Bill Russell. Overrated?

[ohmwrecker]

Cherry picking the posts = more weak ass Spurs fan

That was the only part I found ironically interesting. The rest of it was just complete garbage.

[history2b]

That was the only part I found ironically interesting. The rest of it was just complete garbage.

No, you felt empowered to make a smart ass remark because you have nothing to offer the conversation and are satisfied with your status as a troll.

[midnightpulp]

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.

There's more cynics than homers on Spurstalk.

DaddyofAllTrolls isn't a Spurs fan.

You made some good points. It appears you can talk basketball when Kobe's penis isn't ramming into your tonsils.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

There's more cynics than homers on Spurstalk.

DaddyofAllTrolls isn't a Spurs fan.

You made some good points. It appears you can talk basketball when Kobe's penis isn't ramming into your tonsils.

I'll be back to annihilate history2b's post shortly. I don't mind he calls me names. To repeat my loyalties:

1) Basketball fan
2) T-Wolves fan
3) Western conference fan
4) Lakers fan
5) bandwagon fan, whoever is representing the west in the finals. 21 rings, ! I have company in this regard, in baseball there are AL and NL fans and they don't care what team wins the world series, as long as it's their league.

I am certainly not hardcore for the Lakers, I appreciate their history. Kobe is nowhere near my favorite Laker, I can take him or leave him. I defend him when he deserves it, such as the rape label, or revisionist historians who claim he forced a trade from Charlotte, (proof is crystal clear it was a pre draft deal). However, when it comes to him throwing tantrums or teammates under the bus, I just ignore that stuff, it's probably all true. Except this Shaq part; he didn't force Shaq out, that was Buss not wanting to pay him and to get value while he could.

As far as the Spurs go, since this is a Spurs board, I'll make my position clear. I appreciate everything they have done since they joined the NBA. Ice Man Gervin was a joy to watch. The Duncan years have been tremendous and both the Lakers and Spurs have made the NBA eat a lot of the last 12 seasons. I guess that spawns trolls like history2b now that it's the Lakers turn to have the edge. I guess the feud comes with the rivalry, both teams can smack other teams' fans harder if they so chose.

[ohmwrecker]

No, you felt empowered to make a smart ass remark because you have nothing to offer the conversation and are satisfied with your status as a troll.

In this context? Yes, but that doesn't make my comment less true.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

I have taken the liberty of numbering your posts. Also, remember this topic is to see who can make the better case and you calling me names won’t score you points.

1) 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 .

Those are some pretty strong fighting words you give, and do nothing to back them up. First you say you don’t believe my age, then you acknowledge I lived through periods of history only a person my age could. I remember the erection of the Berlin Wall, as well as the fall, and I have a piece a friend on Potsdam sent me in 1989. When the wall was built, one magazine, Life, Look, who knows, had a picture of a hand stretched over the wall as if trying to escape, and a wreath mounted next to it. Anyway, before you came here, I was discussing my age. If you look at my trivia tread, the one you criticized so heavily, you will see the questions I asked, and the detailed answers given on the last page could most likely have only been penned by someone who lived through those events. Search those Q’s on the internet, see if I stole them. They are my composition.
Post 1 of yours is refuted.

2) 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!

I tend to call things fairly as well. I am open about not disliking any player, although I did go after LeBron after “The Decision” mainly to get under a few peoples’ skins. I am over that and wish LeBron the best of luck. He wanted to play with Wade and Bosh above all other options, and that’s what he chose to do. I guess you could say I am going after Russell, but in honesty, as I have said before, he is one of my favorite color commentators. The man is a genius with his words and funny as all . However, you are a HOMER, and I will prove it throughout this post and summarize it at the end.
Post 2 will be refuted.

3) 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

.
No one cares? What you mean is you don’t care, and that won’t cut it in a debate. You need proof. It isn’t a random poll, and I do remember many comments and all placed Russell low on the list, I don’t think I remember, I know I remember. I have given many reasons why offense was higher rated in those days by critics than defense. You have done absolutely nothing to challenge those facts. One item I neglected to mention was the impact of the Harlem Globetrotters. They helped sell basketball as a great sport with their showmanship. By the way, their selling point was offense. Yes, by 1980 Russell’s stock had risen and this has all been pointed out as defensive efforts became more valuable. If anything, your post backs me up and my statement Russell wasn’t highly ranked in 1970 because you tell us by 1980 Russell was up there with Wilt. Don’t forget, Philadelphia Chamberlain backs me up about Russell’s rank as well.
Post 3 is refuted

4) 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.

Ok, well touch on one thing, now, and later. You are giving 100% of the credit to Russell. Red Auerbach devised that defense. The rest of Russell’s teammates combined to make it work, and I have proven Bill had the best and deepest teams. It also may be the blueprint, but the scheme has developed further than what Russell’s Celtics brought.
Post 4 is refuted.

5) 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.

So, we know you have Russell at number 1, it doesn’t matter who you have at 2-5, even if you give 2 of those spots to Mikan and cousy for their innovations. It’s your opinion. However, the debate is, who can make the better case, you with Russell as top 5 all time player, or me that he is overrated.
Post 5 is agreed upon.

6) 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.

Complete failure up front for the insults, and lack of proof that what you say is fact when it’s clearly your opinion. We aren’t discussing LeBron, it is too early for him to get into GOAT or top 10 discussions. Give him a few years first, then he’ll have his chance.

However, your valuation of past greats who paved the way in sports to determine greatness is shaky if you look deeply. First, if you examine the game of chess, the single largest contributor to the game and how it was played was a New Orleans native named Paul Morphy some 150 years ago. He revolutionized the game by showing rapid development of your pieces put you in a position to win the game. He defeated every leading player in the world with his methods in a brief 2 year period and quit the game. No authority (super grandmaster) in chess considers him anywhere near the greatest player to have ever played, and trust me, these leading authorities construct hypothetical matches of players from different generations all the time! They can analyze a chess game and determine the strengths and weaknesses of any player. They do this because it’s their living, they must prepare for players they expect to meet in tournaments and matches if they are to gain any type of edge, chess is that compe ive today! I am not a hockey fan and can only tell you a story, which is quite true, it comes from a friend some 20 years ago. He’s over 80 if he’s still living. He was raised in Montreal and a huge hockey fan. He went on and on one time about all the great players he had seen, naming them. I can’t tell you who he mentioned, or what innovations they brought to hockey, but at his age, you know he saw the best players play. He told me none of them compared in greatness to Wanye Grestzky.If a 30 year old avid hockey fan picked an older player as greatest, I would believe my friend because he witnessed everything. Now, chess and hockey are not basketball, but both sports went through periods of innovation as they developed. Greatest players are most likely found in recent generations, not older ones. I could go on to other sports, but two examples is enough.

Post 6 is refuted.

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

Post 7 is agreed upon.

