Bill Russell. Overrated?

[z0sa]

Great thread. I have little else to say, for the obvious reasons, but seeing those more learned (or experienced, in DOAT's case) debate this classic argument's many facets is great stuff.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

A topic that has been discussed on this board but mostly only in tangental comments. It's an interesting topic though. And I do think there are different ways of looking at Bill Russell and his success as a player. Overrated as a winner? No, certainly not. I don't think it can be overstated how one player as the leader of a team led that team as the main component to 11 championships in 13 years. You cannot overrate Bill Russell as a champion or a winner, regardless of his teammates, the era, or his compe ion. That's as impressive as it gets in terms of championship success.

Overrated as a player, I would definitely be more amenable to agreeing with. But I will say that with qualifiers. I do think time has served Bill Russell's legacy very well. More so than overrating him, time allows people to forget his weaknesses offensively. Never shot 50% from the field for a season. Only shot over 45% four times in 13 seasons. Never averaged 20 PPG despite often playing well over 40 MPG in most of those seasons. Career 56% free throw shooter. Those types of offensive stats would be hugely critical of a player in today's NBA. Faults and weaknesses that are masked by the number of his championships. So, I would agree to an extent that he is overrated now as a player. And when it comes down to the greatness of individual players, I don't believe in the "rings are the only thing that counts" argument. I agree with the opinion that Wilt was easily the superior player.

I do disagree with a few things against Russell though. When it comes to him having the best teammates compared to other star players in his time, that's most likely true. But there's the chicken and the egg argument to be made. Did Bill Russell have all that success because he had the best teammates. Or were Bill Russell's teammates regarded to be so great because of all the championships those teams won. Just as an example, look at KC Jones career statistics. On any other team that doesn't win multiple championships, is KC Jones a hall of famer? Is he even remembered as a player at all? My point is that perhaps some of Bill Russell's teammates were regarded so highly because of the team success and/or because Russell made them better players. I will concede that part of it has to go to Red Auerbach, who I believe was probably a better talent evaluator/GM than he was a coach. Auerbach's value as head coach can be mitigated by the fact that the Bill Russell Celtics won two more les with Russell as head coach. Auerbach's greatness, in my opinion, was tied more into his ability to acquire great players in the draft as opposed to him outcoaching opposing teams.

Lastly, while I do agree that Russell is overrated, I don't think it's to the extent that Daddy of Trolls believes he is. I've seen the argument that Russell wasn't regarded as one of the top players by his peers when he played. Now I'm not old enough to verify or discredit that, but I will say this about how he was viewed at the time he was playing. He won 5 League MVPs, despite all his flaws on offense. He won his first in the second year of his NBA career. He won one the same season Wilt averaged 50/25 and Oscar averaged a triple double. Perhaps as an individual talent, he wasn't regarded as one of the best players in the league, but he certainly was appreciated as a winner by at least those who voted for MVP.

Overrated in terms of individual talent, but I don't believe as much as Daddy Trolls says he is.

Let’s go back to the beginning. Take the NBA top 50 at 50 years list. At the time it was made, 49 players were living. Equivalent lists from MLB or the NFL would find a large percentage of deceased players. The 1946 start date for the NBA itself proves basketball, at least played at its top levels, is not only new, its history since shows it is an evolving sport. Baseball and Football today are arguably much as they always were, with tweaks along the way, and those sports aren’t the topic of discussion.

George Mikan actually won 6 professional les in 7 seasons. His 1948 NBL Lakers le isn’t recognized by the NBA because the NBL merged into the BAA, which was later renamed the NBA. A side note is the NBL had better players and better teams. So let’s not hold that against Mikan. His 6 les in 7 years is close to equivalent to Russell’s 11 and 13, and Jordan’s 6 in 8.

Mikan was the first player to revolutionize the game. He may have had an advantage over his opponents greater than that enjoyed by Wilt Chamberlain; comparing physical statures of players at the time tells you this. Why isn’t he top 10 today? There was no MVP award in his playing days, but he easily could have won 7 of them, 5 at the very least. That alone puts him on par with Bill Russell. I see two problems with Mikan being top 10. He shot 40% from the field and the key was three feet wide. He should have shot 60% and scored more. Whatever, everyone shot poorly in those days. Set shots, not jump shots were the norm.

What does history say about Mikan? Well, we know he is top 50 all time. There are two other lists the NBA compiled to list its greatest players. In 1980 they created a 35th anniversary team and included active players, so it’s an official but unranked top 10 list with one more added to make 11:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_35th_Anniversary_Team
Position Name
C Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
F Elgin Baylor
C Wilt Chamberlain
G Bob Cousy
F Julius Erving
G/F John Havlicek
C George Mikan
F Bob Pet
G Oscar Robertson
C Bill Russell
G Jerry West

Before this, in 1971, the NBA issued a silver anniversary team, but no active players were allowed. Both Mikan and Russell were included:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_25th_Anniversary_Team

There were 25 names, and a top 10 was given.
NBA 25th Anniversary Team
List of 25th Anniversary Team players, sorted by position and vote received.
F Bob Pet
F Dolph Schayes
F Paul Arizin
F Joe Fulks
C Bill Russell
C George Mikan
G Bob Cousy
G Bill Sharman
G Bob Davies
G Sam Jones

Now, that’s a pretty weak top 10 and predates the sample list I gave in my initial post. Compare the 3 lists, great players come along, old greats drop off. For what it’s worth, Russell was the only unanimous selection, but look at what his “compe ion” was.

So, once again I ask, why is Mikan no longer top 10 or even top 20? It largely has to do with the evolution of basketball. More talented players came along, and they did more frequently.

Now we can move along from Mikan to Bill Russell and I can better address his post. I can make it short. I agree a large portion of the Celtics success under Russell is due to Red Auerbach. Remember, we have a new sport and Red figured it out years ahead of everyone. Red was shrewd enough to draft Larry Bird in 1978, before his breakout season with the Indiana State Sycamores where he went undefeated until the NCAA finals classic against Magic Johnson’s Michigan State Spartans. Larry was eligible for the draft because he had redshirted on season in college. Soon, the rest of the league caught up to Red, but not yet. After the Len Bias draft and death debacle in 1986, Red seemed to lose all his advantages when he became President and Chairman of the Celtics. He even passed on drafting Tony Parker, and chose Joe Forte of UNC against the wishes of his GM, that’ s common knowledge. There was a link someone posted along with a story of how KC Jones hounded the out of Oscar Robertson in the playoffs one season and threw him off his game. Remember, Red taught defense in an era when most coaches didn’t preach it much at all. Many all time greats received poor coaching. So, Red should receive more credit for getting the most of his players than Bill. Bill Russell was simply the next step in basketball evolution. Although he is superior to Mikan in many ways, there were plenty of players yet to appear that brought new and more valuable talents to basketball. Mikan takes a hit because of basketball evolution, and Russell should as well. Clearly, Russell is not top 5 all time, he is borderline top 10 at best. I will get to an MVP discussion when I address history2b.

[JamStone]

Wilt Chamberlain is the main reason why Bill Russell is still so highly regarded while Mikan is not. If you keep all of Bill Russell's stats and accomplishments the same but take Wilt Chamberlain out of that era of basketball, Russell would not be nearly as regarded as he is. But because Wilt Chamberlain is regarded as one of the top 2 or 3 best individual talents the league has ever seen, Bill Russell having the success he did with Wilt dominating the game as an individual player juices Russell's legacy through the roof. By comparison, Mikan's compe ion is regarded as even worse than Russell's and Russell's compe ion is often regarded as "a bunch of 6'5 white guys." Probably Mikan's biggest individual compe ion was Dolph Schayes. A HOFer in his own right, but pales by comparison extremely next to the likes of Wilt Chamberlain. Bill Russell winning all those les and all those League MVPs in an era where Wilt just blew away everyone statistically is the main reason.

The other difference is that George Mikan for all intents and purposes played 6 seasons. His last season he only played 20 MPG in 37 games with underwhelming stats on a 33-39 Lakers team. When you look at all time greats, most play around 12-13 seasons, at least 10. Off the top of my head, Bill Walton might be the only other exception, and he's not regarded as a top 20 player by most either. Mikan's lack of longevity hurts his legacy.

But I still say Wilt Chamberlain playing in Bill Russell's era is by far the main reason.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

history2b: Reread my very first paragraph in my opening discussion, I’ll repeat it here in bold:
The first question to ask yourself is, did you see Bill Russell play? If you did, you have to be at least 50 years old to remember him, and older than that to have appreciated him because he retired in 1969. At age 60, I am one of the few people on this board that can speak about Bill from first hand experience.

I think it’s safe to say you didn’t see Russell play. I also find it ironic that you, a Lakers fan, is defending Bill Russell of the hated Celtics. I also noted I would turn your own words against you. I did that already in my trivia thread, and now I am going to do the same thing here by exposing your hypocrisy and lack of logic and debating skills.

Breaking down Bill Russell based on a random poll taken in 1970

There was no internet back in 1970. If ranking greatest players came up in any discussion it was on radio talk shows, broadcast during games, in the paper, or perhaps at the local barbershop. Sometimes the people giving opinions were of great authority, and sometimes it was an every day Joe like you or me. I lived during that time, and whatever I heard, the top 10 lists pretty much developed in the order I gave. Jamstone believes this to be true, and I mentioned Philadelphia Chamberlain, who also lived during the Russell era backs me up as well. Reread my initial post, you will see where to find it. Russell wasn’t highly rated 40 years ago. Many players were valued higher, and I told you why.

and consensus among other Spurs fans on Spurstalk? Lol.

Did you look where I said to look for those top 10s? Did you read what else I said about them? They back you up, most have Bill Russell on a top 10.

Putting Duncan hypothetically in the 1960s and claiming Ben Wallace is essentially "the same player??" I really can't think of a dumber assessment. Some people who just don't know the game are just ignorant but to think you know and pontificate this nonsense is just delusional and stupid. Much worse imo.

Dumb, really? How so? What I did is no different than what many sports analysts do. Let’s look at it this way. When you compare players of different generations, you are always going to run into difficulties when you match them up. So, you do the best you can. Could Robert Horry replace Elgin Baylor? Not likely. Ben Wallace could replace Bill Russell. Tim Duncan would have feasted had he played in the 60’s anyone can see that. Robert Horry wouldn’t have. See, where your argument falls apart is, you give no proof at all why I can’t make such a comparison of players into different generations, you simply state it as if it’s fact. Your ending sentence seems to confirm you believe it to be fact, because now you call my methods worse, in your opinion. No one tells sports analysts they can’t compare players of different generations by imagining how they would perform in a different era, and you can’t tell me that either. You are probably too ignorant to see that it is you who are in fact delusional.

Phila_Chamberlain makes several good points about Bill although I don't agree with how underwhelmed he appears to be with the impact made. Changing the game is not something that I look back on lightly. It's bigger than posting gaudy regular season stats and breaking statistical records.

Since changing the game is not something you take lightly, you have to give Mikan a ton of credit. Cousy, Chamberlain, Robertson, Abdul Jabbar, Magic, Bird, Jordan, and so on as well. We don’t know your top 5 other than Russell is in it. What is your top 5? Your claim Russell is in it, I have offered evidence he doesn’t belong there. Also, you have to consider Russell started changing the game over 50 years ago, when the NBA was in its infancy. Certainly basketball has changed so much since then. If Russell was truly a top 5 player, wouldn’t his teams clean up the NBA today? Do you really believe that? Or because it’s playing players of one generation against another not possible in hypotheticals because it is dumb and stupid as you say. If that’s the case, isn’t putting Russell in a top 5 dumb and stupid in itself? That’s what you’re doing, comparing players of different generations, and you can’t wiggle out of the fact that is what you do when you rank Russell in the top 5. Don’t be a hypocrite. Accept the hypothetical s of Duncan playing in the 60’s or Ben Wallace taking Russell’s place.

As it is Russell won 5 regular season MVP awards and one could assume 10 or 11 Finals MVP awards which wouldn't really bode well for the whole "everyone thought Hondo or Cousy was better" argument.

As pointed out to Jamstone, Mikan received no MVPs. Since you hypothesize about Russell winning 10 or 11 MVPs, that allows me to say Mikan may have received up to 7 and at least 5. Also, since you are allowed to hypothesize about Russell getting 10 or 11 finals MVP’s you must accept all my hypotheticals. Feel free to construct any you wish.

