Tim Duncan has the most of all times!

[Jimcs50]

Tim has most rings among Spurs too.

[Galileo]

I saw the Spurs championship DVD and when Russell stood right next to Duncan they appeared to be the same height, despite Russell's advanced age.

[Solid D]

His reasoning may be tenuous but at least he gave one. You've merely asserted that it's "a ridiculous take" without further explanation or sound reasoning.

You're right, jARS mEsH sEt, and I should have taken a few extra minutes to explain.

The reason I think it's ridiculous to say that Bill Russell's stats, or Wilt's stats, shouldn't count is because records are simply just that. Historical records and statistics. NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, etc. statistics are posted and stand as history. To say that Tim Duncan's records shouldn't count 25 or 50 years from now because of changes in average stature of men, or some other comparative measurement would also be unfair to Tim's historical, statistics. Wayne Gretzky has more career assists than any other player has total points, but would that be the case if facing today's larger (by average) goalkeepers wearing couch cushions for pads? His stats still count.



Bill Russell (#6 defending Wilt Chamberlain above) would have a much tougher time in today's NBA than he would have had in the 1950's and 60's, however, the talent back then was still quite good. Russell, at 6-91/2 lacked bulk for a big man during his career. Although Bill was tall, he was not perceived as a giant of a center back then. I was fortunate enough to watch him live at the Garden in the 60's, not to mention all of the weekend games on TV. He went up against Wilt Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond on a regular basis. The average NBA player's height and weight in 1965 was 6'6", 213 lbs, according to both the Basketball Reference and the Association for Professional Basketball Research.
Here are the yearly NBA average heights and weights during Russell's 13-year pro career:
AVERAGE PLAYER HEIGHT AND WEIGHT (Assoc. for Prof. Basketball Research)
Season Height Weight

1956-57 - 6'5" 207 lbs.
1957-58 - 6'5" 205 lbs.
1958-59 - 6'5" 208 lbs.
1959-60 - 6'5.5" 206 lbs.
1960-61 - 6'5.5" 207 lbs.
1961-62 - 6'5.5" 208 lbs.
1962-63 - 6'5.5" 208 lbs.
1963-64 - 6'6" 211 lbs.
1964-65 - 6'6" 213 lbs.
1965-66 - 6'6" 211 lbs.
1966-67 - 6'6" 210 lbs.
1967-68 - 6'6" 211 lbs.
1968-69 - 6'6" 214 lbs.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...NBA_stats.html

http://www.apbr.org/apbr-faq.html



The NBA average player height peaked in 1986–87 at 6' 7.62" and the average weight was 215.46 lbs. In 2013-14, it was 6'7", 217 lbs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_lea...ing_experience

Indeed players improve their speed or other physical tools over time in all sports but statistics are just that...statistics, based on the rules and dimensions at a given time in history. You just can't say that they "shouldn't count".


Nate Thurmond

[jARS mEsH sEt]

You're right, jARS mEsH sEt, and I should have taken a few extra minutes to explain.

The reason I think it's ridiculous to say that Bill Russell's stats, or Wilt's stats, shouldn't count is because records are simply just that. Historical records and statistics. NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, etc. statistics are posted and stand as history. To say that Tim Duncan's records shouldn't count 25 or 50 years from now because of changes in average stature of men, or some other comparative measurement would also be unfair to Tim's historical, statistics. Wayne Gretzky has more career assists than any other player has total points, but would that be the case if facing today's larger (by average) goalkeepers wearing couch cushions for pads? His stats still count.



Bill Russell (#6 defending Wilt Chamberlain above) would have a much tougher time in today's NBA than he would have had in the 1950's and 60's, however, the talent back then was still quite good. Russell, at 6-91/2 lacked bulk for a big man during his career. Although Bill was tall, he was not perceived as a giant of a center back then. I was fortunate enough to watch him live at the Garden in the 60's, not to mention all of the weekend games on TV. He went up against Wilt Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond on a regular basis. The average NBA player's height and weight in 1965 was 6'6", 213 lbs, according to both the Basketball Reference and the Association for Professional Basketball Research.
Here are the yearly NBA average heights and weights during Russell's 13-year pro career:
AVERAGE PLAYER HEIGHT AND WEIGHT (Assoc. for Prof. Basketball Research)
Season Height Weight

1956-57 - 6'5" 207 lbs.
1957-58 - 6'5" 205 lbs.
1958-59 - 6'5" 208 lbs.
1959-60 - 6'5.5" 206 lbs.
1960-61 - 6'5.5" 207 lbs.
1961-62 - 6'5.5" 208 lbs.
1962-63 - 6'5.5" 208 lbs.
1963-64 - 6'6" 211 lbs.
1964-65 - 6'6" 213 lbs.
1965-66 - 6'6" 211 lbs.
1966-67 - 6'6" 210 lbs.
1967-68 - 6'6" 211 lbs.
1968-69 - 6'6" 214 lbs.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...NBA_stats.html

http://www.apbr.org/apbr-faq.html



The NBA average player height peaked in 1986–87 at 6' 7.62" and the average weight was 215.46 lbs. In 2013-14, it was 6'7", 217 lbs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_lea...ing_experience

Indeed players improve their speed or other physical tools over time in all sports but statistics are just that...statistics, based on the rules and dimensions at a given time in history. You just can't say that they "shouldn't count".


Nate Thurmond

Good post. Yeah I agree.

[polandprzem]

You're right, jARS mEsH sEt, and I should have taken a few extra minutes to explain.