8) 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]

The simple fact is the hypothetical's I posed ruin your case. I was clear to point out how some players can be placed in older generations and see great success, (Duncan, Wallace) and most can’t (Horry). Sorry, but my hypothetical's stand until you provide clear cut proof no expert basketball fan would use them. I have already proven in chess, hypothetical's are used.

Seriously, I don’t need to use this hypothetical to prove my case that Russell is overrated, but I keep it in for important reasons. As noted, I have a thread calling for people to give top 20s. I hadn’t made a top 10 in years, and set out to do it, and that thread explains how I did it. SpursTalk isn’t the only place I see Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe in top 10 discussions, so I set out to see how I ranked them as well. Since I believe Russell is overrated, I feel it is important to let Spurs fans know this, call it a perk for them allowing a fan of other teams ahead of them to banter here. First, it allows them to move Duncan up, and ahead of where they rank Russell if I prove my case to them. The other reason is it allows them to drop Kobe a bit. This has been explained. My closest attempt at a top 20 has Duncan tied #7-9 and Kobe at # 11. Kobe may drop further, I don’t know, I am not done with it yet. When I work on it depends if it gets more activity, and I have invited people in this thread to bring it back.

Post 8 is refuted

9) 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.

Insults again, hmmm? You are using MVP’s as a statistic. I know what a basketball statistic is. Number of points, number of rebounds, number of MVP’s, woops, all are used as statistics. You said absolutely nothing about my unstated hypothesis that MVP’s seemed to go to players whose teams did well in the regular season. Oscar got it in a year his team improved from 42-38 to 55-25. Wilt got it when the Sixers came in first in the east, and Bill often got it when the Celtics were top dog in the regular season. All three kept putting out similar numbers year after year, and the award followed the team with the best record. So, it seems the MVP award went to the best player on the best team in that era, with the latter being the prime criteria. Not discrediting Russell’s 5 MVP’s at all, but they are weak in proving him the greatest player, let alone top 5.
Post 9 is refuted

10) 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.

The Russell award was only so named 2 years ago. The NBA has been throwing bones to Bill for years, he left the Celtics very bitter. See the wiki link in my first post. As noted, Boston fans perception at that time was Cousy and Hondo were better. I said it, Philadelphia Chamberlain confirmed it. One word, Racism.

Post 10) is refuted.

11) 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.

Ok, here you go back to giving all the credit to Russell and not to Auerbach or Bill’s 8 hall of famers, including 4 top 50 players at 50 years. 11 les in 13 years in an 8 team league, with no free agency. Homecourt advantage throughout in first 8 les thus overwhelming favorites to win. Midnightpulp and I had one interesting exchange awhile back. He, like I, believes the Lakers are the greatest NBA franchise due to what’s happened beyond the 1 le difference with Boston. However, you place too much emphaisis on those 11 les. Anyway, I asked mp who was the greatest college football program of all time, and he saw the most is best argument doesn’t hold up. Princeton (28) and Yale (27) have the most, and it isn’t even close, Michigan (22) is next. Those Ivy league schools won those les in the 1800’s when football was new and they found the first innovations. More proof the first innovators don’t remain the best. I would say those 11 Russell les are worth less than half in today’s NBA.
Post 11 is refuted.

12) 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.

There is no proof, at least as you require, even though I heard it countless times, over many years. You have my word on it, and that of Philadelphia Chamberlain. We are the only two to say this, we are the only two to have posted such that lived through that generation. Also, those posts were made before I even knew who you were or what you thought of Russell, and my poll thread wasn’t the first time I made the claim here that Bill was ranked lower in the old days. So, there is your proof, that case is closed.
Post 12 is refuted

13) 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."

Let me repeat myself on this. Please pay attention. When I recently debated ambchang, I constantly had to repeat myself because he had no clue what we were debating, and I proved he had no reading comprehension! Let’s look at this chronologically, my proof the ring argument is recent.
My sample top 10, 1970, with ring totals:
1) Chamberlain 1 ring
2) Robertson 0 rings
3) Baylor 0 rings
4) West 0 rings
5) Pettet 1 ring
6) Cousy 6 rings
7) Greer 1 ring
8) Mikan 5 rings
9) Russell 11 rings
10) Bellamy 0 rings
Russell, Mikan, and Cousy lead the pack by a landslide. There clearly is no ring argument yet because players with 0 or 1 ring are on the list. Wilt with 1 ring is consensus GOAT. Players 2-5 have 1 ring among them!

Now, look at the top 11 all time from 1980 the NBA issued, linked above in my reply to Jamstone, nd also placed in ring order:
C Bill Russell 11 rings
G/F John Havlicek 8 rings
G Bob Cousy 6 rings
C George Mikan 5 rings
C Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 2 rings
C Wilt Chamberlain 2 rings
F Bob Pet 1 ring
G Oscar Robertson 1 ring
G Jerry West 1 ring
F Elgin Baylor 0 rings
F Julius Erving 0 rings

A few new players, a few dropped off. Minor changes in ring totals.
By 1988, 3 players added significantly in rings. Kareem, Magic, and Bird. Bird and Magic were now threatening to join top 10. Score among a top 10 most select today:
Russell 11 rings
Kareem 6 rings
Magic 5 rings
Bird 3 rings
Chamberlain 2 rings

Mikan has been removed because no one puts him top 10 today. Clearly, there is no using rings to rank greatness at this time, unless you drop people like Baylor, Erving, and West from a top 10 in favor of Mikan, Cousy, and Havlicek.

As noted, the ring argument began when Jordan tied Kareem and passed Bird and Magic. This also coincides with the spread of the internet. Mostly, those 6 rings were used to proclaim MJ the GOAT, ahead of Wilt. Clearly, MJ was perceived to be below Bird and Magic until he caught and passed them. Hakeem snuck into top 10 about this time, riding Jordan’s coattails. It has been this last decade that the ring for greatness has really multiplied and that is because of Tim, Shaq, and Kobe; all arguably top 10, and the ring argument is used. The internet is in full force.

Post 13 is refuted.

14) 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.

Post 14 is agreed upon.

15) 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.

Well, you have already been owned on this twice. It doesn’t matter the Spurs never repeated. They are still 3 time champs with a core of Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili. Those Celtics were overwhelming favorites the first of 7 of those 8 in a row. Spurs weren’t as fortunate in the rankings. Also, since they won twice more with that core, they proved they could win with championship experience. Also don’t forget your other ownage, when I compared the Spurs to the 1983 Boston Celtics in my trivia thread. It’s where I delivered on my promise to use your words against you:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...7&postcount=59

If you decide to respond please be sure to talk more about how the team that gets swept out the lowly Phoenix Suns really aren't "done."