Let’s talk about MVP awards, here’s a definition:

http://en.mimi.hu/basketball/most_valuable_player.html

MVP (Most Valuable Player) - An award in the NBA meant to recognize the player who most contributed to the team’s success in either regular season or the “Finals'

Let’s talk about regular season MVPs first. Here’s the list:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/mvp.html

You can click the (V) option in any season to see the votes. Interesting to note is Bill Russell is the man who put Boston over the hump. Cousy and Sharman could get the Celtics to the ECF. But no farther. L:ook at the votes in Russell’s rookie season, Cousy by a landslide, and Russell well back in the pack. Russell also won it in years Boston had the best record in the NBA. Many times Wilt was well back in the voting, and often when his teams sucked; see his time in San Francisco for example, even though Wilt was putting up monster stats. Wilt started winning the MVP when his Sixers started getting the best record. Oscar Robertson got into in a year his Royals went 55-25, coming second in the east. Oscar always put up great stats and he was ahead of a third place Russell by a large margin. Jerry West never won a regular season mVP but he came second many seasons and held his own in others. Now you claim you hate stats, but MVPs are a stat that you brought up, and it’s only fair to look closer at them.

MVP’s are done by writers anyway, and there has always been an east coast bias. Most people that vote will favor an eastern player. As population demographics continue to shift west, and south, this bias will eventually disappear and new ones will arise. Let’s look at baseball for a moment, as a comparson of favoritism and bias. I posted this before. Nolan Ryan is arguably one of the greatest pitchers of all time. He never won the Cy Young award. His main flaw was the number of walks he gave, but he is the all time strikeout king career, and single season, and matches that with no hitters. In 1973 he set a record for strikeouts at 383, remarkable also because it was the first year of the designated hitter. Nolan had no pitchers to face for the easy KO’s, and still manged two no hitters that year. The Cy Young award went to Jim Palmer, a deserving recipient and multiple winner. The logic of the voters was that the award should go to a pitcher who not only did well, but helped his team finish high in the standings. Ryan’s Angels sucked. This flew in total contrast to the NL Cy Young award winner the season before. Steve Carlton of the Phillies finishsed about 27-9, and his team only won about 20 more times outside of Carlton games.

As far as finals MVPs go, yes they are worth something. It is the ultimate stage. However, it is also common for a better playoff performance to occur earlier to a player whose team loses. Think Michael Jordan and what he did to the Celtics in losing causes back in the 80s. There is also evidence that some series other Boston players did better than Russell in the finals. Elgin Baylor had some monster finals, and if Jerry West could win a finals MVP in a losing effort, Elgin could have as well. So, fnals MVP’s are nice, but you have to get there to win one. Oscar Robertson played in but two finals, and none until Russell left. Of course the ring argument for greatness is recent, as I have proved, so the finals MVP award doesn’t carry as much weight as you think it does,

And Red Auerbach? He didn't coach the last 2 Celtic teams Russell won with, the last of which not only was Bill the head coach, he also defeated his biggest rival, Chamberlain, who had joined forces with 2 players better than Bill (according to Troll).

Auerbach has been discussed, as well as those Celtics teams. Matter of fact, funny how you now tout those underdog Celtics and they are proof that teams with NBA championship experience are in the running to win a le as long as their cores are intact! Remember that? That’s when I refuted your ‘Fact” the Spurs are done. You have been given two examples now, and got owned on both.

Amazing to think that 3 individual players far superior to the overrated Bill Russell would still manage to lose to him for the nth time, without Auerbach on their home floor.

Blame Jack Kent Cooke for that loss. He hung the balloons up and had an agenda of what the postgame celebrations would be after the Lakers won the game. Russell got ahold of it and his team stepped up. Blame also the coach for not allowing Wilt back in.

Even more amazing that doing what it takes to win the game is undervalued to number worshipping stat boys.

Well, as proven above, you are a stat boy. You count MVPs and that’s a stat. Hypocrisy is not allowed, all stats are acceptable in this debate.

You have met your match. Bring more, I love this.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Wilt Chamberlain is the main reason why Bill Russell is still so highly regarded while Mikan is not. If you keep all of Bill Russell's stats and accomplishments the same but take Wilt Chamberlain out of that era of basketball, Russell would not be nearly as regarded as he is. But because Wilt Chamberlain is regarded as one of the top 2 or 3 best individual talents the league has ever seen, Bill Russell having the success he did with Wilt dominating the game as an individual player juices Russell's legacy through the roof. By comparison, Mikan's compe ion is regarded as even worse than Russell's and Russell's compe ion is often regarded as "a bunch of 6'5 white guys." Probably Mikan's biggest individual compe ion was Dolph Schayes. A HOFer in his own right, but pales by comparison extremely next to the likes of Wilt Chamberlain. Bill Russell winning all those les and all those League MVPs in an era where Wilt just blew away everyone statistically is the main reason.

The other difference is that George Mikan for all intents and purposes played 6 seasons. His last season he only played 20 MPG in 37 games with underwhelming stats on a 33-39 Lakers team. When you look at all time greats, most play around 12-13 seasons, at least 10. Off the top of my head, Bill Walton might be the only other exception, and he's not regarded as a top 20 player by most either. Mikan's lack of longevity hurts his legacy.

But I still say Wilt Chamberlain playing in Bill Russell's era is by far the main reason.

Spot on!
Chamberlain helps Russell.
Jordan passing Magic and Bird in rings helps Russell!
Tim, Shaq, and Kobe collecting rings helps Russell!

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Great thread. I have little else to say, for the obvious reasons, but seeing those more learned (or experienced, in DOAT's case) debate this classic argument's many facets is great stuff.

Thanks. However, according to history2b, I know nothing about basketball. I am not keeping track of the votes on that issue. However I am trying to get ambchang over to this thread and my top 20 thread as well to participate. Anything to end that silly thread he keeps bumping back up every few days after it died.

[Koolaid_Man]

Daddy_Of_All_Trolls; Koolaid. I never give you any trouble because you never give me any. I know many people here give you for what you post, but I don't. In fact, I sometimes see excellent posts from you that are well thought out. If you were to focus your attention to posting this way, and less on the cliche bantering you get caught up in, you might find it a refreshing change. Speaking of change, I can't change you, and I'm not trying, but if I can help you be a better poster, then maybe I am like Bill Russell who made his teammates better.

Listen up and listen carefully...I don't take your words as any diss...I'm very good at reading between the lines...it's all good but Kool ain't interested in no so called civil discourse...We are at WAR and Kool is a general in this battle. "Refreshing" and "better poster" is for the weak. I'm not mild...I'm not here to soothe any weak consciences...and if it seems that I am from time to time just chalk it up as the "Art of War" if you know what I mean...and if anyone wants to go to war with Kool I suggest they count their ones first... of course this doesn't apply to Kori she's my happy medium and I know she only does it because Timvp whispering in her ear at night...


I consider my self above it all really...Like a Master watching his students...I like watching a good debate so keep bringing the goods...Like I said before you have good arguments..you have some passion...but you need to chill with all this mutha ing letter writing..Is it really necessary to write a ing novel everytime you post...ok your a history buff...but knowing history doesn't mean as much unless you were a scribe back then...because anyone can look that up...

just fyi I have no beef with you if you a legit Lakers fan.....I have no problem with Laker fan disagreements...such as between you and History2b...but I see you mention that ' list' as sort of like a salvo shot for me to marinate on... if you ever think about adding King Kool to your " " list be careful with dat homie...Once Kool is on dat ass posting get's a little less fun...there ain't no turning back...

[midnightpulp]

Listen up and listen carefully...I don't take your words as any diss...I'm very good at reading between the lines...it's all good but Kool ain't interested in no so called civil discourse...We are at WAR and Kool is a general in this battle. "Refreshing" and "better poster" is for the weak. I'm not mild...I'm not here to soothe any weak consciences...and if it seems that I am from time to time just chalk it up as the "Art of War" if you know what I mean...and if anyone wants to go to war with Kool I suggest they count their ones first... of course this doesn't apply to Kori she's my happy medium and I know she only does it because Timvp whispering in her ear at night...


I consider my self above it all really...Like a Master watching his students...I like watching a good debate so keep bringing the goods...Like I said before you have good arguments..you have some passion...but you need to chill with all this mutha ing letter writing..Is it really necessary to write a ing novel everytime you post...ok your a history buff...but knowing history doesn't mean as much unless you were a scribe back then...because anyone can look that up...

just fyi I have no beef with you if you a legit Lakers fan.....I have no problem with Laker fan disagreements...such as between you and History2b...but I see you mention that ' list' as sort of like a salvo shot for me to marinate on... if you ever think about adding King Kool to your " " list be careful with dat homie...Once Kool is on dat ass posting get's a little less fun...there ain't no turning back...

"Master watching his students?"

I would create a " list," add your dumbass to it, and you wouldn't do , except maybe overuse the ellipsis and post a re ed youtube video.

You're a simpleton, bro. Nothing more.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Listen up and listen carefully...I don't take your words as any diss...I'm very good at reading between the lines...it's all good but Kool ain't interested in no so called civil discourse...We are at WAR and Kool is a general in this battle. "Refreshing" and "better poster" is for the weak. I'm not mild...I'm not here to soothe any weak consciences...and if it seems that I am from time to time just chalk it up as the "Art of War" if you know what I mean...and if anyone wants to go to war with Kool I suggest they count their ones first... of course this doesn't apply to Kori she's my happy medium and I know she only does it because Timvp whispering in her ear at night...


I consider my self above it all really...Like a Master watching his students...I like watching a good debate so keep bringing the goods...Like I said before you have good arguments..you have some passion...but you need to chill with all this mutha ing letter writing..Is it really necessary to write a ing novel everytime you post...ok your a history buff...but knowing history doesn't mean as much unless you were a scribe back then...because anyone can look that up...

just fyi I have no beef with you if you a legit Lakers fan.....I have no problem with Laker fan disagreements...such as between you and History2b...but I see you mention that ' list' as sort of like a salvo shot for me to marinate on... if you ever think about adding King Kool to your " " list be careful with dat homie...Once Kool is on dat ass posting get's a little less fun...there ain't no turning back...

Haha, thanks. As I said, I am not trying to change you. You have your mission here and have it defined. That's totally cool to me. Since we have no beef and I don't expect one, I doubt you'll ever be considered for my list. As far as me writing letters, I try to be specific when I can. If that takes a lot of words, then it does. Besides, sometimes greater detail is needed to tell the whole story.

I was reading excerpts from Ben Franklin's autobiography recently. He had a love for reading at an early age and did whatever he could to acquire more books, including spending what little money he had. He took a job as an apprentice printer at age 12 so he could be in position to acquire more books to read. Soon he began engaging other people in debates by exchanging letters. He would take the opposite point of view even if he didn't believe it, simply to practice and hone his writing skills. His father critiqued his penmanship and he got better at it. The rest is history. So, reading (long threads) and replying (with thought out posts) helps everyone. That's what our society is about, right? Staying educated and remaining leaders of the free world.

[midnightpulp]

you have pretty ty reasoning skills but I will help you out...we're talking bout Duncan and Russell here and the overall impact of Timmy's contribution that would encourage some to put him in the top 10 all-time. You can bring Manu in if you like but then you devalue Duncan as the clear cut #1 option in the Spurs offense...so Mr. Midget or in this case mental midget...which do you choose...

AIDS, you stated in the following poorly worded, logically incoherent quote that two of the reasons Tim Duncan should be denied top 10 all-time great status is because he "failed to add fans to the bottom line," and that "he's not a global icon."

I'm ok with devaluing Russell's rings...but to make the case that Russell is not top 10 and Duncan is or even top 5 is laughable... Tim Duncan may be top 15 -20 nothing more nothing less...You do have to look at the complete package...including player impact from a global perspective...Despite his les Timmy has not added to the game's innovation and revolution. He's not added fans to the bottom line across the broader spectrum. He's liked by the media because he has a house z mentality he's a maid servant so to speak and they eat that up..He's not a global icon nor revolutionary...

Manu Ginobili has done the former and is the latter, so following your logic, which only a re would find sound, Manu Ginobili should be considered a greater player than Tim Duncan? Further strengthening Manu's argument is that his game is relatively "innovative," compared to Tim Duncan's clockwork fundamental game.

Allen Iverson was also a far more popular player than Tim Duncan, his merchandise one of the top sellers of the decade. He also had "global appeal." Because Iverson was a marketing phenomenon, should he be considered the greater player, or at the very least, have a greater status than a player like John Stockton?

Look, when you're comparing players, or attempting to determine where they belong among the all-time greats, you go by what they did on the court. As much as you would like to believe, extra points aren't awarded for aesthetics, nor are championships won with marketing impact.

