Reply With Quote
The first three playoff meetings between the Spurs and the Lakers belong to Shaq, not Kobe
The first three playoff meetings between the Spurs and the Lakers belong to Shaq, not Kobe
Well, I call Bull on your post. If you're going to discuss this with me, talk about everything I say, not just one sentence. You admit you only saw Russell on film. This means you didn't hear all the talk radio shows of that era that discussed Russell and the other players, or read the newspapers from then, and so on. Players such as Wilt, West, Pet , Robertson, Baylor, and Cousy were considered best of all time with higher stock than Russell. That was the opinion then. The opinion now is Russell may even be better than Wilt, and it's because everyone who says it follows what people say now, and that's no different than how people agreed with what people said back then. The only difference is back then it was mostly people involved with the game, now it's mostly fans on internet sports forums.
Also, people want to rate players like Kobe because he had help; ie Shaq and Gasol. Russell had more help compared to the rest of the league than Bryant could dream of today. Those Celtics teams of the 60's were stacked. John Havlicek was their 6th man for crying out loud.
Russell should be up there because of his defense, which is finally recognized. Top 10? Not in my book. If he's in yours, more power to you.
Pure stupidity and ignorance. Go look at the box scores, I just did, confirming what I already knew.
1999, 2001, 2002 series, Kobe was the Lakers MVP. Shaq's only dominating performance over Kobe was in game 4, 1999 and by then it was too late.
Shaq would never have won without Kobe. Kobe won the west where the defacto finals were. Shaq cleaned up the finals MVPs where there was no one to guard him.
One of the big reasons Spurs fans hate Kobe is what he did to them in 2001 and 2002.
Another Kobe lover? Okay
Hardly. I'm an agitator who likes to make morons my . List is full now with two Heat fans who are actually the same guy. I am happy with the list as it is.
See, it's like this, if you want to rank greatness by rings it pretty much has to go like this for a top 10. What's interesting is this is a lot of people's top 10, only the order is different.
11 Russell
6 Kareem
6 Jordan
5 Magic
5 Kobe
4 Duncan
4 Shaq
3 Bird
2 Chamberlain
2 Hakeem
Problem is, every one of those players had stacked teams. Kobe gets discredited because he had help, but as I noted above, this is unfair because he won the west, not Shaq. Actually, truth is they helped and needed each other, those 2000-02 Lakers were stacked. Everyone needs help, it's a team game.
However, a lot of all time greats are not on that list, and many had one or no rings. A top 10 list is never going to be agreed upon by everyone.
Where history puts Kobe depends on how he does his last few seasons. If LeBron James gets his 8 rings with the Heat, history will forget he had help. I'll wager the Kobe critics will vanish after he's done. Actually, no I won't. Some will never stop the hate. Probably the same with LeBron.
Stop hating and respect all great players. You will enjoy the sport more that way.
Here's an interesting argument. I didn't put James Worthy and his 3 rings and finals MVP on the list. He's top 50 material, but not as good arguably as Dominique Wilkins. The Lakers could have drafted Wilkins in 1982. They didn't. If they had, and he still had the statistical career he did does he make the top 10 list if the Lakers still win in 1985, 1987, 1988? Logic says he supplants Hakeem on the list. Oscar Robertson played for a losing team until a mercy trade to the Bucks. Dr. J, West and Baylor all had long careers with plenty of finals appearances, but only 2 rings. Pity poor Karl Malone and Charles Barkley. How about Bob Cousy and his 6 rings with Russell? Sam Jones and his 10 with Russell? Bill Sharman and his 4 with Russell? Tommy Heinsohn and his 8 with Russell? John Havlicek and his 6 rings with Russell and two with Cowens and White? They had stellar careers as well. Look them up and see why Russell has 11 rings.
Oh yeah, Russell's Celtics also had great role players like Frank Ramsey and K.C. Jones, look them up as well. Got to give them credit for finding the best talent back then and stacking the deck against the league. The NBA worked differently in those days. you couldn't be a free agent, you were stuck where you played and couldn't put your services up for bid.
Russell may or may not be top 10, but the higher you put him, the more you overrate him.
One final thought, and I'm gone. Vacation ahead later today.
Kobe has a stacked team, that's why he won, but he won nonetheless.
Duncan has had some stacked teams when he won it.
Take those stacked teams away, and maybe they have 2 les each and fans of other teams had a reason to be happy these last 10 years.
Russell had stacked teams, far beyond what Tim or Kobe could hope for. Take some of those great players away from Russell and his 13 years in the league and they may play out like this:
Russell 3 les
Wilt:3 les
Lakers: 2 les
Hawks: 2 les
With the other 3 up for grabs.
Moral is, no matter how you rank Russell, Tim, or Kobe, they are still the same player with or without their les. This puts a flaw on rings to determine greatness as well as who your teammates are.
As I said earlier, update the top NBA 50 players at 50 years and don't rank them in order. You'll just waste your time and energy trying to pimp your player and slap the players you hate.