The Spurs didn't have home court advantage. In 1983 The Boston Celtics with HCA were swept out of the playoffs by the lowly Milwaukee Bucks. With the Sixers fielding Dr. J., Moses Malone, and Andrew Toney, and soon Charles Barkley, the Boston Celtics were proclaimed by people like you to be done. What happened next? the Celtics made the finals the next 4 seasons and won 2 les. Why? they had championship experience, just as today's Spurs have.

See, I can and will use your words against you.

Also, you once again give Russell 100% of the credit for defeating Wilt, Elgin, and Jerry. Bill was a better coach than Van Breda Koff, and he had a deeper team, with championship experience.

Post 15 is refuted.

16) 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.

No, not a cop out. Bill Russell talks about how Cooke’s antics motivated him and his team. Bill Walton does as well. You demand better? Better ownage? I am not the only one here that has cleaned your clock. Remember, the Lakes were in control, they won the first 3 home games and Boston was playing catch up all series. 2-2-1-1-1 foramt.
Post 16 isrefuted.

17) 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.

I already dealt with this above. If I used Kareem’s offensive stats to declare him GOAT, then I am using his stats, adding up his points to make my point. You are adding up Bill’s MVPs and his les, and counting them. There is no difference in you adding them up to make a point than me adding up Kareem’s career point total. We are using them as stats.

Post 17 is refuted.

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.

Once again, points off for your at ude, and don’t forget, PC will back me up on Russell being not as highly valued 40+ years ago as he is today.

In summary, you haven’t given us a definitive argument and you have ignored much of what I have said. I have proven the ring argument is recent, and how Russell has been perceived over the years. You have only given your opinion that Russell is number 1 all time when all you have to do is make a case for him being top 5. However, I have challenged your reasoning with plenty of historical facts. The stats you used, les and MVP’s have been highly challenged, and these include methods of awarding league MVP’s, ease of Celtics playoff schedule, no free agency, better teammates and coaches, and expert opinions.

I said in the beginning I will prove you are a homer. If you haven’t caught on yet, it’s because you give Russell credit for everything, as if he did it himself, and faced the world on his own.

This debate is about over. Virtually everything you have posted has clearly been refuted. You have yet to make a strong case for Bill, and your work is cut out for you because I have attacked your reasoning harder and better than you ever hoped Bill Russell could play basketball.

[Trill Clinton]

I have taken the liberty of numbering your posts. Also, remember this topic is to see who can make the better case and you calling me names won’t score you points.


Those are some pretty strong fighting words you give, and do nothing to back them up. First you say you don’t believe my age, then you acknowledge I lived through periods of history only a person my age could. I remember the erection of the Berlin Wall, as well as the fall, and I have a piece a friend on Potsdam sent me in 1989. When the wall was built, one magazine, Life, Look, who knows, had a picture of a hand stretched over the wall as if trying to escape, and a wreath mounted next to it. Anyway, before you came here, I was discussing my age. If you look at my trivia tread, the one you criticized so heavily, you will see the questions I asked, and the detailed answers given on the last page could most likely have only been penned by someone who lived through those events. Search those Q’s on the internet, see if I stole them. They are my composition.
Post 1 of yours is refuted.

I tend to call things fairly as well. I am open about not disliking any player, although I did go after LeBron after “The Decision” mainly to get under a few peoples’ skins. I am over that and wish LeBron the best of luck. He wanted to play with Wade and Bosh above all other options, and that’s what he chose to do. I guess you could say I am going after Russell, but in honesty, as I have said before, he is one of my favorite color commentators. The man is a genius with his words and funny as all . However, you are a HOMER, and I will prove it throughout this post and summarize it at the end.
Post 2 will be refuted.




.
No one cares? What you mean is you don’t care, and that won’t cut it in a debate. You need proof. It isn’t a random poll, and I do remember many comments and all placed Russell low on the list, I don’t think I remember. I have given many reasons why offense was higher rated in those days by critics than defense. You have done absolutely nothing to challenge those facts. One item I neglected to mention was the impact of the Harlem Globetrotters. They helped sell basketball as a great sport with their showmanship. By the way, their selling point was offense. Yes, by 1980 Russell’s stock had risen and this has all been pointed out as defensive efforts became more valuable. If anything, your post backs me up and my statement Russell wasn’t highly ranked in 1970 because you tell us by 1980 Russell was up there with Wilt. Don’t forget, Philadelphia Chamberlain backs me up about Russell’s rank as well.
Post 3 is refuted

Ok, well touch on one thing, now, and later. You are giving 100% of the credit to Russell. Red Auerbach devised that defense. The rest of Russell’s teammates combined to make it work, and I have proven Bill had the best and deepest teams. It also may be the blueprint, but the scheme has developed further than what Russell’s Celtics brought.
Post 4 is refuted.

So, we know you have Russell at number 1, it doesn’t matter who you have at 2-5, even if you give 2 of those spots to Mikan and cousy for their innovations. It’s your opinion. However, the debate is, who can make the better case, you with Russell as top 5 all time player, or me that he is overrated.
Post 5 is agreed upon.






Complete failure up front for the insults, and lack of proof that what you say is fact when it’s clearly your opinion. We aren’t discussing LeBron, it is too early for him to get into GOAT or top 10 discussions. Give him a few years first, then he’ll have his chance.

However, your valuation of past greats who paved the way in sports to determine greatness is shaky if you look deeply. First, if you examine the game of chess, the single largest contributor to the game and how it was played was a New Orleans native named Paul Morphy some 150 years ago. He revolutionized the game by showing rapid development of your pieces put you in a position to win the game. He defeated every leading player in the world with his methods in a brief 2 year period and quit the game. No authority (super grandmaster) in chess considers him anywhere near the greatest player to have ever played, and trust me, these leading authorities construct hypothetical matches of players from different generations all the time! They can analyze a chess game and determine the strengths and weaknesses of any player. They do this because it’s their living, they must prepare for players they expect to meet in tournaments and matches if they are to gain any type of edge, chess is that compe ive today! I am not a hockey fan and can only tell you a story, which is quite true, it comes from a friend some 20 years ago. He’s over 80 if he’s still living. He was raised in Montreal and a huge hockey fan. He went on and on one time about all the great players he had seen, naming them. I can’t tell you who he mentioned, or what innovations they brought to hockey, but at his age, you know he saw the best players play. He told me none of them compared in greatness to Wanye Grestzky.If a 30 year old avid hockey fan picked an older player as greatest, I would believe my friend because he witnessed everything. Now, chess and hockey are not basketball, but both sports went through periods of innovation as they developed. Greatest players are most likely found in recent generations, not older ones. I could go on to other sports, but two examples is enough.

Post 6 is refuted.



Post 7 is agreed upon.

The simple fact is the hypothetical's I posed ruin your case. I was clear to point out how some players can be placed in older generations and see great success, (Duncan, Wallace) and most can’t (Horry). Sorry, but my hypothetical's stand until you provide clear cut proof no expert basketball fan would use them. I have already proven in chess, hypothetical's are used.