AIDS, I suggest you keep to the things you know best, like sucking Kobe's and dissing Lebron with stupid youtube videos, and stay on the sidelines when the adults are talking basketball.

[Koolaid_Man]

Haha, thanks. As I said, I am not trying to change you. You have your mission here and have it defined. That's totally cool to me. Since we have no beef and I don't expect one, I doubt you'll ever be considered for my list. As far as me writing letters, I try to be specific when I can. If that takes a lot of words, then it does. Besides, sometimes greater detail is needed to tell the whole story.

I was reading excerpts from Ben Franklin's autobiography recently. He had a love for reading at an early age and did whatever he could to acquire more books, including spending what little money he had. He took a job as an apprentice printer at age 12 so he could be in position to acquire more books to read. Soon he began engaging other people in debates by exchanging letters. He would take the opposite point of view even if he didn't believe it, simply to practice and hone his writing skills. His father critiqued his penmanship and he got better at it. The rest is history. So, reading (long threads) and replying (with thought out posts) helps everyone. That's what our society is about, right? Staying educated and remaining leaders of the free world.

D_of_All_Trolls...you may not realize it...but you have Mid *aka* Midget attached to your balls like a sea urchin attached to the bottom of a ship...

He's following you around he wants a friend...watch your back homie...watch your back..this midget is in awe and fascinated with tall men.

[midnightpulp]

D_of_All_Trolls...you may not realize it...but you have Mid *aka* Midget attached to your balls like a sea urchin attached to the bottom of a ship...

He's following you around he wants a friend...watch your back homie...watch your back..this midget is in awe and fascinated with tall men.

Let's review

....

Major points off for stating an incorrect fact that sea urchins attach themselves to ships. They typically reside at the bottom of the ocean floor. Barnacle would've worked better.

Grade: F

[Koolaid_Man]

Let's review

....

Major points off for stating an incorrect fact that sea urchins attach themselves to ships. They typically reside at the bottom of the ocean floor. Barnacle would've worked better.

Grade: F

well then barnacle ... albeit a midget one...

[midnightpulp]

well then barnacle ... albeit a midget one...

Let's review.

.....

Weak comeback.

Grade: F

[Koolaid_Man]

you really want me to show to the board how you got your ass curb stomped...

Mid brings out some flowers and that's all she wrote...this fight is epic and deserve its own special place in ST History...

[midnightpulp]

you really want me to show to the board how you got your ass curb stomped...

Start a thread. Let's see who the board decides is the winner here.

Oh, wait...

[Koolaid_Man]

Start a thread. Let's see who the board decides is the winner here.

Oh, wait...

Midget...don't tell me you resorting to " I can't start a thread smack"...you reaching bra you need some new material...Kool has you right where he wants you and he's done it all without starting a single thread...

I think you hurt over the fact that Luva, Cully, 21 Blessings, and now Daddy of all Trolls show me respect...you can't reconcile that with my Raising Venom... you were expecting an epic showdown between Kool and your Daddy_of_All_Trolls but it didn't happen...now your midget ass is spinning outta control...

Don't worry son it's a Laker thang...I wouldn't expect you to understand...and FYI this message is more for those midget spur followers who think you're clever than it is you...

we'll talk later my soon to be divorced neighbor is calling...she wanna talk bout her PC problems...

[history2b]

history2b: Reread my very first paragraph in my opening discussion, I’ll repeat it here in bold:
The first question to ask yourself is, did you see Bill Russell play? If you did, you have to be at least 50 years old to remember him, and older than that to have appreciated him because he retired in 1969. At age 60, I am one of the few people on this board that can speak about Bill from first hand experience.

I think it’s safe to say you didn’t see Russell play. I also find it ironic that you, a Lakers fan, is defending Bill Russell of the hated Celtics. I also noted I would turn your own words against you. I did that already in my trivia thread, and now I am going to do the same thing here by exposing your hypocrisy and lack of logic and debating skills.

I've met some delusional schmucks with a false sense of ego but this one takes the cake so far. Never met a dude who thought more highly of himself despite saying absolutely nothing. And I don't believe that you are 60 years old, there is no way. For the sake of humanity I couldn't believe an old bag who's lived through the civil rights movement, Vietnam and the fall of the wall of Berlin could be this, well, re ed. Acting like a 13 teen year old on the internet? I call bull .

Regardless I do have to point out that there is nothing hypocritical about speaking honestly about the game of basketball. I put the game before my own team and I won't lie about a rival team or player just to be a homer. I know! GASP! I actually do that, something that is a big no no on Spurstalk. You've exposed me as a non-homer!

There was no internet back in 1970. If ranking greatest players came up in any discussion it was on radio talk shows, broadcast during games, in the paper, or perhaps at the local barbershop. Sometimes the people giving opinions were of great authority, and sometimes it was an every day Joe like you or me. I lived during that time, and whatever I heard, the top 10 lists pretty much developed in the order I gave. Jamstone believes this to be true, and I mentioned Philadelphia Chamberlain, who also lived during the Russell era backs me up as well. Reread my initial post, you will see where to find it. Russell wasn’t highly rated 40 years ago. Many players were valued higher, and I told you why.

Did you look where I said to look for those top 10s? Did you read what else I said about them? They back you up, most have Bill Russell on a top 10.

Irrelevant citation. No one cares about a random poll you think you remember from 40 years ago. The NBA was in its infancy, can't expect anyone to have had the foresight to understand who would be valued most when it was all said and done. By the 80's Russell was regularly discussed as the greatest player of his generation along with Chamberlain.

I know most top 10 lists back me up. Doesn't concern me regardless. I believe Russell's impact speaks for itself. A dominant defensive presence in the middle that commands the paint is the blueprint for championship basketball still now as it was developed by Russell's Celtics in the 60's.

It's actually pretty simple; I think defense is paramount and I think Russell embodied the pinnacle of defensive dominance. I don't only consider him top 10, I have him at the top period. No one player has successfully impacted the game with ability as much imo.

Dumb, really? How so? What I did is no different than what many sports analysts do. Let’s look at it this way. When you compare players of different generations, you are always going to run into difficulties when you match them up. So, you do the best you can. Could Robert Horry replace Elgin Baylor? Not likely. Ben Wallace could replace Bill Russell. Tim Duncan would have feasted had he played in the 60’s anyone can see that. Robert Horry wouldn’t have. See, where your argument falls apart is, you give no proof at all why I can’t make such a comparison of players into different generations, you simply state it as if it’s fact. Your ending sentence seems to confirm you believe it to be fact, because now you call my methods worse, in your opinion. No one tells sports analysts they can’t compare players of different generations by imagining how they would perform in a different era, and you can’t tell me that either. You are probably too ignorant to see that it is you who are in fact delusional.

Lol, my God you are an imbecile. "Hey let's just plug and pop players from now into the past." Doesn't work that way, never will and it is completely irrelevant. All of today's players have evolved physically and mentally having learned from what has been established by the game's pioneers. Can we just put Lebron in the past hypothetically and justify that he's the greatest player of all time? Pathetic and moronic. Anyone who respects the game, understands importance of how the path was paved by the past greats would never do this. That is the point. People who know the game know this. Fan boys who want to play pretend sports analyst on message boards do not.

Since changing the game is not something you take lightly, you have to give Mikan a ton of credit. Cousy, Chamberlain, Robertson, Abdul Jabbar, Magic, Bird, Jordan, and so on as well. We don’t know your top 5 other than Russell is in it. What is your top 5? Your claim Russell is in it, I have offered evidence he doesn’t belong there. Also, you have to consider Russell started changing the game over 50 years ago, when the NBA was in its infancy. Certainly basketball has changed so much since then. If Russell was truly a top 5 player, wouldn’t his teams clean up the NBA today? Do you really believe that? Or because it’s playing players of one generation against another not possible in hypotheticals because it is dumb and stupid as you say. If that’s the case, isn’t putting Russell in a top 5 dumb and stupid in itself? That’s what you’re doing, comparing players of different generations, and you can’t wiggle out of the fact that is what you do when you rank Russell in the top 5. Don’t be a hypocrite. Accept the hypothetical s of Duncan playing in the 60’s or Ben Wallace taking Russell’s place.

I do give Mikan, Cousy et al all a lot of credit for changing the game in their respective ways.

Nope, won't accept Duncan in the 60s or Ben Wallace in Russell's place because it is irrelevant and actually just down right re ed. It's always about what you do in your own era that matters not the scores of hypotheticals fanboys draw up on the internet. [See Lebron not the greastest player ever reference from earlier]

As pointed out to Jamstone, Mikan received no MVPs. Since you hypothesize about Russell winning 10 or 11 MVPs, that allows me to say Mikan may have received up to 7 and at least 5. Also, since you are allowed to hypothesize about Russell getting 10 or 11 finals MVP’s you must accept all my hypotheticals. Feel free to construct any you wish.

Let’s talk about MVP awards, here’s a definition:

http://en.mimi.hu/basketball/most_valuable_player.html

MVP (Most Valuable Player) - An award in the NBA meant to recognize the player who most contributed to the team’s success in either regular season or the “Finals'

Let’s talk about regular season MVPs first. Here’s the list:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/mvp.html

You can click the (V) option in any season to see the votes. Interesting to note is Bill Russell is the man who put Boston over the hump. Cousy and Sharman could get the Celtics to the ECF. But no farther. L:ook at the votes in Russell’s rookie season, Cousy by a landslide, and Russell well back in the pack. Russell also won it in years Boston had the best record in the NBA. Many times Wilt was well back in the voting, and often when his teams sucked; see his time in San Francisco for example, even though Wilt was putting up monster stats. Wilt started winning the MVP when his Sixers started getting the best record. Oscar Robertson got into in a year his Royals went 55-25, coming second in the east. Oscar always put up great stats and he was ahead of a third place Russell by a large margin. Jerry West never won a regular season mVP but he came second many seasons and held his own in others. Now you claim you hate stats, but MVPs are a stat that you brought up, and it’s only fair to look closer at them.

Wrong. The MVP award, is an award, not a statistic. In game statistics are a separate en y even a moron should understand this. Perhaps we're dealing with even less.

The Bill Russell award, aka the Finals MVP was appropriately named after the player who hypothetically earned the award 10 times. Logic dictates this. Throw in 5 regular season MVP awards and you have the man with the most individual hardware MVP awards in history. So much for it being all about Cousy and Hondo.

MVP’s are done by writers anyway, and there has always been an east coast bias. Most people that vote will favor an eastern player. As population demographics continue to shift west, and south, this bias will eventually disappear and new ones will arise. Let’s look at baseball for a moment, as a comparson of favoritism and bias. I posted this before. Nolan Ryan is arguably one of the greatest pitchers of all time. He never won the Cy Young award. His main flaw was the number of walks he gave, but he is the all time strikeout king career, and single season, and matches that with no hitters. In 1973 he set a record for strikeouts at 383, remarkable also because it was the first year of the designated hitter. Nolan had no pitchers to face for the easy KO’s, and still manged two no hitters that year. The Cy Young award went to Jim Palmer, a deserving recipient and multiple winner. The logic of the voters was that the award should go to a pitcher who not only did well, but helped his team finish high in the standings. Ryan’s Angels sucked. This flew in total contrast to the NL Cy Young award winner the season before. Steve Carlton of the Phillies finishsed about 27-9, and his team only won about 20 more times outside of Carlton games.

I agree bias exists. Can't prove who, how or when so it doesn't matter. Doesn't concern me as the results speak for themselves. 11 championships in 13 seasons, anchoring the most dominant defense respective of its era in history, with the Finals MVP award named after him. I'd say it's safe to assume "east coast bias" didn't factor in especially when you consider the turbulent racist period Bill dominated.

As far as finals MVPs go, yes they are worth something. It is the ultimate stage. However, it is also common for a better playoff performance to occur earlier to a player whose team loses. Think Michael Jordan and what he did to the Celtics in losing causes back in the 80s. There is also evidence that some series other Boston players did better than Russell in the finals. Elgin Baylor had some monster finals, and if Jerry West could win a finals MVP in a losing effort, Elgin could have as well. So, fnals MVP’s are nice, but you have to get there to win one. Oscar Robertson played in but two finals, and none until Russell left. Of course the ring argument for greatness is recent, as I have proved, so the finals MVP award doesn’t carry as much weight as you think it does,

1) you didn't "prove" that the random poll you remember in 1970 ever took place. Where is the poll? Who administered the poll? Who voted? How can this be verified? Oh you can't? Then that doesn't cons ute "proof." Look up the word in a dictionary.

