been the 2nd best offensive team in the league and playoffs just because of a single series.

Cleveland had a similar problem with Boston. They used Shaq in the post too much, that stalled their offense because Boston defends the post so well.

Boston is tough to beat if their opponent relies a lot on post play to generate offense - their post defense is just too good. Teams with superior dribble driving + multiple isolation threats from the perimeter have a much better chance.

[Magic_Johnson]

Johnson is such a

It's Otis Smith's fault

Hedo, Lee and Alston? yes yes yes

VC and Barnes? NO


Magic is either an idiot, or is pissed at Orlando because Boston will get tons of rest before ting on his Lakers

Johnson is a dumbass

you both
5>4
5>0

[itzsoweezee]

No team is going to win a championship with Rashard Lewis as their starting power forward.

Van Gundy's lineups make no sense to me. You've got Brandon Bass and Ryan Anderson, two quality, tough, power forwards, and Stan chooses to play scrub-ass Rashard Lewis.

[JoeTait75]

Cleveland had a similar problem with Boston. They used Shaq in the post too much, that stalled their offense because Boston defends the post so well.

Boston is tough to beat if their opponent relies a lot on post play to generate offense - their post defense is just too good. Teams with superior dribble driving + multiple isolation threats from the perimeter have a much better chance.

I still think Cleveland could have beaten Boston had they gone small, as they did late in the regular season, and not tried to force-feed Shaq. Against an outstanding post defender in Kendrick Perkins it was a bankrupt strategy.

Orlando doesn't match up very well with Boston primarily because of the Perkins factor. Hedo and Courtney Lee wouldn't help them here.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Let's not pretend that Orlando's offense isn't good when they have been the 2nd best offensive team in the league and playoffs just because of a single series.

The Suns' had the best offense in the regular season, would you say it's built to win a championship?

[Ghazi]

The Suns' had the best offense in the regular season, would you say it's built to win a championship?

Yes

[mogrovejo]

I still think Cleveland could have beaten Boston had they gone small, as they did late in the regular season, and not tried to force-feed Shaq. Against an outstanding post defender in Kendrick Perkins it was a bankrupt strategy.

Orlando doesn't match up very well with Boston primarily because of the Perkins factor. Hedo and Courtney Lee wouldn't help them here.

I agree. I don't know if they'd win but they'd have a much better chance if Shaq+Jamison had played much less and Varejão+Hickson had played a lot more (especially AV). Should win if Varejao was healthy and playing well.

The Suns' had the best offense in the regular season, would you say it's built to win a championship?

Their offense? Sure, why not? Their offense has been the 2nd best in the post-season as well. The team overall isn't built to win a championship because they have the worst defense of all playoff teams by far. But Orlando's defense is elite and is still playing as such.

[mogrovejo]

No team is going to win a championship with Rashard Lewis as their starting power forward.

Van Gundy's lineups make no sense to me. You've got Brandon Bass and Ryan Anderson, two quality, tough, power forwards, and Stan chooses to play scrub-ass Rashard Lewis.

Bass specialized himself in long 2s, a shot nobody likes, doesn't pass the ball and never learned Orlando's defensive scheme. If you don't know your rotations you won't earn many minutes under SVG.

I like Ryan Anderson a lot. Maybe he should be playing more. I actually think he deserves the chance to start for some team next season. But come on, he has 10 inches on Rondo and lost a rebound to him yesterday. Rondo just outjumped him to the ball. He's a good offensive player, but tough?

[Cane]

From that clip alone it looks like what Magic said might be a legitimate topic

[Ghazi]

lol did someone call Brandon bass tough.

[LnGrrrR]

Because of his winning, Russell is around top 10 for me but probably not in the top 10. The unprecedented success he had still ranks him high, but I do disagree with people listing him as a top 5 player with the likes of Jordan and Wilt and Oscar.

You're willing to discount Russell's achievements because of the era, but not Wilt? That doesn't seem to make sense to me. Does the fact that Russell effectively denied Wilt multiple times have any sway?

I guess I am more critical of players who are poor offensive players than I am of players who have defensive liabilities, right or wrong.

Fair enough. I would say that before Russell, defense wasn't deemed as important as offense. Russell was an intimidating presence, and sometimes stats just don't tell the whole story.

[JamStone]

You're willing to discount Russell's achievements because of the era, but not Wilt? That doesn't seem to make sense to me. Does the fact that Russell effectively denied Wilt multiple times have any sway?

I find it hard to discount a guy that averages 50 PPG for an entire season, regardless of any era. Wilt shot 54% from the field, a full 10% better than Russell. However, I would be more than willing to discredit Wilt's rebounding just like Russell's rebounding by saying those rebounding numbers were a major product of the era.

Fair enough. I would say that before Russell, defense wasn't deemed as important as offense. Russell was an intimidating presence, and sometimes stats just don't tell the whole story.

Also fair. Guess just my personal opinion.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Bass should be starting, with Anderson backing him up. Lewis should start at the 3, and let the rest fall in place.

+1 that's what I thought Orlando's plan was. I didn't think Matt Barnes would be their leading minute getter at SF.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Yes

You also think it's a fluke when someone in the NBA makes wide open shots.

[lefty]

At the beginning of the 1981–82 season, Johnson had a heated dispute with Westhead, who Johnson said made the Lakers "slow" and "predictable".[33] After Johnson demanded to be traded, Lakers owner Jerry Buss fired Westhead and replaced him with Riley. Although Johnson denied responsibility for Westhead's firing,[34] he was booed across the league, even by Lakers' fan

[mogrovejo]

I find it hard to discount a guy that averages 50 PPG for an entire season, regardless of any era. Wilt shot 54% from the field, a full 10% better than Russell. However, I would be more than willing to discredit Wilt's rebounding just like Russell's rebounding by saying those rebounding numbers were a major product of the era.

Also fair. Guess just my personal opinion.

Why?