Seriously, I don’t need to use this hypothetical to prove my case that Russell is overrated, but I keep it in for important reasons. As noted, I have a thread calling for people to give top 20s. I hadn’t made a top 10 in years, and set out to do it, and that thread explains how I did it. SpursTalk isn’t the only place I see Duncan, Shaq, and Kobe in top 10 discussions, so I set out to see how I ranked them as well. Since I believe Russell is overrated, I feel it is important to let Spurs fans know this, call it a perk for them allowing a fan of other teams ahead of them to banter here. First, it allows them to move Duncan up, and ahead of where they rank Russell if I prove my case to them. The other reason is it allows them to drop Kobe a bit. This has been explained. My closest attempt at a top 20 has Duncan tied #7-9 and Kobe at # 11. Kobe may drop further, I don’t know, I am not done with it yet. When I work on it depends if it gets more activity, and I have invited people in this thread to bring it back.

Post 8 is refuted




Insults again, hmmm? You are using MVP’s as a statistic. I know what a basketball statistic is. Number of points, number of rebounds, number of MVP’s, woops, all are used as statistics. You said absolutely nothing about my unstated hypothesis that MVP’s seemed to go to players whose teams did well in the regular season. Oscar got it in a year his team improved from 42-38 to 55-25. Wilt got it when the Sixers came in first in the east, and Bill often got it when the Celtics were top dog in the regular season. All three kept putting out similar numbers year after year, and the award followed the team with the best record. So, it seems the MVP award went to the best player on the best team in that era, with the latter being the prime criteria. Not discrediting Russell’s 5 MVP’s at all, but they are weak in proving him the greatest player, let alone top 5.
Post 9 is refuted

The Russell award was only so named 2 years ago. The NBA has been throwing bones to Bill for years, he left the Celtics very bitter. See the wiki link in my first post. As noted, Boston fans perception at that time was Cousy and Hondo were better. I said it, Philadelphia Chamberlain confirmed it. One word, Racism.

Post 10) is refuted.


Ok, here you go back to giving all the credit to Russell and not to Auerbach or Bill’s 8 hall of famers, including 4 top 50 players at 50 years. 11 les in 13 years in an 8 team league, with no free agency. Homecourt advantage throughout in first 8 les thus overwhelming favorites to win. Midnightpulp and I had one interesting exchange awhile back. He, like I, believes the Lakers are the greatest NBA franchise due to what’s happened beyond the 1 le difference with Boston. However, you place too much emphaisis on those 11 les. Anyway, I asked mp who was the greatest college football program of all time, and he saw the most is best argument doesn’t hold up. Princeton (28) and Yale (27) have the most, and it isn’t even close, Michigan (22) is next. Those Ivy league schools won those les in the 1800’s when football was new and they found the first innovations. More proof the first innovators don’t remain the best. I would say those 11 Russell les are worth less than half in today’s NBA.
Post 11 is refuted.


There is no proof, at least as you require, even though I heard it countless times, over many years. You have my word on it, and that of Philadelphia Chamberlain. We are the only two to say this, we are the only two to have posted such that lived through that generation. Also, those posts were made before I even knew who you were or what you thought of Russell, and my poll thread wasn’t the first time I made the claim here that Bill was ranked lower in the old days. So, there is your proof, that case is closed.
Post 12 is refuted

Let me repeat myself on this. Please pay attention. When I recently debated ambchang, I constantly had to repeat myself because he had no clue what we were debating, and I proved he had no reading comprehension! Let’s look at this chronologically, my proof the ring argument is recent.
My sample top 10, 1970, with ring totals:
1) Chamberlain 1 ring
2) Robertson 0 rings
3) Baylor 0 rings
4) West 0 rings
5) Pettet 1 ring
6) Cousy 6 rings
7) Greer 1 ring
8) Mikan 5 rings
9) Russell 11 rings
10) Bellamy 0 rings
Russell, Mikan, and Cousy lead the pack by a landslide. There clearly is no ring argument yet because players with 0 or 1 ring are on the list. Wilt with 1 ring is consensus GOAT. Players 2-5 have 1 ring among them!

Now, look at the top 11 all time from 1980 the NBA issued, linked above in my reply to Jamstone, nd also placed in ring order:
C Bill Russell 11 rings
G/F John Havlicek 8 rings
G Bob Cousy 6 rings
C George Mikan 5 rings
C Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 2 rings
C Wilt Chamberlain 2 rings
F Bob Pet 1 ring
G Oscar Robertson 1 ring
G Jerry West 1 ring
F Elgin Baylor 0 rings
F Julius Erving 0 rings

A few new players, a few dropped off. Minor changes in ring totals.
By 1988, 3 players added significantly in rings. Kareem, Magic, and Bird. Bird and Magic were now threatening to join top 10. Score among a top 10 most select today:
Russell 11 rings
Kareem 6 rings
Magic 5 rings
Bird 3 rings
Chamberlain 2 rings

Mikan has been removed because no one puts him top 10 today. Clearly, there is no using rings to rank greatness at this time, unless you drop people like Baylor, Erving, and West from a top 10 in favor of Mikan, Cousy, and Havlicek.

As noted, the ring argument began when Jordan tied Kareem and passed Bird and Magic. This also coincides with the spread of the internet. Mostly, those 6 rings were used to proclaim MJ the GOAT, ahead of Wilt. Clearly, MJ was perceived to be below Bird and Magic until he caught and passed them. Hakeem snuck into top 10 about this time, riding Jordan’s coattails. It has been this last decade that the ring for greatness has really multiplied and that is because of Tim, Shaq, and Kobe; all arguably top 10, and the ring argument is used. The internet is in full force.

Post 13 is refuted.



Post 14 is agreed upon.


Well, you have already been owned on this twice. It doesn’t matter the Spurs never repeated. They are still 3 time champs with a core of Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili. Those Celtics were overwhelming favorites the first of 7 of those 8 in a row. Spurs weren’t as fortunate in the rankings. Also, since they won twice more with that core, they proved they could win with championship experience. Also don’t forget your other ownage, when I compared the Spurs to the 1983 Boston Celtics in my trivia thread. It’s where I delivered on my promise to use your words against you:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...7&postcount=59


Also, you once again give Russell 100% of the credit for defeating Wilt, Elgin, and Jerry. Bill was a better coach than Van Breda Koff, and he had a deeper team, with championship experience. To you, your

Post 15 is refuted.


No, not a cop out. Bill Russell talks about how Cooke’s antics motivated him and his team. Bill Walton does as well. You demand better? Better ownage? I am not the only one here that has cleaned your clock. Remember, the Lakes were in control, they won the first 3 home games and Boston was playing catch up all series. 2-2-1-1-1 foramt.
Post 16 isrefuted.