2) Let's just say that your poll did take place for the sake of argument. And? You referenced 1 poll from 1970 as proof that the "ring argument" is recent. What if another poll taken in 1975 or 1980 revealed something different? Is that too "recent?" Anything pre-1990 could hardly be characterized as "recent."

Regardless, some players do perform better than others in various rounds of the playoffs. It happens all the time. Rajon Rondo had a great 2nd round this past post season. Perhaps he should be recognized as last years best player.

Auerbach has been discussed, as well as those Celtics teams. Matter of fact, funny how you now tout those underdog Celtics and they are proof that teams with NBA championship experience are in the running to win a le as long as their cores are intact! Remember that? That’s when I refuted your ‘Fact” the Spurs are done. You have been given two examples now, and got owned on both.

That's because the 60's Celtics have nothing in common with the Spurs. Nothing. They won 8 straight ships. The Spurs never repeated once. Moreover I didn't offer my statement as "proof that teams with championship experience are in the running to win" again. I specifically pointed out a historical fact that 3 players whom you said were "better" than Bill still couldn't beat him, even though he was on his last legs and they were all in their primes.

The Spurs are trash. The 60s Celtics didn't get bounced out early in consecutive years by crap teams. Nope. They just won over and over again. Wear that idiotic homer cap proud.

Blame Jack Kent Cooke for that loss. He hung the balloons up and had an agenda of what the postgame celebrations would be after the Lakers won the game. Russell got ahold of it and his team stepped up. Blame also the coach for not allowing Wilt back in.

Cop out. The game still has to be played. Players still have to compete and in the end all that matters is the result. This isn't a debate it's an embarrassment to Spurs fans everywhere. I demand better.

Well, as proven above, you are a stat boy. You count MVPs and that’s a stat. Hypocrisy is not allowed, all stats are acceptable in this debate.

You have met your match. Bring more, I love this.

You "proved" that my citation of an award is a stat. Hilarious. Perhaps one of your friends can help you out in understanding the difference so that you won't continue to make a jackass out of yourself in order to have a "comeback" to everything that is said.

As it stands I would be happy to converse with Phila_Chamberlain on the matter further as he has demonstrated a reasonable level of intelligence not the unbecoming belligerence of bag of all Trolls.

[Albert Haynesworth]

I've met some delusional schmucks with a false sense of ego but this one takes the cake so far. Never met a dude who thought more highly of himself despite saying absolutely nothing. And I don't believe that you are 60 years old, there is no way. For the sake of humanity I couldn't believe an old bag who's lived through the civil rights movement, Vietnam and the fall of the wall of Berlin could be this, well, re ed. Acting like a 13 teen year old on the internet? I call bull .

Regardless I do have to point out that there is nothing hypocritical about speaking honestly about the game of basketball. I put the game before my own team and I won't lie about a rival team or player just to be a homer. I know! GASP! I actually do that, something that is a big no no on Spurstalk. You've exposed me as a non-homer!





Irrelevant citation. No one cares about a random poll you think you remember from 40 years ago. The NBA was in its infancy, can't expect anyone to have had the foresight to understand who would be valued most when it was all said and done. By the 80's Russell was regularly discussed as the greatest player of his generation along with Chamberlain.

I know most top 10 lists back me up. Doesn't concern me regardless. I believe Russell's impact speaks for itself. A dominant defensive presence in the middle that commands the paint is the blueprint for championship basketball still now as it was developed by Russell's Celtics in the 60's.

It's actually pretty simple; I think defense is paramount and I think Russell embodied the pinnacle of defensive dominance. I don't only consider him top 10, I have him at the top period. No one player has successfully impacted the game with ability as much imo.



Lol, my God you are an imbecile. "Hey let's just plug and pop players from now into the past." Doesn't work that way, never will and it is completely irrelevant. All of today's players have evolved physically and mentally having learned from what has been established by the game's pioneers. Can we just put Lebron in the past hypothetically and justify that he's the greatest player of all time? Pathetic and moronic. Anyone who respects the game, understands importance of how the path was paved by the past greats would never do this. That is the point. People who know the game know this. Fan boys who want to play pretend sports analyst on message boards do not.



I do give Mikan, Cousy et al all a lot of credit for changing the game in their respective ways.

Nope, won't accept Duncan in the 60s or Ben Wallace in Russell's place because it is irrelevant and actually just down right re ed. It's always about what you do in your own era that matters not the scores of hypotheticals fanboys draw up on the internet. [See Lebron not the greastest player ever reference from earlier]



Wrong. The MVP award, is an award, not a statistic. In game statistics are a separate en y even a moron should understand this. Perhaps we're dealing with even less.

The Bill Russell award, aka the Finals MVP was appropriately named after the player who hypothetically earned the award 10 times. Logic dictates this. Throw in 5 regular season MVP awards and you have the man with the most individual hardware MVP awards in history. So much for it being all about Cousy and Hondo.



I agree bias exists. Can't prove who, how or when so it doesn't matter. Doesn't concern me as the results speak for themselves. 11 championships in 13 seasons, anchoring the most dominant defense respective of its era in history, with the Finals MVP award named after him. I'd say it's safe to assume "east coast bias" didn't factor in especially when you consider the turbulent racist period Bill dominated.



1) you didn't "prove" that the random poll you remember in 1970 ever took place. Where is the poll? Who administered the poll? Who voted? How can this be verified? Oh you can't? Then that doesn't cons ute "proof." Look up the word in a dictionary.

2) Let's just say that your poll did take place for the sake of argument. And? You referenced 1 poll from 1970 as proof that the "ring argument" is recent. What if another poll taken in 1975 or 1980 revealed something different? Is that too "recent?" Anything pre-1990 could hardly be characterized as "recent."

Regardless, some players do perform better than others in various rounds of the playoffs. It happens all the time. Rajon Rondo had a great 2nd round this past post season. Perhaps he should be recognized as last years best player.



That's because the 60's Celtics have nothing in common with the Spurs. Nothing. They won 8 straight ships. The Spurs never repeated once. Moreover I didn't offer my statement as "proof that teams with championship experience are in the running to win" again. I specifically pointed out a historical fact that 3 players whom you said were "better" than Bill still couldn't beat him, even though he was on his last legs and they were all in their primes.

The Spurs are trash. The 60s Celtics didn't get bounced out early in consecutive years by crap teams. Nope. They just won over and over again. Wear that idiotic homer cap proud.



Cop out. The game still has to be played. Players still have to compete and in the end all that matters is the result. This isn't a debate it's an embarrassment to Spurs fans everywhere. I demand better.



You "proved" that my citation of an award is a stat. Hilarious. Perhaps one of your friends can help you out in understanding the difference so that you won't continue to make a jackass out of yourself in order to have a "comeback" to everything that is said.

As it stands I would be happy to converse with Phila_Chamberlain on the matter further as he has demonstrated a reasonable level of intelligence not the unbecoming belligerence of bag of all Trolls.

I've met some delusional schmucks with a false sense of ego but this one takes the cake so far. Never met a dude who thought more highly of himself despite saying absolutely nothing. And I don't believe that you are 60 years old, there is no way. For the sake of humanity I couldn't believe an old bag who's lived through the civil rights movement, Vietnam and the fall of the wall of Berlin could be this, well, re ed. Acting like a 13 teen year old on the internet? I call bull .

Regardless I do have to point out that there is nothing hypocritical about speaking honestly about the game of basketball. I put the game before my own team and I won't lie about a rival team or player just to be a homer. I know! GASP! I actually do that, something that is a big no no on Spurstalk. You've exposed me as a non-homer!





Irrelevant citation. No one cares about a random poll you think you remember from 40 years ago. The NBA was in its infancy, can't expect anyone to have had the foresight to understand who would be valued most when it was all said and done. By the 80's Russell was regularly discussed as the greatest player of his generation along with Chamberlain.

I know most top 10 lists back me up. Doesn't concern me regardless. I believe Russell's impact speaks for itself. A dominant defensive presence in the middle that commands the paint is the blueprint for championship basketball still now as it was developed by Russell's Celtics in the 60's.

It's actually pretty simple; I think defense is paramount and I think Russell embodied the pinnacle of defensive dominance. I don't only consider him top 10, I have him at the top period. No one player has successfully impacted the game with ability as much imo.



Lol, my God you are an imbecile. "Hey let's just plug and pop players from now into the past." Doesn't work that way, never will and it is completely irrelevant. All of today's players have evolved physically and mentally having learned from what has been established by the game's pioneers. Can we just put Lebron in the past hypothetically and justify that he's the greatest player of all time? Pathetic and moronic. Anyone who respects the game, understands importance of how the path was paved by the past greats would never do this. That is the point. People who know the game know this. Fan boys who want to play pretend sports analyst on message boards do not.



I do give Mikan, Cousy et al all a lot of credit for changing the game in their respective ways.

Nope, won't accept Duncan in the 60s or Ben Wallace in Russell's place because it is irrelevant and actually just down right re ed. It's always about what you do in your own era that matters not the scores of hypotheticals fanboys draw up on the internet. [See Lebron not the greastest player ever reference from earlier]



Wrong. The MVP award, is an award, not a statistic. In game statistics are a separate en y even a moron should understand this. Perhaps we're dealing with even less.

The Bill Russell award, aka the Finals MVP was appropriately named after the player who hypothetically earned the award 10 times. Logic dictates this. Throw in 5 regular season MVP awards and you have the man with the most individual hardware MVP awards in history. So much for it being all about Cousy and Hondo.



I agree bias exists. Can't prove who, how or when so it doesn't matter. Doesn't concern me as the results speak for themselves. 11 championships in 13 seasons, anchoring the most dominant defense respective of its era in history, with the Finals MVP award named after him. I'd say it's safe to assume "east coast bias" didn't factor in especially when you consider the turbulent racist period Bill dominated.



1) you didn't "prove" that the random poll you remember in 1970 ever took place. Where is the poll? Who administered the poll? Who voted? How can this be verified? Oh you can't? Then that doesn't cons ute "proof." Look up the word in a dictionary.

2) Let's just say that your poll did take place for the sake of argument. And? You referenced 1 poll from 1970 as proof that the "ring argument" is recent. What if another poll taken in 1975 or 1980 revealed something different? Is that too "recent?" Anything pre-1990 could hardly be characterized as "recent."

Regardless, some players do perform better than others in various rounds of the playoffs. It happens all the time. Rajon Rondo had a great 2nd round this past post season. Perhaps he should be recognized as last years best player.



That's because the 60's Celtics have nothing in common with the Spurs. Nothing. They won 8 straight ships. The Spurs never repeated once. Moreover I didn't offer my statement as "proof that teams with championship experience are in the running to win" again. I specifically pointed out a historical fact that 3 players whom you said were "better" than Bill still couldn't beat him, even though he was on his last legs and they were all in their primes.

The Spurs are trash. The 60s Celtics didn't get bounced out early in consecutive years by crap teams. Nope. They just won over and over again. Wear that idiotic homer cap proud.



Cop out. The game still has to be played. Players still have to compete and in the end all that matters is the result. This isn't a debate it's an embarrassment to Spurs fans everywhere. I demand better.



You "proved" that my citation of an award is a stat. Hilarious. Perhaps one of your friends can help you out in understanding the difference so that you won't continue to make a jackass out of yourself in order to have a "comeback" to everything that is said.

As it stands I would be happy to converse with Phila_Chamberlain on the matter further as he has demonstrated a reasonable level of intelligence not the unbecoming belligerence of bag of all Trolls.

I've met some delusional schmucks with a false sense of ego but this one takes the cake so far. Never met a dude who thought more highly of himself despite saying absolutely nothing. And I don't believe that you are 60 years old, there is no way. For the sake of humanity I couldn't believe an old bag who's lived through the civil rights movement, Vietnam and the fall of the wall of Berlin could be this, well, re ed. Acting like a 13 teen year old on the internet? I call bull .

Regardless I do have to point out that there is nothing hypocritical about speaking honestly about the game of basketball. I put the game before my own team and I won't lie about a rival team or player just to be a homer. I know! GASP! I actually do that, something that is a big no no on Spurstalk. You've exposed me as a non-homer!





Irrelevant citation. No one cares about a random poll you think you remember from 40 years ago. The NBA was in its infancy, can't expect anyone to have had the foresight to understand who would be valued most when it was all said and done. By the 80's Russell was regularly discussed as the greatest player of his generation along with Chamberlain.

I know most top 10 lists back me up. Doesn't concern me regardless. I believe Russell's impact speaks for itself. A dominant defensive presence in the middle that commands the paint is the blueprint for championship basketball still now as it was developed by Russell's Celtics in the 60's.