The reason I think it's ridiculous to say that Bill Russell's stats, or Wilt's stats, shouldn't count is because records are simply just that. Historical records and statistics. NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, etc. statistics are posted and stand as history. To say that Tim Duncan's records shouldn't count 25 or 50 years from now because of changes in average stature of men, or some other comparative measurement would also be unfair to Tim's historical, statistics. Wayne Gretzky has more career assists than any other player has total points, but would that be the case if facing today's larger (by average) goalkeepers wearing couch cushions for pads? His stats still count.



Bill Russell (#6 defending Wilt Chamberlain above) would have a much tougher time in today's NBA than he would have had in the 1950's and 60's, however, the talent back then was still quite good. Russell, at 6-91/2 lacked bulk for a big man during his career. Although Bill was tall, he was not perceived as a giant of a center back then. I was fortunate enough to watch him live at the Garden in the 60's, not to mention all of the weekend games on TV. He went up against Wilt Chamberlain and Nate Thurmond on a regular basis. The average NBA player's height and weight in 1965 was 6'6", 213 lbs, according to both the Basketball Reference and the Association for Professional Basketball Research.
Here are the yearly NBA average heights and weights during Russell's 13-year pro career:
AVERAGE PLAYER HEIGHT AND WEIGHT (Assoc. for Prof. Basketball Research)
Season Height Weight

1956-57 - 6'5" 207 lbs.
1957-58 - 6'5" 205 lbs.
1958-59 - 6'5" 208 lbs.
1959-60 - 6'5.5" 206 lbs.
1960-61 - 6'5.5" 207 lbs.
1961-62 - 6'5.5" 208 lbs.
1962-63 - 6'5.5" 208 lbs.
1963-64 - 6'6" 211 lbs.
1964-65 - 6'6" 213 lbs.
1965-66 - 6'6" 211 lbs.
1966-67 - 6'6" 210 lbs.
1967-68 - 6'6" 211 lbs.
1968-69 - 6'6" 214 lbs.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...NBA_stats.html

http://www.apbr.org/apbr-faq.html



The NBA average player height peaked in 1986–87 at 6' 7.62" and the average weight was 215.46 lbs. In 2013-14, it was 6'7", 217 lbs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_lea...ing_experience

Indeed players improve their speed or other physical tools over time in all sports but statistics are just that...statistics, based on the rules and dimensions at a given time in history. You just can't say that they "shouldn't count".


Nate Thurmond

Gr8 pic of Nate

[james evans]

lol, he played against 90% white guys who were straight trash compared to todays players, congrats you picked a couple of exceptions

there were only 10 teams. russel, chaimberlain, pe , and bellamy were 4 greats that played in that era off the top of my head. that's still 33% of good comp in the paint even if the other teams had abloutely nothing. today there are 30 teams. For a good big man today to equal that, they'd have to play at least 9 teams with great(or future great) big men. Can you name 9 nba teams today with dominant low post big men? Once again, my opinion means absolutely nothing. It's just that, it's my opinion. These are mathematical facts.

[Spurs 4 The Win]

there were only 10 teams. russel, chaimberlain, pe , and bellamy were 4 greats that played in that era off the top of my head. that's still 33% of good comp in the paint even if the other teams had abloutely nothing. today there are 30 teams. For a good big man today to equal that, they'd have to play at least 9 teams with great(or future great) big men. Can you name 9 nba teams today with dominant low post big men? Once again, my opinion means absolutely nothing. It's just that, it's my opinion. These are mathematical facts.

Did you ever stop to consider that these "greats" were only greats because they played against ordinary white guys who would be NCAA players at best in today's era... Of course every tall black dude that had any skill was "dominant and elite", they were the only players with an NBA skillset!!!! Russell is not bad, but he isnt better than Duncan lol. Imagine Duncan, Kobe, and Shaq in that era. Their numbers would be off the ing charts.

[james evans]

Did you ever stop to consider that these "greats" were only greats because they played against ordinary white guys who would be NCAA players at best in today's era... Of course every tall black dude that had any skill was "dominant and elite", they were the only players with an NBA skillset!!!! Russell is not bad, but he isnt better than Duncan lol. Imagine Duncan, Kobe, and Shaq in that era. Their numbers would be off the ing charts.

If you want to be technical about it, how many primed big men did shaq play against in HIS prime. hakeeem, ewing, robinson had been in the league for years before he got there and he did his thing against them but they had their way with him as well. when shaq hit his peak in the late 90s and thru the 2000s, those guys weren't in their primes. He had duncan, but guys like yao and olawakondi just weren't it. ben wallace? mutombo?(who i feel should be a hall of famer based on defense). Mourning got sick when he hit his peak. But i'd say shaq is an all time great and I can't say that if shaq played in the 80s against top big men nightly he'd be average cuz that wouldn't be true. I don't believe he'd win 3 in a row, but he would still be shaq. If you think Walt bellamy wouldnt be good enough for the nba today, but dwight howard and brooke lopez are, then we'll just agree to disagree.

[Jenks]

You're right, jARS mEsH sEt, and I should have taken a few extra minutes to explain.

And that is how you thoroughly dismantle someone on the internet.

[dbreiden83080]

Just poking around Tim Duncan's numbers right now his career has simply been incredible. In the playoffs he is first all time in block shots, third all time in rebounds, and fifth all time in scoring. That's unbelievable.

[Galileo]

Wow, OP! I just found the most amazing stat yet:

For single poster; Spurstalk member; In multiple posts from: tonight to tonight; posts stats requiring pointless data; pissed off >= 10 other Spurstalk members; named after Italian scientist; sorted by most posts matching criteria.

1. Galileo (OP), Internet, Post Count 5,146

You are just jealous that I discovered and I alone found a more interesting stat than you did. get a job. You must need something to keep you busy in the offseason.