I already dealt with this above. If I used Kareem’s offensive stats to declare him GOAT, then I am using his stats, adding up his points to make my point. You are adding up Bill’s MVPs and his les, and counting them. There is no difference in you adding them up to make a point than me adding up Kareem’s career point total. We are using them as stats.

Post 17 is refuted.


Once again, points off for your at ude, and don’t forget, PC will back me up on Russell being not as highly valued 40+ years ago as he is today.

In summary, you haven’t given us a definitive argument and you have ignored much of what I have said. I have proven the ring argument is recent, and how Russell has been perceived over the years. You have only given your opinion that Russell is number 1 all time when all you have to do is make a case for him being top 5. However, I have challenged your reasoning with plenty of historical facts. The stats you used, les and MVP’s have been highly challenged, and these include methods of awarding league MVP’s, ease of Celtics playoff schedule, no free agency, better teammates and coaches, and expert opinions.

I said in the beginning I will prove you are a homer. If you haven’t caught on yet, it’s because you give Russell credit for everything, as if he did it himself, and faced the world on his own.

This debate is about over. Virtually everything you have posted has clearly been refuted. You have yet to make a strong case for Bill, and your work is cut out for you because I have attacked your reasoning harder and better than you ever hoped Bill Russell could play basketball.

damn

[dunkman]

During his career, Russell was one of the first big earners in NBA basketball. His rookie contract was worth $24,000, only fractionally smaller than the $25,000 of top earner Bob Cousy.[24] In contrast to other Celtics, who had to work in the offseason to maintain their standard of living (Heinsohn sold insurance, Gene Guarilia was a professional guitar player, Cousy ran a basketball camp, and Auerbach invested in plastics and a Chinese restaurant),[69] Russell never had to work part-time. When Wilt Chamberlain became the first NBA player to earn $100,000 in salary in 1965, Russell went to Auerbach and demanded a $100,001 salary, which he promptly received.[70]

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Russell

It's unclear why would the Celtics give him the second best contract in the NBA as a rookie and a better contract than Wilt Chamberlain and any other player in the NBA, if he wasn't the NBA best player during that time and the Celtics would have won the same with another center.

The Lakers suffered many defeats at the hand of the Russell's Celtics. Haters gonna hate.

[TinTin]

However, your valuation of past greats who paved the way in sports to determine greatness is shaky if you look deeply. First, if you examine the game of chess, the single largest contributor to the game and how it was played was a New Orleans native named Paul Morphy some 150 years ago. He revolutionized the game by showing rapid development of your pieces put you in a position to win the game. He defeated every leading player in the world with his methods in a brief 2 year period and quit the game. No authority (super grandmaster) in chess considers him anywhere near the greatest player to have ever played, and trust me, these leading authorities construct hypothetical matches of players from different generations all the time! They can analyze a chess game and determine the strengths and weaknesses of any player. They do this because it’s their living, they must prepare for players they expect to meet in tournaments and matches if they are to gain any type of edge, chess is that compe ive today!

Not to derail this thread but come on man, you can't really label morphy as the single largest contributor. Not all his games were open but he preferred clowning on those who liked close positions.

The analogy is pretty good but I don't think a non-chess person would really understand the impact of it

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Russell

It's unclear why would the Celtics give him the second best contract in the NBA as a rookie and a better contract than Wilt Chamberlain and any other player in the NBA, if he wasn't the NBA best player during that time and the Celtics would have won the same with another center.

The Lakers suffered many defeats at the hand of the Russell's Celtics. Haters gonna hate.

Thanks for your reply!

At first glance this appears to boost Russell's value as a player, but actually it doesn't do all that much to validate Bill as a top 5 player, or even top 10. It does place him in the top 5 NBA of that time.

I can't say everything I suspect is true, from the following, I can only draw conclusions based upon the evidence. With Mikan gone, there was no dominant big man in the game. Boston traded their center, Ed McCauley, along with a guy who ended up scoring 20 ppg to get Russell. the NBA active GOAT at the time would be Cousy or Pet . Russell was a two time NCAA champion, scoring and rebounding at 20/20, and shooting 50%. Red Auerbach had already been established as a geinius, well ahead of his time. He knew what Russell could do for Boston, if he could get him. Chamberlain had yet to play college ball for Kansas. Boston also had Tommy Heinsohn slated as their territorial draft choice and wanted both players. The heist they did is close in comparison to getting Robert Parish and the draft pick that became Kevin McHale from the Warriors for the draft rights to Joe Barry Carrol. It is probably a reasonable guess that Russell was able to demand such a salary based not only on his college play, but the teammates he would join. Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn. Boston knew they had a future and simply signed on the dotted line to get things going. As far as Russell getting a buck more than Wilt, well, at least the organization was extremely fair to him, it just wasn't the fans or media. Paying a player more than he's worth is common. Ask the New York Knicks, or Lakers Walton and Vujacich. What were Bill's other options? I don't know what his college degree was in or if he got one, but the Harlem Globetrotters were around. Wilt joined them when he left college early. Wilt wasn't eligible for the NBA until his class graduated, those were the rules then.

As far as Russell's Celtics beating the Lakers 7 times, it isn't as impressive as it seems. Boston was the clear cut favorite in the first 6 series, and the underdog in the last. Yet somehow the Lakers managed to take them to 7 games 3 times, twice with a nucleus of Baylor and West, backed up by a whole bunch of scrubs. As pointed out, Russell's Celtics were a stacked team, usually had HCA, and had much superior coaching. Until the Lakers got Wilt, they had no counter at the center position. Consider the 2009 series, Celtics and Bulls. Lakers achieved that level of excitement 3 times. to me, this raises the stock of Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, once legitimate top 5 all time players and keeps them no worse than top 20 today. In comparison, the Lakers today get some criticism for having to go 7 with the Rockets in 2009, and the old and tired Celtics of 2010. Boston and their superteams really had trouble putting those Lakers teams away, and deserve criticism as well. This has been done by taking Russell out of the top 10 because he didn't do it all himself, as those 11 rings make people who don't know the full and true history believe.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Not to derail this thread but come on man, you can't really label morphy as the single largest contributor. Not all his games were open but he preferred clowning on those who liked close positions.

The analogy is pretty good but I don't think a non-chess person would really understand the impact of it

I like to use Morphy and what he brought because of his brief career. Steinitz brought positional play, Lasker brought longevity after disposing of Steinitz. Capablanca brought accuracy and endgame techinque, Alekhine brought value of preparation and plenty more. He beat Capablanca because he analyzed his games in incredible detail. Alekhine ten spent the rest of his life ducking Capablanca for a rematch, giving "patzers" like Bogoljubov and Euwe a shot. (Euwe upset him in 1935, got slaughtered in the return match 2 years later). Alekhine, and the latter two, all lived under Nazi occupation. Botvinnik was the product of the Soviet approach to education and compe ion; Find out at a young age what your people excel at and train them accordingly. Those at the top get supported by the state. When your Olympic team wins, it shows the World how great the USSR is, and reminds your citizens of the same. Propaganda, but effective. It does have advantages over countries where the best amateur athletes must hold down a job to survive, thus reducing training time. However, some of those state supported superstars ended up defecting.....That tells a bit more of the flaw in the Soviet system.