It's actually pretty simple; I think defense is paramount and I think Russell embodied the pinnacle of defensive dominance. I don't only consider him top 10, I have him at the top period. No one player has successfully impacted the game with ability as much imo.



Lol, my God you are an imbecile. "Hey let's just plug and pop players from now into the past." Doesn't work that way, never will and it is completely irrelevant. All of today's players have evolved physically and mentally having learned from what has been established by the game's pioneers. Can we just put Lebron in the past hypothetically and justify that he's the greatest player of all time? Pathetic and moronic. Anyone who respects the game, understands importance of how the path was paved by the past greats would never do this. That is the point. People who know the game know this. Fan boys who want to play pretend sports analyst on message boards do not.



I do give Mikan, Cousy et al all a lot of credit for changing the game in their respective ways.

Nope, won't accept Duncan in the 60s or Ben Wallace in Russell's place because it is irrelevant and actually just down right re ed. It's always about what you do in your own era that matters not the scores of hypotheticals fanboys draw up on the internet. [See Lebron not the greastest player ever reference from earlier]



Wrong. The MVP award, is an award, not a statistic. In game statistics are a separate en y even a moron should understand this. Perhaps we're dealing with even less.

The Bill Russell award, aka the Finals MVP was appropriately named after the player who hypothetically earned the award 10 times. Logic dictates this. Throw in 5 regular season MVP awards and you have the man with the most individual hardware MVP awards in history. So much for it being all about Cousy and Hondo.



I agree bias exists. Can't prove who, how or when so it doesn't matter. Doesn't concern me as the results speak for themselves. 11 championships in 13 seasons, anchoring the most dominant defense respective of its era in history, with the Finals MVP award named after him. I'd say it's safe to assume "east coast bias" didn't factor in especially when you consider the turbulent racist period Bill dominated.



1) you didn't "prove" that the random poll you remember in 1970 ever took place. Where is the poll? Who administered the poll? Who voted? How can this be verified? Oh you can't? Then that doesn't cons ute "proof." Look up the word in a dictionary.

2) Let's just say that your poll did take place for the sake of argument. And? You referenced 1 poll from 1970 as proof that the "ring argument" is recent. What if another poll taken in 1975 or 1980 revealed something different? Is that too "recent?" Anything pre-1990 could hardly be characterized as "recent."

Regardless, some players do perform better than others in various rounds of the playoffs. It happens all the time. Rajon Rondo had a great 2nd round this past post season. Perhaps he should be recognized as last years best player.



That's because the 60's Celtics have nothing in common with the Spurs. Nothing. They won 8 straight ships. The Spurs never repeated once. Moreover I didn't offer my statement as "proof that teams with championship experience are in the running to win" again. I specifically pointed out a historical fact that 3 players whom you said were "better" than Bill still couldn't beat him, even though he was on his last legs and they were all in their primes.

The Spurs are trash. The 60s Celtics didn't get bounced out early in consecutive years by crap teams. Nope. They just won over and over again. Wear that idiotic homer cap proud.



Cop out. The game still has to be played. Players still have to compete and in the end all that matters is the result. This isn't a debate it's an embarrassment to Spurs fans everywhere. I demand better.



You "proved" that my citation of an award is a stat. Hilarious. Perhaps one of your friends can help you out in understanding the difference so that you won't continue to make a jackass out of yourself in order to have a "comeback" to everything that is said.

As it stands I would be happy to converse with Phila_Chamberlain on the matter further as he has demonstrated a reasonable level of intelligence not the unbecoming belligerence of bag of all Trolls.

I've met some delusional schmucks with a false sense of ego but this one takes the cake so far. Never met a dude who thought more highly of himself despite saying absolutely nothing. And I don't believe that you are 60 years old, there is no way. For the sake of humanity I couldn't believe an old bag who's lived through the civil rights movement, Vietnam and the fall of the wall of Berlin could be this, well, re ed. Acting like a 13 teen year old on the internet? I call bull .

Regardless I do have to point out that there is nothing hypocritical about speaking honestly about the game of basketball. I put the game before my own team and I won't lie about a rival team or player just to be a homer. I know! GASP! I actually do that, something that is a big no no on Spurstalk. You've exposed me as a non-homer!





Irrelevant citation. No one cares about a random poll you think you remember from 40 years ago. The NBA was in its infancy, can't expect anyone to have had the foresight to understand who would be valued most when it was all said and done. By the 80's Russell was regularly discussed as the greatest player of his generation along with Chamberlain.

I know most top 10 lists back me up. Doesn't concern me regardless. I believe Russell's impact speaks for itself. A dominant defensive presence in the middle that commands the paint is the blueprint for championship basketball still now as it was developed by Russell's Celtics in the 60's.

It's actually pretty simple; I think defense is paramount and I think Russell embodied the pinnacle of defensive dominance. I don't only consider him top 10, I have him at the top period. No one player has successfully impacted the game with ability as much imo.



Lol, my God you are an imbecile. "Hey let's just plug and pop players from now into the past." Doesn't work that way, never will and it is completely irrelevant. All of today's players have evolved physically and mentally having learned from what has been established by the game's pioneers. Can we just put Lebron in the past hypothetically and justify that he's the greatest player of all time? Pathetic and moronic. Anyone who respects the game, understands importance of how the path was paved by the past greats would never do this. That is the point. People who know the game know this. Fan boys who want to play pretend sports analyst on message boards do not.



I do give Mikan, Cousy et al all a lot of credit for changing the game in their respective ways.

Nope, won't accept Duncan in the 60s or Ben Wallace in Russell's place because it is irrelevant and actually just down right re ed. It's always about what you do in your own era that matters not the scores of hypotheticals fanboys draw up on the internet. [See Lebron not the greastest player ever reference from earlier]



Wrong. The MVP award, is an award, not a statistic. In game statistics are a separate en y even a moron should understand this. Perhaps we're dealing with even less.

The Bill Russell award, aka the Finals MVP was appropriately named after the player who hypothetically earned the award 10 times. Logic dictates this. Throw in 5 regular season MVP awards and you have the man with the most individual hardware MVP awards in history. So much for it being all about Cousy and Hondo.



I agree bias exists. Can't prove who, how or when so it doesn't matter. Doesn't concern me as the results speak for themselves. 11 championships in 13 seasons, anchoring the most dominant defense respective of its era in history, with the Finals MVP award named after him. I'd say it's safe to assume "east coast bias" didn't factor in especially when you consider the turbulent racist period Bill dominated.



1) you didn't "prove" that the random poll you remember in 1970 ever took place. Where is the poll? Who administered the poll? Who voted? How can this be verified? Oh you can't? Then that doesn't cons ute "proof." Look up the word in a dictionary.

2) Let's just say that your poll did take place for the sake of argument. And? You referenced 1 poll from 1970 as proof that the "ring argument" is recent. What if another poll taken in 1975 or 1980 revealed something different? Is that too "recent?" Anything pre-1990 could hardly be characterized as "recent."

Regardless, some players do perform better than others in various rounds of the playoffs. It happens all the time. Rajon Rondo had a great 2nd round this past post season. Perhaps he should be recognized as last years best player.



That's because the 60's Celtics have nothing in common with the Spurs. Nothing. They won 8 straight ships. The Spurs never repeated once. Moreover I didn't offer my statement as "proof that teams with championship experience are in the running to win" again. I specifically pointed out a historical fact that 3 players whom you said were "better" than Bill still couldn't beat him, even though he was on his last legs and they were all in their primes.

The Spurs are trash. The 60s Celtics didn't get bounced out early in consecutive years by crap teams. Nope. They just won over and over again. Wear that idiotic homer cap proud.



Cop out. The game still has to be played. Players still have to compete and in the end all that matters is the result. This isn't a debate it's an embarrassment to Spurs fans everywhere. I demand better.



You "proved" that my citation of an award is a stat. Hilarious. Perhaps one of your friends can help you out in understanding the difference so that you won't continue to make a jackass out of yourself in order to have a "comeback" to everything that is said.

As it stands I would be happy to converse with Phila_Chamberlain on the matter further as he has demonstrated a reasonable level of intelligence not the unbecoming belligerence of bag of all Trolls.

I've met some delusional schmucks with a false sense of ego but this one takes the cake so far. Never met a dude who thought more highly of himself despite saying absolutely nothing. And I don't believe that you are 60 years old, there is no way. For the sake of humanity I couldn't believe an old bag who's lived through the civil rights movement, Vietnam and the fall of the wall of Berlin could be this, well, re ed. Acting like a 13 teen year old on the internet? I call bull .

Regardless I do have to point out that there is nothing hypocritical about speaking honestly about the game of basketball. I put the game before my own team and I won't lie about a rival team or player just to be a homer. I know! GASP! I actually do that, something that is a big no no on Spurstalk. You've exposed me as a non-homer!





Irrelevant citation. No one cares about a random poll you think you remember from 40 years ago. The NBA was in its infancy, can't expect anyone to have had the foresight to understand who would be valued most when it was all said and done. By the 80's Russell was regularly discussed as the greatest player of his generation along with Chamberlain.

I know most top 10 lists back me up. Doesn't concern me regardless. I believe Russell's impact speaks for itself. A dominant defensive presence in the middle that commands the paint is the blueprint for championship basketball still now as it was developed by Russell's Celtics in the 60's.

It's actually pretty simple; I think defense is paramount and I think Russell embodied the pinnacle of defensive dominance. I don't only consider him top 10, I have him at the top period. No one player has successfully impacted the game with ability as much imo.



Lol, my God you are an imbecile. "Hey let's just plug and pop players from now into the past." Doesn't work that way, never will and it is completely irrelevant. All of today's players have evolved physically and mentally having learned from what has been established by the game's pioneers. Can we just put Lebron in the past hypothetically and justify that he's the greatest player of all time? Pathetic and moronic. Anyone who respects the game, understands importance of how the path was paved by the past greats would never do this. That is the point. People who know the game know this. Fan boys who want to play pretend sports analyst on message boards do not.



I do give Mikan, Cousy et al all a lot of credit for changing the game in their respective ways.

Nope, won't accept Duncan in the 60s or Ben Wallace in Russell's place because it is irrelevant and actually just down right re ed. It's always about what you do in your own era that matters not the scores of hypotheticals fanboys draw up on the internet. [See Lebron not the greastest player ever reference from earlier]



Wrong. The MVP award, is an award, not a statistic. In game statistics are a separate en y even a moron should understand this. Perhaps we're dealing with even less.

The Bill Russell award, aka the Finals MVP was appropriately named after the player who hypothetically earned the award 10 times. Logic dictates this. Throw in 5 regular season MVP awards and you have the man with the most individual hardware MVP awards in history. So much for it being all about Cousy and Hondo.



I agree bias exists. Can't prove who, how or when so it doesn't matter. Doesn't concern me as the results speak for themselves. 11 championships in 13 seasons, anchoring the most dominant defense respective of its era in history, with the Finals MVP award named after him. I'd say it's safe to assume "east coast bias" didn't factor in especially when you consider the turbulent racist period Bill dominated.



1) you didn't "prove" that the random poll you remember in 1970 ever took place. Where is the poll? Who administered the poll? Who voted? How can this be verified? Oh you can't? Then that doesn't cons ute "proof." Look up the word in a dictionary.

2) Let's just say that your poll did take place for the sake of argument. And? You referenced 1 poll from 1970 as proof that the "ring argument" is recent. What if another poll taken in 1975 or 1980 revealed something different? Is that too "recent?" Anything pre-1990 could hardly be characterized as "recent."

Regardless, some players do perform better than others in various rounds of the playoffs. It happens all the time. Rajon Rondo had a great 2nd round this past post season. Perhaps he should be recognized as last years best player.



That's because the 60's Celtics have nothing in common with the Spurs. Nothing. They won 8 straight ships. The Spurs never repeated once. Moreover I didn't offer my statement as "proof that teams with championship experience are in the running to win" again. I specifically pointed out a historical fact that 3 players whom you said were "better" than Bill still couldn't beat him, even though he was on his last legs and they were all in their primes.

The Spurs are trash. The 60s Celtics didn't get bounced out early in consecutive years by crap teams. Nope. They just won over and over again. Wear that idiotic homer cap proud.



Cop out. The game still has to be played. Players still have to compete and in the end all that matters is the result. This isn't a debate it's an embarrassment to Spurs fans everywhere. I demand better.



You "proved" that my citation of an award is a stat. Hilarious. Perhaps one of your friends can help you out in understanding the difference so that you won't continue to make a jackass out of yourself in order to have a "comeback" to everything that is said.