Then along came Bobby Fischer who took down the Soviets all by himself 17 years before Reagan bankrupted them in the arms race.

[TinTin]

Alekhine and Capablanca matches were a great study (when I was still into it)

Too bad Fischer went mia after winning the le and beating the Soviets. He contributed no doubt (particularly in najdorf). I heard some country was looking for him and then he had a random match in the 90s vs. someone then went undercover. I forgot

I didn't know the ussr's philosophy behind it. I knew they were churning out great players at a very early age

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Alekhine and Capablanca matches were a great study (when I was still into it)

Too bad Fischer went mia after winning the le and beating the Soviets. He contributed no doubt (particularly in najdorf). I heard some country was looking for him and then he had a random match in the 90s vs. someone then went undercover. I forgot

I didn't know the ussr's philosophy behind it. I knew they were churning out great players at a very early age

Fischer would be a great member here if he were alive, he'd out smack any of you and be hated worse than any troll.

what happened to Fischer is thus, in a nuts :

He won in 1972 and made match demands for 1975 with Karpov. FIDE was controlled by the USSR and wouldn't give in. They stripped him of his le and gave Karpov way more concessions for matches than Fischer even dreamed of asking for. So, Bobby withdrew from the world and became a nutcase. He gave Spassky a rematch in 1992, calling it the world championship. He was blocked ffrom coming back to the USA because he violated a "Trading with the enemies act" that was federal law. Seems his match with Spassky was in Yugoslavia, and it was a hot spot then. Maybe you can still find the video of Bobby spitting on the letter the US State Department sent him telling him not to play in Yugoslavia. He lived around the world in various places, such as Japan and the Phillipines. When the 9/11 attacks came, he applauded them and really became anti USA. Of course, he was already extremely anti-Jewish, even though that was his heritage. when his mother and sister passed on he was deprived of a Visa to come to the USA to attend their funerals. He once had a website spouting his hatred and I actually had a letter to him published on it, circa 2002. He died in exile in Iceland, and his heir is a daughter in the Phillipines. Bobby hired a woman to bear his child and inherit his legacy. I believe his niece and nephew have fought to get a piece of his book royalties. He still has unsettled business with the Russians, they re-published his chess books and sold them without paying royalties.

[z0sa]

No, you felt empowered to make a smart ass remark because you have nothing to offer the conversation and are satisfied with your status as a troll.

Are you satisfied with your status as an idiot?

[ambchang]

The people who selected the top 50 saw, played against, or coached most every player on the list and all have fine reputations. See above link for who voted. I can’t quote each one directly what they thought of Russell, but I can give the general consensus of how every news media, including some on that list ranked a top 10 all time back around 1970. A list might look like this:
1) Chamberlain
2) Robertson
3) Baylor
4) West
5) Pettet
6) Cousy
7) Greer
8) Mikan
9) Russell
10) Bellamy

Why would Russell be so low back then? The primary reason is that offense was valued as most important and Russell didn’t score much and shot poorly. Why was offense so important? Scoring points brings fans, and the NBA struggled financially for years. The league used to have a territorial draft pick in force. This meant an NBA team could use its first round pick to select a local college star, thus helping ticket sales at the gate. Boston acquired Tommy Heinsohn from Holy Cross, and the Royals chose Oscar Robertson from Cincinatti this way. There are many other examples.

Philadelphia Chamberlain backed me up about Russell not being valued so high during his playing days in my top 20 thread. PC was around back then. Boston didn’t consider him their best player, they preferred Cousy or Havlicek, both white players. Russell has an unfortunate history of racial discrimination in Boston.

I would like to know who Russell won 5 MVPs, including three in a row, and Cousy only winning one, during Russell's rookie year.

I believe players vote for MVPs back then, and it could be the case where it's a popularity contests amongst players, but for a black man to win 5 MVPs in those days, in a league with many white players, is something that just can't be dismissed.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

I would like to know who Russell won 5 MVPs, including three in a row, and Cousy only winning one, during Russell's rookie year.

I believe players vote for MVPs back then, and it could be the case where it's a popularity contests amongst players, but for a black man to win 5 MVPs in those days, in a league with many white players, is something that just can't be dismissed.

If you actually read everything about MVP's I posted in this thread, something we all know you may not do, and it's proven you often fail to comprehend what you read, you would notice I attempted to answer this with an unstated hypothesis which I tested a bit. In short, it seems league MVP's went to the best player on the team that had the best regular season record. In other words, best regular season team seems to take priority before a player is selected from that team. One winner was Robertson in a big turnaround year for the Royals. The early winners of this award were usually Russell and Chamberlain and my hypothesis is almost always correct. Russell, Chamberlain, and Robertson seemed to put up similar stats every year and the votes they received seem to correlate with how well their teams did. Wilt had monster stats in San Francisco but fell far back in the votes when te Warriors sucked.I don't know exactly who voted, media or players.

3 of the first 4 winners were white, then no white winner until Cowens in 1973. Walton in 1977, Bird in 1984-86, Nash/Nowitski in 2005-07 are the only other white winers. So, it's primarily a black award. Baseball has some consistency with the Cy young award, see what I said about 1973 AL. Contrast that with what I said about 1972 NL Cy Young.

Let's look at the history of the NBA MVP winners, and see how their teams did.

1956 Pet . Poor team record but rebound average way ahead of second place Arizin. best record
1957 Cousy. Best team record. Not many more ppg than Rookie Russell.
1958 Russell. Best team record. A reward for being NBA champion?
1959 Pet . 2nd best team record, by 3 games to Boston. Perhaps a reward for wininng NBA ring in 1958?
1960 Chamberlain. 2nd best team record. MVP and Rookie of the year award.
1961 Russell. Best team record. Pe 2nd, better team record than Wilt who fell to 4th.
1962 Russell. Best team record. Chamberlain 2nd with 3rd best team record. This is the year Wilt averaged 50 ppg.
1963 Russell. Best team record. Baylor 2nd, 2nd best team record. Wilt 7th, his Warriors sucked.
1964 Robertson. 2nd best team record, but improved wins from 42-38 to 55-25. Chamberlain 2nd with 3rd best team record.
1965 Russell. Best team record. Chamberlain 5th as traded midseason, bith his teams sucked.
1966 Chamberlain Best team record, From this point on, Russell hardly had any votes in any year.
1967 Chamberlain. Best Team record. THurmond 2nd, 3rd best team record.
1968 Chamberlain. Best team record. Wikens/Baylor 2nd/3rd with corresponding team records
1969 Unseld. Best record, MVP and Rookie of the Year. 2nd and 3rd, Reed and Cunningham with equal 2nd and 4th best records. Chamberlain, no votes, west no votes, teammate Baylor, a few.
1970 Reed. Best record. 3rd place, Jabbar with 2nd best record, also rookie of the year. West came 2nd, again but with 5th best record. Chamberlain missed most of season.
1971 Jabbar. Best record. Hardly any votes for anyone else.
1972 Jabbar 2nd best record and dominating stats over West and Chamberlain with best record. Together they almost tie Jabbar in forst place votes. Perhaps they canceled each other out.
1973 Cowens. Best record. Jabbar 2nd, 2nd best record Milwaukee had tiebreaks oer Lakers due to a coin flip.
1974 Jabbar. Best record. CLose 2nd, McAdoo with a 42-40 record.
1975 McAdoo 3rd best record. 2nd/3rd Cowens and Hayes, 2nd/3rd best record. Jabbar down to 5th with bad team.
1976 Jabbar. with a bad team, barely edging previous winners Cowens and NcAdoo with good teams.

I won't go any further. A quick glance shows the hypothesis continues to be mostly true. By this time, the voters have radically changed from whoever voted the first years.

Hypothesis conclusion: MVPs are a great award but the recipient needs to be thankful he had the teammates he needed to win a lot of games thus get in position to waltz away with the trophy. If not, another great, and possibly better, player would have received it.

Russell's 5 MVP's are enough to keep him top 20, but definitely not top 5.

[TinTin]

Fischer would be a great member here if he were alive, he'd out smack any of you and be hated worse than any troll.

what happened to Fischer is thus, in a nuts :

He won in 1972 and made match demands for 1975 with Karpov. FIDE was controlled by the USSR and wouldn't give in. They stripped him of his le and gave Karpov way more concessions for matches than Fischer even dreamed of asking for. So, Bobby withdrew from the world and became a nutcase. He gave Spassky a rematch in 1992, calling it the world championship. He was blocked ffrom coming back to the USA because he violated a "Trading with the enemies act" that was federal law. Seems his match with Spassky was in Yugoslavia, and it was a hot spot then. Maybe you can still find the video of Bobby spitting on the letter the US State Department sent him telling him not to play in Yugoslavia. He lived around the world in various places, such as Japan and the Phillipines. When the 9/11 attacks came, he applauded them and really became anti USA. Of course, he was already extremely anti-Jewish, even though that was his heritage. when his mother and sister passed on he was deprived of a Visa to come to the USA to attend their funerals. He once had a website spouting his hatred and I actually had a letter to him published on it, circa 2002. He died in exile in Iceland, and his heir is a daughter in the Phillipines. Bobby hired a woman to bear his child and inherit his legacy. I believe his niece and nephew have fought to get a piece of his book royalties. He still has unsettled business with the Russians, they re-published his chess books and sold them without paying royalties.

Video wasn't that hard to find


:O Real hardcore that chess and sanction violations would ever come together

Check out these two statements I found by wikipedia

Bobby is playing OK, nothing more. Maybe his strength is 2600 or 2650. It wouldn't be close

This is during is his 1992 match. :O Can you believe this man in his prime or if he had the will to keep playing compe ively?

Dear Mr. Osama bin Laden allow me to introduce myself. I am Bobby Fischer, the World Chess Champion. First of all you should know that I share your hatred of the murderous bandit state of "Israel" and its chief backer the Jew-controlled U.S.A. also know [sic] as the "Jewnited States" or "Israel West." We also have something else in common: We are both fugitives from the U.S. "justice" system.

Guessing he was still butthurt after the us revoked his chess membership. All of this looks way too comical to an outside person that playing chess can essentially turn you into a fugitive

Btw. wiki says that he is not the father of that Filipino girl

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Video wasn't that hard to find


:O Real hardcore that chess and sanction violations would ever come together

Thanks for that. Last time I looked for it, it had been deleted.

Check out these two statements I found by wikipedia



This is during is his 1992 match. :O Can you believe this man in his prime or if he had the will to keep playing compe ively?

Well, Fisher and Kasparov had a long standing feud. They are, I suppose, the Chamberlain and Russell of chess, but who is who? Here's the background. Fisher's mother was Jewish. Recently, stories have surfaced his real father wasn't Mr. Fischer, who disappeared and went back to Germany, but a Hungarian named Nemenyi, or something like that. He may have been Jewish as well and Bobby's mother is rumored to have been romantically involved with him. www.chessbase.com has the story. Kasparov was born with the surname Weinstein, and is an Armenian Jew. After his father died, he adopted his mother's surname, Kasparian and later Russianized it to Kasparov.

Fischer had botched a won game against World Champ Botvinnik just before adjournment, which changed a clear win into a slight advantage, in a game from the early 1960s, Chess Olympics I think. The Russian team found a resource overnight that held the draw, and Fischer left the game in tears when it ended. Later, Fischer demonstrated a win after the Soviet resource was played in his book "My 60 memorable games". The key here is the point when he says "White has no resource against the avalanche of checks". Well, a young and unknown Kasparov proved White had a resource and the game was still a draw. Later, when Kasparov was playing Karpov in world championship matches, Fischer claimed he could prove every game and every move was prearranged. Fischer did go on record early 1960's that the Soviets did fix matches, and this was later confirmed after the fall of the USSR.Seems the old candidates tournaments had 8 players who played each other 4 times, 5 of which were Soviets. The Soviets selected who would win and everyone of their countryman would either lose to him, or have a quick draw. Meanwhile, Fischer and the other western players had grueling games every round. A fix of this proportion is equivalent to an NBA team not playing it's starters but a few minutes a game, and the other teams intentionally losing, thus getting playoff HCA for the chosen team. However, a NBA fix here is easy to prove, I don't think Fischer ever followed through proving Kasparov's games were prearranged, and I doubt he could have. He was stretching it, based on his past success in this department.

Fischer as a player hadn't lost it by 1992. Stories I heard were that Bobby traveled the world, often staying with stron grandmasters and none of them could beat him at blitz. If he analyzed their games they had played with them, he utterly amazed them with wonderful new ideas and showed off all in an instant. On story I heard really showed his talent. Someone was driving him to his hotel after a tournament they both played in and complained to Bobby about how badly they had played. Bobby asked to see his score sheet and the driver handed to him. bobby looked at it a few seconds and promptly returned it. The driver was heartbroken and just figured Fischer had no interest in "weak" player like him. then the surprise came. Fischer started telling him every bad move he made, and how he could have done better and why. After dropping Bobby off, the guy pulled out a chess set and verified everything Fischer said was true. To me, that's an amazing story. It would impress an audience of chessplayers and could make a chess genius a load of cash.