As it stands I would be happy to converse with Phila_Chamberlain on the matter further as he has demonstrated a reasonable level of intelligence not the unbecoming belligerence of bag of all Trolls.

I've met some delusional schmucks with a false sense of ego but this one takes the cake so far. Never met a dude who thought more highly of himself despite saying absolutely nothing. And I don't believe that you are 60 years old, there is no way. For the sake of humanity I couldn't believe an old bag who's lived through the civil rights movement, Vietnam and the fall of the wall of Berlin could be this, well, re ed. Acting like a 13 teen year old on the internet? I call bull .

Regardless I do have to point out that there is nothing hypocritical about speaking honestly about the game of basketball. I put the game before my own team and I won't lie about a rival team or player just to be a homer. I know! GASP! I actually do that, something that is a big no no on Spurstalk. You've exposed me as a non-homer!





Irrelevant citation. No one cares about a random poll you think you remember from 40 years ago. The NBA was in its infancy, can't expect anyone to have had the foresight to understand who would be valued most when it was all said and done. By the 80's Russell was regularly discussed as the greatest player of his generation along with Chamberlain.

I know most top 10 lists back me up. Doesn't concern me regardless. I believe Russell's impact speaks for itself. A dominant defensive presence in the middle that commands the paint is the blueprint for championship basketball still now as it was developed by Russell's Celtics in the 60's.

It's actually pretty simple; I think defense is paramount and I think Russell embodied the pinnacle of defensive dominance. I don't only consider him top 10, I have him at the top period. No one player has successfully impacted the game with ability as much imo.



Lol, my God you are an imbecile. "Hey let's just plug and pop players from now into the past." Doesn't work that way, never will and it is completely irrelevant. All of today's players have evolved physically and mentally having learned from what has been established by the game's pioneers. Can we just put Lebron in the past hypothetically and justify that he's the greatest player of all time? Pathetic and moronic. Anyone who respects the game, understands importance of how the path was paved by the past greats would never do this. That is the point. People who know the game know this. Fan boys who want to play pretend sports analyst on message boards do not.



I do give Mikan, Cousy et al all a lot of credit for changing the game in their respective ways.

Nope, won't accept Duncan in the 60s or Ben Wallace in Russell's place because it is irrelevant and actually just down right re ed. It's always about what you do in your own era that matters not the scores of hypotheticals fanboys draw up on the internet. [See Lebron not the greastest player ever reference from earlier]



Wrong. The MVP award, is an award, not a statistic. In game statistics are a separate en y even a moron should understand this. Perhaps we're dealing with even less.

The Bill Russell award, aka the Finals MVP was appropriately named after the player who hypothetically earned the award 10 times. Logic dictates this. Throw in 5 regular season MVP awards and you have the man with the most individual hardware MVP awards in history. So much for it being all about Cousy and Hondo.



I agree bias exists. Can't prove who, how or when so it doesn't matter. Doesn't concern me as the results speak for themselves. 11 championships in 13 seasons, anchoring the most dominant defense respective of its era in history, with the Finals MVP award named after him. I'd say it's safe to assume "east coast bias" didn't factor in especially when you consider the turbulent racist period Bill dominated.



1) you didn't "prove" that the random poll you remember in 1970 ever took place. Where is the poll? Who administered the poll? Who voted? How can this be verified? Oh you can't? Then that doesn't cons ute "proof." Look up the word in a dictionary.

2) Let's just say that your poll did take place for the sake of argument. And? You referenced 1 poll from 1970 as proof that the "ring argument" is recent. What if another poll taken in 1975 or 1980 revealed something different? Is that too "recent?" Anything pre-1990 could hardly be characterized as "recent."

Regardless, some players do perform better than others in various rounds of the playoffs. It happens all the time. Rajon Rondo had a great 2nd round this past post season. Perhaps he should be recognized as last years best player.



That's because the 60's Celtics have nothing in common with the Spurs. Nothing. They won 8 straight ships. The Spurs never repeated once. Moreover I didn't offer my statement as "proof that teams with championship experience are in the running to win" again. I specifically pointed out a historical fact that 3 players whom you said were "better" than Bill still couldn't beat him, even though he was on his last legs and they were all in their primes.

The Spurs are trash. The 60s Celtics didn't get bounced out early in consecutive years by crap teams. Nope. They just won over and over again. Wear that idiotic homer cap proud.



Cop out. The game still has to be played. Players still have to compete and in the end all that matters is the result. This isn't a debate it's an embarrassment to Spurs fans everywhere. I demand better.



You "proved" that my citation of an award is a stat. Hilarious. Perhaps one of your friends can help you out in understanding the difference so that you won't continue to make a jackass out of yourself in order to have a "comeback" to everything that is said.

As it stands I would be happy to converse with Phila_Chamberlain on the matter further as he has demonstrated a reasonable level of intelligence not the unbecoming belligerence of bag of all Trolls.

I've met some delusional schmucks with a false sense of ego but this one takes the cake so far. Never met a dude who thought more highly of himself despite saying absolutely nothing. And I don't believe that you are 60 years old, there is no way. For the sake of humanity I couldn't believe an old bag who's lived through the civil rights movement, Vietnam and the fall of the wall of Berlin could be this, well, re ed. Acting like a 13 teen year old on the internet? I call bull .

Regardless I do have to point out that there is nothing hypocritical about speaking honestly about the game of basketball. I put the game before my own team and I won't lie about a rival team or player just to be a homer. I know! GASP! I actually do that, something that is a big no no on Spurstalk. You've exposed me as a non-homer!





Irrelevant citation. No one cares about a random poll you think you remember from 40 years ago. The NBA was in its infancy, can't expect anyone to have had the foresight to understand who would be valued most when it was all said and done. By the 80's Russell was regularly discussed as the greatest player of his generation along with Chamberlain.

I know most top 10 lists back me up. Doesn't concern me regardless. I believe Russell's impact speaks for itself. A dominant defensive presence in the middle that commands the paint is the blueprint for championship basketball still now as it was developed by Russell's Celtics in the 60's.

It's actually pretty simple; I think defense is paramount and I think Russell embodied the pinnacle of defensive dominance. I don't only consider him top 10, I have him at the top period. No one player has successfully impacted the game with ability as much imo.



Lol, my God you are an imbecile. "Hey let's just plug and pop players from now into the past." Doesn't work that way, never will and it is completely irrelevant. All of today's players have evolved physically and mentally having learned from what has been established by the game's pioneers. Can we just put Lebron in the past hypothetically and justify that he's the greatest player of all time? Pathetic and moronic. Anyone who respects the game, understands importance of how the path was paved by the past greats would never do this. That is the point. People who know the game know this. Fan boys who want to play pretend sports analyst on message boards do not.



I do give Mikan, Cousy et al all a lot of credit for changing the game in their respective ways.

Nope, won't accept Duncan in the 60s or Ben Wallace in Russell's place because it is irrelevant and actually just down right re ed. It's always about what you do in your own era that matters not the scores of hypotheticals fanboys draw up on the internet. [See Lebron not the greastest player ever reference from earlier]



Wrong. The MVP award, is an award, not a statistic. In game statistics are a separate en y even a moron should understand this. Perhaps we're dealing with even less.

The Bill Russell award, aka the Finals MVP was appropriately named after the player who hypothetically earned the award 10 times. Logic dictates this. Throw in 5 regular season MVP awards and you have the man with the most individual hardware MVP awards in history. So much for it being all about Cousy and Hondo.



I agree bias exists. Can't prove who, how or when so it doesn't matter. Doesn't concern me as the results speak for themselves. 11 championships in 13 seasons, anchoring the most dominant defense respective of its era in history, with the Finals MVP award named after him. I'd say it's safe to assume "east coast bias" didn't factor in especially when you consider the turbulent racist period Bill dominated.



1) you didn't "prove" that the random poll you remember in 1970 ever took place. Where is the poll? Who administered the poll? Who voted? How can this be verified? Oh you can't? Then that doesn't cons ute "proof." Look up the word in a dictionary.

2) Let's just say that your poll did take place for the sake of argument. And? You referenced 1 poll from 1970 as proof that the "ring argument" is recent. What if another poll taken in 1975 or 1980 revealed something different? Is that too "recent?" Anything pre-1990 could hardly be characterized as "recent."

Regardless, some players do perform better than others in various rounds of the playoffs. It happens all the time. Rajon Rondo had a great 2nd round this past post season. Perhaps he should be recognized as last years best player.



That's because the 60's Celtics have nothing in common with the Spurs. Nothing. They won 8 straight ships. The Spurs never repeated once. Moreover I didn't offer my statement as "proof that teams with championship experience are in the running to win" again. I specifically pointed out a historical fact that 3 players whom you said were "better" than Bill still couldn't beat him, even though he was on his last legs and they were all in their primes.

The Spurs are trash. The 60s Celtics didn't get bounced out early in consecutive years by crap teams. Nope. They just won over and over again. Wear that idiotic homer cap proud.



Cop out. The game still has to be played. Players still have to compete and in the end all that matters is the result. This isn't a debate it's an embarrassment to Spurs fans everywhere. I demand better.



You "proved" that my citation of an award is a stat. Hilarious. Perhaps one of your friends can help you out in understanding the difference so that you won't continue to make a jackass out of yourself in order to have a "comeback" to everything that is said.

As it stands I would be happy to converse with Phila_Chamberlain on the matter further as he has demonstrated a reasonable level of intelligence not the unbecoming belligerence of bag of all Trolls.

I've met some delusional schmucks with a false sense of ego but this one takes the cake so far. Never met a dude who thought more highly of himself despite saying absolutely nothing. And I don't believe that you are 60 years old, there is no way. For the sake of humanity I couldn't believe an old bag who's lived through the civil rights movement, Vietnam and the fall of the wall of Berlin could be this, well, re ed. Acting like a 13 teen year old on the internet? I call bull .

Regardless I do have to point out that there is nothing hypocritical about speaking honestly about the game of basketball. I put the game before my own team and I won't lie about a rival team or player just to be a homer. I know! GASP! I actually do that, something that is a big no no on Spurstalk. You've exposed me as a non-homer!





Irrelevant citation. No one cares about a random poll you think you remember from 40 years ago. The NBA was in its infancy, can't expect anyone to have had the foresight to understand who would be valued most when it was all said and done. By the 80's Russell was regularly discussed as the greatest player of his generation along with Chamberlain.

I know most top 10 lists back me up. Doesn't concern me regardless. I believe Russell's impact speaks for itself. A dominant defensive presence in the middle that commands the paint is the blueprint for championship basketball still now as it was developed by Russell's Celtics in the 60's.

It's actually pretty simple; I think defense is paramount and I think Russell embodied the pinnacle of defensive dominance. I don't only consider him top 10, I have him at the top period. No one player has successfully impacted the game with ability as much imo.



Lol, my God you are an imbecile. "Hey let's just plug and pop players from now into the past." Doesn't work that way, never will and it is completely irrelevant. All of today's players have evolved physically and mentally having learned from what has been established by the game's pioneers. Can we just put Lebron in the past hypothetically and justify that he's the greatest player of all time? Pathetic and moronic. Anyone who respects the game, understands importance of how the path was paved by the past greats would never do this. That is the point. People who know the game know this. Fan boys who want to play pretend sports analyst on message boards do not.



I do give Mikan, Cousy et al all a lot of credit for changing the game in their respective ways.

Nope, won't accept Duncan in the 60s or Ben Wallace in Russell's place because it is irrelevant and actually just down right re ed. It's always about what you do in your own era that matters not the scores of hypotheticals fanboys draw up on the internet. [See Lebron not the greastest player ever reference from earlier]



Wrong. The MVP award, is an award, not a statistic. In game statistics are a separate en y even a moron should understand this. Perhaps we're dealing with even less.

The Bill Russell award, aka the Finals MVP was appropriately named after the player who hypothetically earned the award 10 times. Logic dictates this. Throw in 5 regular season MVP awards and you have the man with the most individual hardware MVP awards in history. So much for it being all about Cousy and Hondo.



I agree bias exists. Can't prove who, how or when so it doesn't matter. Doesn't concern me as the results speak for themselves. 11 championships in 13 seasons, anchoring the most dominant defense respective of its era in history, with the Finals MVP award named after him. I'd say it's safe to assume "east coast bias" didn't factor in especially when you consider the turbulent racist period Bill dominated.



1) you didn't "prove" that the random poll you remember in 1970 ever took place. Where is the poll? Who administered the poll? Who voted? How can this be verified? Oh you can't? Then that doesn't cons ute "proof." Look up the word in a dictionary.