Guessing he was still butthurt after the us revoked his chess membership. All of this looks way too comical to an outside person that playing chess can essentially turn you into a fugitive

If not a fugitive, at least a nutcase.

Btw. wiki says that he is not the father of that Filipino girl

Thanks, last I heard was they were going to exhume Bobby's body in Iceland and run DNA tests. At least Bobby got laid. In 1972 he said he wanted to marry a virgin. There were rumours he was gay. Supposedly one strong USA chessplayer worked in the X-Rated film business (gay porn) and had seduced Bobby. All heresay.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

There were also rumors Fischer was playing chess online anonymously, but he denied them. Evidence is compelling it was him, however. Probably you will find stories about it at www.chessbase.com , or search Key Words "Fischer guest ICC", or "Fischer guest Internet Chess Club".

[midnightpulp]

I see that history2b has abandoned this thread.

Not surprised.

[ambchang]

If you actually read everything about MVP's I posted in this thread, something we all know you may not do, and it's proven you often fail to comprehend what you read, you would notice I attempted to answer this with an unstated hypothesis which I tested a bit. In short, it seems league MVP's went to the best player on the team that had the best regular season record. In other words, best regular season team seems to take priority before a player is selected from that team. One winner was Robertson in a big turnaround year for the Royals. The early winners of this award were usually Russell and Chamberlain and my hypothesis is almost always correct. Russell, Chamberlain, and Robertson seemed to put up similar stats every year and the votes they received seem to correlate with how well their teams did. Wilt had monster stats in San Francisco but fell far back in the votes when te Warriors sucked.I don't know exactly who voted, media or players.

3 of the first 4 winners were white, then no white winner until Cowens in 1973. Walton in 1977, Bird in 1984-86, Nash/Nowitski in 2005-07 are the only other white winers. So, it's primarily a black award. Baseball has some consistency with the Cy young award, see what I said about 1973 AL. Contrast that with what I said about 1972 NL Cy Young.

Let's look at the history of the NBA MVP winners, and see how their teams did.

1956 Pet . Poor team record but rebound average way ahead of second place Arizin. best record
1957 Cousy. Best team record. Not many more ppg than Rookie Russell.
1958 Russell. Best team record. A reward for being NBA champion?
1959 Pet . 2nd best team record, by 3 games to Boston. Perhaps a reward for wininng NBA ring in 1958?
1960 Chamberlain. 2nd best team record. MVP and Rookie of the year award.
1961 Russell. Best team record. Pe 2nd, better team record than Wilt who fell to 4th.
1962 Russell. Best team record. Chamberlain 2nd with 3rd best team record. This is the year Wilt averaged 50 ppg.
1963 Russell. Best team record. Baylor 2nd, 2nd best team record. Wilt 7th, his Warriors sucked.
1964 Robertson. 2nd best team record, but improved wins from 42-38 to 55-25. Chamberlain 2nd with 3rd best team record.
1965 Russell. Best team record. Chamberlain 5th as traded midseason, bith his teams sucked.
1966 Chamberlain Best team record, From this point on, Russell hardly had any votes in any year.
1967 Chamberlain. Best Team record. THurmond 2nd, 3rd best team record.
1968 Chamberlain. Best team record. Wikens/Baylor 2nd/3rd with corresponding team records
1969 Unseld. Best record, MVP and Rookie of the Year. 2nd and 3rd, Reed and Cunningham with equal 2nd and 4th best records. Chamberlain, no votes, west no votes, teammate Baylor, a few.
1970 Reed. Best record. 3rd place, Jabbar with 2nd best record, also rookie of the year. West came 2nd, again but with 5th best record. Chamberlain missed most of season.
1971 Jabbar. Best record. Hardly any votes for anyone else.
1972 Jabbar 2nd best record and dominating stats over West and Chamberlain with best record. Together they almost tie Jabbar in forst place votes. Perhaps they canceled each other out.
1973 Cowens. Best record. Jabbar 2nd, 2nd best record Milwaukee had tiebreaks oer Lakers due to a coin flip.
1974 Jabbar. Best record. CLose 2nd, McAdoo with a 42-40 record.
1975 McAdoo 3rd best record. 2nd/3rd Cowens and Hayes, 2nd/3rd best record. Jabbar down to 5th with bad team.
1976 Jabbar. with a bad team, barely edging previous winners Cowens and NcAdoo with good teams.

I won't go any further. A quick glance shows the hypothesis continues to be mostly true. By this time, the voters have radically changed from whoever voted the first years.

Hypothesis conclusion: MVPs are a great award but the recipient needs to be thankful he had the teammates he needed to win a lot of games thus get in position to waltz away with the trophy. If not, another great, and possibly better, player would have received it.

Russell's 5 MVP's are enough to keep him top 20, but definitely not top 5.

Interesting how you would talk about reading comprehension when I clearly mentioned how Russell as compared to Cousy.

Russell and Cousy played on the same team, Russell won 5 MVPs, Cousy won 1, and that was during Russell's rookie year. While it is true that Russell won those MVPs after Cousy's prime, Russell's MVPs showed that, the league as a whole, valued Russell over Cousy.

Add on top to that Cousy never earned as much as Russell did, and your assertion that the Celtics valued Cousy more than Russell is shaky, at best.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Interesting how you would talk about reading comprehension when I clearly mentioned how Russell as compared to Cousy.

Russell and Cousy played on the same team, Russell won 5 MVPs, Cousy won 1, and that was during Russell's rookie year. While it is true that Russell won those MVPs after Cousy's prime, Russell's MVPs showed that, the league as a whole, valued Russell over Cousy.

Add on top to that Cousy never earned as much as Russell did, and your assertion that the Celtics valued Cousy more than Russell is shaky, at best.

Once again you prove you fail at reading comprehension, must be at least the 4th time now, eh? I never said the Celtics valued Cousy over Russell. I said Cousy was perceived to be greater than Russell. By who? The people who gave opinions of who the greatest all time players were, fans, media, etc. It was people in Boston who perceived Cousy greater than Russell. Who do you think they (fans, media) thought was better, Havlicek? Maybe later, but not right away. I never said the Boston Celtics franchise, or the NBA valued Cousy or any other player greater than Russell.

[Jelloisjigglin]

I don't think winners can ever be overrated.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

I don't think winners can ever be overrated.

True, but it all depends on where you rank Russell, which you didn't do. I have a top 20 thread linked on my first discussion post this thread you are invited to reply in. So, it depends on where you rank Russell. I have more or less proven he isn't top 5, that's easy enough to see. He's marginal top 10, and I put him near the bottom of the top 20. Remember, although he has 11 rings he also had the best teammates by a landslide and a coach years ahead of the game. Without them, he doesn't win at all.

[jdiggy0424]

i put russell as number 5 of greatest of all time