2) Let's just say that your poll did take place for the sake of argument. And? You referenced 1 poll from 1970 as proof that the "ring argument" is recent. What if another poll taken in 1975 or 1980 revealed something different? Is that too "recent?" Anything pre-1990 could hardly be characterized as "recent."

Regardless, some players do perform better than others in various rounds of the playoffs. It happens all the time. Rajon Rondo had a great 2nd round this past post season. Perhaps he should be recognized as last years best player.



That's because the 60's Celtics have nothing in common with the Spurs. Nothing. They won 8 straight ships. The Spurs never repeated once. Moreover I didn't offer my statement as "proof that teams with championship experience are in the running to win" again. I specifically pointed out a historical fact that 3 players whom you said were "better" than Bill still couldn't beat him, even though he was on his last legs and they were all in their primes.

The Spurs are trash. The 60s Celtics didn't get bounced out early in consecutive years by crap teams. Nope. They just won over and over again. Wear that idiotic homer cap proud.



Cop out. The game still has to be played. Players still have to compete and in the end all that matters is the result. This isn't a debate it's an embarrassment to Spurs fans everywhere. I demand better.



You "proved" that my citation of an award is a stat. Hilarious. Perhaps one of your friends can help you out in understanding the difference so that you won't continue to make a jackass out of yourself in order to have a "comeback" to everything that is said.

As it stands I would be happy to converse with Phila_Chamberlain on the matter further as he has demonstrated a reasonable level of intelligence not the unbecoming belligerence of bag of all Trolls.

I've met some delusional schmucks with a false sense of ego but this one takes the cake so far. Never met a dude who thought more highly of himself despite saying absolutely nothing. And I don't believe that you are 60 years old, there is no way. For the sake of humanity I couldn't believe an old bag who's lived through the civil rights movement, Vietnam and the fall of the wall of Berlin could be this, well, re ed. Acting like a 13 teen year old on the internet? I call bull .

Regardless I do have to point out that there is nothing hypocritical about speaking honestly about the game of basketball. I put the game before my own team and I won't lie about a rival team or player just to be a homer. I know! GASP! I actually do that, something that is a big no no on Spurstalk. You've exposed me as a non-homer!





Irrelevant citation. No one cares about a random poll you think you remember from 40 years ago. The NBA was in its infancy, can't expect anyone to have had the foresight to understand who would be valued most when it was all said and done. By the 80's Russell was regularly discussed as the greatest player of his generation along with Chamberlain.

I know most top 10 lists back me up. Doesn't concern me regardless. I believe Russell's impact speaks for itself. A dominant defensive presence in the middle that commands the paint is the blueprint for championship basketball still now as it was developed by Russell's Celtics in the 60's.

It's actually pretty simple; I think defense is paramount and I think Russell embodied the pinnacle of defensive dominance. I don't only consider him top 10, I have him at the top period. No one player has successfully impacted the game with ability as much imo.



Lol, my God you are an imbecile. "Hey let's just plug and pop players from now into the past." Doesn't work that way, never will and it is completely irrelevant. All of today's players have evolved physically and mentally having learned from what has been established by the game's pioneers. Can we just put Lebron in the past hypothetically and justify that he's the greatest player of all time? Pathetic and moronic. Anyone who respects the game, understands importance of how the path was paved by the past greats would never do this. That is the point. People who know the game know this. Fan boys who want to play pretend sports analyst on message boards do not.



I do give Mikan, Cousy et al all a lot of credit for changing the game in their respective ways.

Nope, won't accept Duncan in the 60s or Ben Wallace in Russell's place because it is irrelevant and actually just down right re ed. It's always about what you do in your own era that matters not the scores of hypotheticals fanboys draw up on the internet. [See Lebron not the greastest player ever reference from earlier]



Wrong. The MVP award, is an award, not a statistic. In game statistics are a separate en y even a moron should understand this. Perhaps we're dealing with even less.

The Bill Russell award, aka the Finals MVP was appropriately named after the player who hypothetically earned the award 10 times. Logic dictates this. Throw in 5 regular season MVP awards and you have the man with the most individual hardware MVP awards in history. So much for it being all about Cousy and Hondo.



I agree bias exists. Can't prove who, how or when so it doesn't matter. Doesn't concern me as the results speak for themselves. 11 championships in 13 seasons, anchoring the most dominant defense respective of its era in history, with the Finals MVP award named after him. I'd say it's safe to assume "east coast bias" didn't factor in especially when you consider the turbulent racist period Bill dominated.



1) you didn't "prove" that the random poll you remember in 1970 ever took place. Where is the poll? Who administered the poll? Who voted? How can this be verified? Oh you can't? Then that doesn't cons ute "proof." Look up the word in a dictionary.

2) Let's just say that your poll did take place for the sake of argument. And? You referenced 1 poll from 1970 as proof that the "ring argument" is recent. What if another poll taken in 1975 or 1980 revealed something different? Is that too "recent?" Anything pre-1990 could hardly be characterized as "recent."

Regardless, some players do perform better than others in various rounds of the playoffs. It happens all the time. Rajon Rondo had a great 2nd round this past post season. Perhaps he should be recognized as last years best player.



That's because the 60's Celtics have nothing in common with the Spurs. Nothing. They won 8 straight ships. The Spurs never repeated once. Moreover I didn't offer my statement as "proof that teams with championship experience are in the running to win" again. I specifically pointed out a historical fact that 3 players whom you said were "better" than Bill still couldn't beat him, even though he was on his last legs and they were all in their primes.

The Spurs are trash. The 60s Celtics didn't get bounced out early in consecutive years by crap teams. Nope. They just won over and over again. Wear that idiotic homer cap proud.



Cop out. The game still has to be played. Players still have to compete and in the end all that matters is the result. This isn't a debate it's an embarrassment to Spurs fans everywhere. I demand better.



You "proved" that my citation of an award is a stat. Hilarious. Perhaps one of your friends can help you out in understanding the difference so that you won't continue to make a jackass out of yourself in order to have a "comeback" to everything that is said.

As it stands I would be happy to converse with Phila_Chamberlain on the matter further as he has demonstrated a reasonable level of intelligence not the unbecoming belligerence of bag of all Trolls.

I've met some delusional schmucks with a false sense of ego but this one takes the cake so far. Never met a dude who thought more highly of himself despite saying absolutely nothing. And I don't believe that you are 60 years old, there is no way. For the sake of humanity I couldn't believe an old bag who's lived through the civil rights movement, Vietnam and the fall of the wall of Berlin could be this, well, re ed. Acting like a 13 teen year old on the internet? I call bull .

Regardless I do have to point out that there is nothing hypocritical about speaking honestly about the game of basketball. I put the game before my own team and I won't lie about a rival team or player just to be a homer. I know! GASP! I actually do that, something that is a big no no on Spurstalk. You've exposed me as a non-homer!





Irrelevant citation. No one cares about a random poll you think you remember from 40 years ago. The NBA was in its infancy, can't expect anyone to have had the foresight to understand who would be valued most when it was all said and done. By the 80's Russell was regularly discussed as the greatest player of his generation along with Chamberlain.

I know most top 10 lists back me up. Doesn't concern me regardless. I believe Russell's impact speaks for itself. A dominant defensive presence in the middle that commands the paint is the blueprint for championship basketball still now as it was developed by Russell's Celtics in the 60's.

It's actually pretty simple; I think defense is paramount and I think Russell embodied the pinnacle of defensive dominance. I don't only consider him top 10, I have him at the top period. No one player has successfully impacted the game with ability as much imo.



Lol, my God you are an imbecile. "Hey let's just plug and pop players from now into the past." Doesn't work that way, never will and it is completely irrelevant. All of today's players have evolved physically and mentally having learned from what has been established by the game's pioneers. Can we just put Lebron in the past hypothetically and justify that he's the greatest player of all time? Pathetic and moronic. Anyone who respects the game, understands importance of how the path was paved by the past greats would never do this. That is the point. People who know the game know this. Fan boys who want to play pretend sports analyst on message boards do not.



I do give Mikan, Cousy et al all a lot of credit for changing the game in their respective ways.

Nope, won't accept Duncan in the 60s or Ben Wallace in Russell's place because it is irrelevant and actually just down right re ed. It's always about what you do in your own era that matters not the scores of hypotheticals fanboys draw up on the internet. [See Lebron not the greastest player ever reference from earlier]



Wrong. The MVP award, is an award, not a statistic. In game statistics are a separate en y even a moron should understand this. Perhaps we're dealing with even less.

The Bill Russell award, aka the Finals MVP was appropriately named after the player who hypothetically earned the award 10 times. Logic dictates this. Throw in 5 regular season MVP awards and you have the man with the most individual hardware MVP awards in history. So much for it being all about Cousy and Hondo.



I agree bias exists. Can't prove who, how or when so it doesn't matter. Doesn't concern me as the results speak for themselves. 11 championships in 13 seasons, anchoring the most dominant defense respective of its era in history, with the Finals MVP award named after him. I'd say it's safe to assume "east coast bias" didn't factor in especially when you consider the turbulent racist period Bill dominated.



1) you didn't "prove" that the random poll you remember in 1970 ever took place. Where is the poll? Who administered the poll? Who voted? How can this be verified? Oh you can't? Then that doesn't cons ute "proof." Look up the word in a dictionary.

2) Let's just say that your poll did take place for the sake of argument. And? You referenced 1 poll from 1970 as proof that the "ring argument" is recent. What if another poll taken in 1975 or 1980 revealed something different? Is that too "recent?" Anything pre-1990 could hardly be characterized as "recent."

Regardless, some players do perform better than others in various rounds of the playoffs. It happens all the time. Rajon Rondo had a great 2nd round this past post season. Perhaps he should be recognized as last years best player.



That's because the 60's Celtics have nothing in common with the Spurs. Nothing. They won 8 straight ships. The Spurs never repeated once. Moreover I didn't offer my statement as "proof that teams with championship experience are in the running to win" again. I specifically pointed out a historical fact that 3 players whom you said were "better" than Bill still couldn't beat him, even though he was on his last legs and they were all in their primes.

The Spurs are trash. The 60s Celtics didn't get bounced out early in consecutive years by crap teams. Nope. They just won over and over again. Wear that idiotic homer cap proud.



Cop out. The game still has to be played. Players still have to compete and in the end all that matters is the result. This isn't a debate it's an embarrassment to Spurs fans everywhere. I demand better.



You "proved" that my citation of an award is a stat. Hilarious. Perhaps one of your friends can help you out in understanding the difference so that you won't continue to make a jackass out of yourself in order to have a "comeback" to everything that is said.

As it stands I would be happy to converse with Phila_Chamberlain on the matter further as he has demonstrated a reasonable level of intelligence not the unbecoming belligerence of bag of all Trolls.

I've met some delusional schmucks with a false sense of ego but this one takes the cake so far. Never met a dude who thought more highly of himself despite saying absolutely nothing. And I don't believe that you are 60 years old, there is no way. For the sake of humanity I couldn't believe an old bag who's lived through the civil rights movement, Vietnam and the fall of the wall of Berlin could be this, well, re ed. Acting like a 13 teen year old on the internet? I call bull .

Regardless I do have to point out that there is nothing hypocritical about speaking honestly about the game of basketball. I put the game before my own team and I won't lie about a rival team or player just to be a homer. I know! GASP! I actually do that, something that is a big no no on Spurstalk. You've exposed me as a non-homer!





Irrelevant citation. No one cares about a random poll you think you remember from 40 years ago. The NBA was in its infancy, can't expect anyone to have had the foresight to understand who would be valued most when it was all said and done. By the 80's Russell was regularly discussed as the greatest player of his generation along with Chamberlain.

I know most top 10 lists back me up. Doesn't concern me regardless. I believe Russell's impact speaks for itself. A dominant defensive presence in the middle that commands the paint is the blueprint for championship basketball still now as it was developed by Russell's Celtics in the 60's.

It's actually pretty simple; I think defense is paramount and I think Russell embodied the pinnacle of defensive dominance. I don't only consider him top 10, I have him at the top period. No one player has successfully impacted the game with ability as much imo.



Lol, my God you are an imbecile. "Hey let's just plug and pop players from now into the past." Doesn't work that way, never will and it is completely irrelevant. All of today's players have evolved physically and mentally having learned from what has been established by the game's pioneers. Can we just put Lebron in the past hypothetically and justify that he's the greatest player of all time? Pathetic and moronic. Anyone who respects the game, understands importance of how the path was paved by the past greats would never do this. That is the point. People who know the game know this. Fan boys who want to play pretend sports analyst on message boards do not.



I do give Mikan, Cousy et al all a lot of credit for changing the game in their respective ways.

Nope, won't accept Duncan in the 60s or Ben Wallace in Russell's place because it is irrelevant and actually just down right re ed. It's always about what you do in your own era that matters not the scores of hypotheticals fanboys draw up on the internet. [See Lebron not the greastest player ever reference from earlier]



Wrong. The MVP award, is an award, not a statistic. In game statistics are a separate en y even a moron should understand this. Perhaps we're dealing with even less.

The Bill Russell award, aka the Finals MVP was appropriately named after the player who hypothetically earned the award 10 times. Logic dictates this. Throw in 5 regular season MVP awards and you have the man with the most individual hardware MVP awards in history. So much for it being all about Cousy and Hondo.



I agree bias exists. Can't prove who, how or when so it doesn't matter. Doesn't concern me as the results speak for themselves. 11 championships in 13 seasons, anchoring the most dominant defense respective of its era in history, with the Finals MVP award named after him. I'd say it's safe to assume "east coast bias" didn't factor in especially when you consider the turbulent racist period Bill dominated.



1) you didn't "prove" that the random poll you remember in 1970 ever took place. Where is the poll? Who administered the poll? Who voted? How can this be verified? Oh you can't? Then that doesn't cons ute "proof." Look up the word in a dictionary.

2) Let's just say that your poll did take place for the sake of argument. And? You referenced 1 poll from 1970 as proof that the "ring argument" is recent. What if another poll taken in 1975 or 1980 revealed something different? Is that too "recent?" Anything pre-1990 could hardly be characterized as "recent."

Regardless, some players do perform better than others in various rounds of the playoffs. It happens all the time. Rajon Rondo had a great 2nd round this past post season. Perhaps he should be recognized as last years best player.



That's because the 60's Celtics have nothing in common with the Spurs. Nothing. They won 8 straight ships. The Spurs never repeated once. Moreover I didn't offer my statement as "proof that teams with championship experience are in the running to win" again. I specifically pointed out a historical fact that 3 players whom you said were "better" than Bill still couldn't beat him, even though he was on his last legs and they were all in their primes.

The Spurs are trash. The 60s Celtics didn't get bounced out early in consecutive years by crap teams. Nope. They just won over and over again. Wear that idiotic homer cap proud.



Cop out. The game still has to be played. Players still have to compete and in the end all that matters is the result. This isn't a debate it's an embarrassment to Spurs fans everywhere. I demand better.



You "proved" that my citation of an award is a stat. Hilarious. Perhaps one of your friends can help you out in understanding the difference so that you won't continue to make a jackass out of yourself in order to have a "comeback" to everything that is said.

As it stands I would be happy to converse with Phila_Chamberlain on the matter further as he has demonstrated a reasonable level of intelligence not the unbecoming belligerence of bag of all Trolls.

I've met some delusional schmucks with a false sense of ego but this one takes the cake so far. Never met a dude who thought more highly of himself despite saying absolutely nothing. And I don't believe that you are 60 years old, there is no way. For the sake of humanity I couldn't believe an old bag who's lived through the civil rights movement, Vietnam and the fall of the wall of Berlin could be this, well, re ed. Acting like a 13 teen year old on the internet? I call bull .

Regardless I do have to point out that there is nothing hypocritical about speaking honestly about the game of basketball. I put the game before my own team and I won't lie about a rival team or player just to be a homer. I know! GASP! I actually do that, something that is a big no no on Spurstalk. You've exposed me as a non-homer!





Irrelevant citation. No one cares about a random poll you think you remember from 40 years ago. The NBA was in its infancy, can't expect anyone to have had the foresight to understand who would be valued most when it was all said and done. By the 80's Russell was regularly discussed as the greatest player of his generation along with Chamberlain.

I know most top 10 lists back me up. Doesn't concern me regardless. I believe Russell's impact speaks for itself. A dominant defensive presence in the middle that commands the paint is the blueprint for championship basketball still now as it was developed by Russell's Celtics in the 60's.

It's actually pretty simple; I think defense is paramount and I think Russell embodied the pinnacle of defensive dominance. I don't only consider him top 10, I have him at the top period. No one player has successfully impacted the game with ability as much imo.



Lol, my God you are an imbecile. "Hey let's just plug and pop players from now into the past." Doesn't work that way, never will and it is completely irrelevant. All of today's players have evolved physically and mentally having learned from what has been established by the game's pioneers. Can we just put Lebron in the past hypothetically and justify that he's the greatest player of all time? Pathetic and moronic. Anyone who respects the game, understands importance of how the path was paved by the past greats would never do this. That is the point. People who know the game know this. Fan boys who want to play pretend sports analyst on message boards do not.



I do give Mikan, Cousy et al all a lot of credit for changing the game in their respective ways.

Nope, won't accept Duncan in the 60s or Ben Wallace in Russell's place because it is irrelevant and actually just down right re ed. It's always about what you do in your own era that matters not the scores of hypotheticals fanboys draw up on the internet. [See Lebron not the greastest player ever reference from earlier]



Wrong. The MVP award, is an award, not a statistic. In game statistics are a separate en y even a moron should understand this. Perhaps we're dealing with even less.

The Bill Russell award, aka the Finals MVP was appropriately named after the player who hypothetically earned the award 10 times. Logic dictates this. Throw in 5 regular season MVP awards and you have the man with the most individual hardware MVP awards in history. So much for it being all about Cousy and Hondo.



I agree bias exists. Can't prove who, how or when so it doesn't matter. Doesn't concern me as the results speak for themselves. 11 championships in 13 seasons, anchoring the most dominant defense respective of its era in history, with the Finals MVP award named after him. I'd say it's safe to assume "east coast bias" didn't factor in especially when you consider the turbulent racist period Bill dominated.



1) you didn't "prove" that the random poll you remember in 1970 ever took place. Where is the poll? Who administered the poll? Who voted? How can this be verified? Oh you can't? Then that doesn't cons ute "proof." Look up the word in a dictionary.

2) Let's just say that your poll did take place for the sake of argument. And? You referenced 1 poll from 1970 as proof that the "ring argument" is recent. What if another poll taken in 1975 or 1980 revealed something different? Is that too "recent?" Anything pre-1990 could hardly be characterized as "recent."

Regardless, some players do perform better than others in various rounds of the playoffs. It happens all the time. Rajon Rondo had a great 2nd round this past post season. Perhaps he should be recognized as last years best player.



That's because the 60's Celtics have nothing in common with the Spurs. Nothing. They won 8 straight ships. The Spurs never repeated once. Moreover I didn't offer my statement as "proof that teams with championship experience are in the running to win" again. I specifically pointed out a historical fact that 3 players whom you said were "better" than Bill still couldn't beat him, even though he was on his last legs and they were all in their primes.

The Spurs are trash. The 60s Celtics didn't get bounced out early in consecutive years by crap teams. Nope. They just won over and over again. Wear that idiotic homer cap proud.



Cop out. The game still has to be played. Players still have to compete and in the end all that matters is the result. This isn't a debate it's an embarrassment to Spurs fans everywhere. I demand better.



You "proved" that my citation of an award is a stat. Hilarious. Perhaps one of your friends can help you out in understanding the difference so that you won't continue to make a jackass out of yourself in order to have a "comeback" to everything that is said.

As it stands I would be happy to converse with Phila_Chamberlain on the matter further as he has demonstrated a reasonable level of intelligence not the unbecoming belligerence of bag of all Trolls.

I've met some delusional schmucks with a false sense of ego but this one takes the cake so far. Never met a dude who thought more highly of himself despite saying absolutely nothing. And I don't believe that you are 60 years old, there is no way. For the sake of humanity I couldn't believe an old bag who's lived through the civil rights movement, Vietnam and the fall of the wall of Berlin could be this, well, re ed. Acting like a 13 teen year old on the internet? I call bull .

Regardless I do have to point out that there is nothing hypocritical about speaking honestly about the game of basketball. I put the game before my own team and I won't lie about a rival team or player just to be a homer. I know! GASP! I actually do that, something that is a big no no on Spurstalk. You've exposed me as a non-homer!





Irrelevant citation. No one cares about a random poll you think you remember from 40 years ago. The NBA was in its infancy, can't expect anyone to have had the foresight to understand who would be valued most when it was all said and done. By the 80's Russell was regularly discussed as the greatest player of his generation along with Chamberlain.

I know most top 10 lists back me up. Doesn't concern me regardless. I believe Russell's impact speaks for itself. A dominant defensive presence in the middle that commands the paint is the blueprint for championship basketball still now as it was developed by Russell's Celtics in the 60's.

It's actually pretty simple; I think defense is paramount and I think Russell embodied the pinnacle of defensive dominance. I don't only consider him top 10, I have him at the top period. No one player has successfully impacted the game with ability as much imo.



Lol, my God you are an imbecile. "Hey let's just plug and pop players from now into the past." Doesn't work that way, never will and it is completely irrelevant. All of today's players have evolved physically and mentally having learned from what has been established by the game's pioneers. Can we just put Lebron in the past hypothetically and justify that he's the greatest player of all time? Pathetic and moronic. Anyone who respects the game, understands importance of how the path was paved by the past greats would never do this. That is the point. People who know the game know this. Fan boys who want to play pretend sports analyst on message boards do not.



I do give Mikan, Cousy et al all a lot of credit for changing the game in their respective ways.

Nope, won't accept Duncan in the 60s or Ben Wallace in Russell's place because it is irrelevant and actually just down right re ed. It's always about what you do in your own era that matters not the scores of hypotheticals fanboys draw up on the internet. [See Lebron not the greastest player ever reference from earlier]



Wrong. The MVP award, is an award, not a statistic. In game statistics are a separate en y even a moron should understand this. Perhaps we're dealing with even less.

The Bill Russell award, aka the Finals MVP was appropriately named after the player who hypothetically earned the award 10 times. Logic dictates this. Throw in 5 regular season MVP awards and you have the man with the most individual hardware MVP awards in history. So much for it being all about Cousy and Hondo.



I agree bias exists. Can't prove who, how or when so it doesn't matter. Doesn't concern me as the results speak for themselves. 11 championships in 13 seasons, anchoring the most dominant defense respective of its era in history, with the Finals MVP award named after him. I'd say it's safe to assume "east coast bias" didn't factor in especially when you consider the turbulent racist period Bill dominated.



1) you didn't "prove" that the random poll you remember in 1970 ever took place. Where is the poll? Who administered the poll? Who voted? How can this be verified? Oh you can't? Then that doesn't cons ute "proof." Look up the word in a dictionary.

2) Let's just say that your poll did take place for the sake of argument. And? You referenced 1 poll from 1970 as proof that the "ring argument" is recent. What if another poll taken in 1975 or 1980 revealed something different? Is that too "recent?" Anything pre-1990 could hardly be characterized as "recent."

Regardless, some players do perform better than others in various rounds of the playoffs. It happens all the time. Rajon Rondo had a great 2nd round this past post season. Perhaps he should be recognized as last years best player.



That's because the 60's Celtics have nothing in common with the Spurs. Nothing. They won 8 straight ships. The Spurs never repeated once. Moreover I didn't offer my statement as "proof that teams with championship experience are in the running to win" again. I specifically pointed out a historical fact that 3 players whom you said were "better" than Bill still couldn't beat him, even though he was on his last legs and they were all in their primes.

The Spurs are trash. The 60s Celtics didn't get bounced out early in consecutive years by crap teams. Nope. They just won over and over again. Wear that idiotic homer cap proud.



Cop out. The game still has to be played. Players still have to compete and in the end all that matters is the result. This isn't a debate it's an embarrassment to Spurs fans everywhere. I demand better.



You "proved" that my citation of an award is a stat. Hilarious. Perhaps one of your friends can help you out in understanding the difference so that you won't continue to make a jackass out of yourself in order to have a "comeback" to everything that is said.

As it stands I would be happy to converse with Phila_Chamberlain on the matter further as he has demonstrated a reasonable level of intelligence not the unbecoming belligerence of bag of all Trolls.

[history2b]

psycho

[Albert Haynesworth]

tbh, imho, you should start your own thread to add to the discussion

[ohmwrecker]

I've met some delusional schmucks with a false sense of ego but this one takes the cake so far. Never met a dude who thought more highly of himself despite saying absolutely nothing.

Have you peeped in a mirror lately, holmes?

[history2b]

tbh, imho, you should start your own thread to add to the discussion

Don't need to.

Plus that joke is about as old as your mama's snatch.

[Albert Haynesworth]

y u foamin' brah?

[history2b]

Have you peeped in a mirror lately, holmes?

Cherry picking the posts = more weak ass Spurs fan