Kobe does what he is supposed to do with stacked teams...WIN.
Other players also have stacked teams, but instead they LOSE.
I don't hate Kobe. I hate how overrated he is by so many people.
"close" doesn't cut it
I'm also someone who has never watched Bill Russell play and haven't even really watched many clips. But the stuff you brought up (not just in this post but the others) is something I always questioned about him. And I think you bring up pretty interesting points that he's gotten a lot more credit as the years pass by, especially in the modern age of NBA basketball where multiple championship winners are really the dominant and best players in the league.
I do wonder how a big and athletic man in that era of the NBA surrounded by so much talent was only able to shoot 44% from the field. In today's NBA, he'd be ridiculed for his offense. As great as his defense was, he was not even a "good" offensive player, let alone a great one. 44% from the field, 56% from the free throw line when defenses and individual defenders weren't all that great. Makes you wonder. As great as a champion and winner as he was, I believe you when you say he wasn't even in the discussion of the greats of the greats when he retired. Maybe all time great "winners." I think in today's NBA, he'd be more like Ben Wallace than he would be a Duncan or KG.
I personally might still put Russell in the top 10, but it's borderline. He's down the list somewhere in the bottom 5 and possible just out of the top 10.
And I will disagree on one of your other points about him being a giant when he played. Going back to their listed sizes, Wilt was all of 7-foot-1, 275 lbs. and looked it. Bill Russell was 6-foot-9 and 215 lbs. Now, those listed heights and weights are probably early on in their respective careers and Russell may have gotten closer to 225-230 but if you look at pictures back then, Wilt still towered over Russell physically. Wilt was a mammoth giant of a man, especially back then. It's like the size difference between Andrew Bynum and Andrei Kirilenko.
If he ultimately came through when it mattered most, then he didn't choke; he was simply struggling early on.
But here's the other thing that's conveniently been erased from people's memories as the years go by: Duncan was playing on two sprained ankles in the Finals. His mobility had clearly been compromised to the point where he was severely limited. This while battling one of the greatest defensive front lines in the history of the game.
Yet people were seemingly so eager to see him fail or not play up to his lofty standards for once, that that rarely get's mentioned anymore.
As for this talk about Russell and players from that era in general, I almost feel obligated to put them in their consensus place, but honestly, I have a hard time believing Russell was really a better player than guys like Duncan, O'Neal and Olajuwon. I'm not saying he definitively wasn't, but I'm far from convinced he as. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm underestimating his era, but I think guys like that were just ahead of their time and because of that and people not wanting to disrespect players in any sport who are considered legends, I think people often inflate or overstate how great they were.
One more look in to see what's new, then I need to get on the road. Thanks for this reply, a great post.
One thing we can all agree on is defense wins championships. The Celtics were the first to figure this and many other thngs out. That's why the Celtics were so darned good until Larry Bird was done. Credit Red Auerbach. Finally, when the Celtics faded in the late 80s, the rest of the league figured out what Red already practiced. By then, the NBA was truly evolved into the giant it is now.
As mentioned, Mikan, like Russell, couldn't shoot well either. He should have shot over 55% for his career, instead it's around 40%.
Looking back at the 1960s, player heights were usually inflated. Wilt was listed at 7'2" as was Kareem. Now Chamberlain is pegged at 7'1". Supposedly Kareem was measured at 7'4" laying down but they didn't want to list him that high. That's just a story I heard, don't quote me. I recall Russell as being listed at 6'10 or 6'11. That sounds a lot taller than 6'9". I met Bill Russell when I was 6'2" and he looked closer to 7 feet than 6'9" to me. Whatever. If he actually is 6'9", bless him. I think it may be mount Everest, but whatever one it is isn't important. The actual height was found to end in 00 digits. So, the mapmakers changed it up a bit else the public think it was just a guess. Maybe Russell is 6"10 and was taken down an inch to make him look better. However, the only real tall guys with talent back then were Nate Thurmond and Walt Bellamy. Reed and Kareem came later. With an entire Celtics team playing defense, it's a lot easier for Russell to play better defense as well. The example I'll use, just to piss off the haters, is Kobe's offense stunk in game 7 of the 2010 finals, but he grabbed 15 rebouns. Why? Because the rest of the Lakers defended well enough to make Boston miss.
Wilt usually had his way with Russell. His teammates got creamed by Russell's teammates.
Ever hear of Hal Greer? He was one of the first playeres to break 20K points and at one time was considered top 10 player of all time material. He made the NBA 50 at 50 list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Greer
They call him third best guard of his era. Remember, this was back in the day where offense was what it was all about. The NBA struggled back then to fill arenas. They used to have a rule called the "Territorial draft pick". Teams could spend their first round pick on a local college player in order to sell tickets. That's why Oscar Robertson got stuck in Cincinatti. They didn't stay there long after he was traded. It was on to KC and Omaha, and now, Sacramento.
Honestly, I have nothing at all against Bill Russell other than where to rank him all time. I believe he is overrated. He's probably my favorite major network announcer in NBA history, the man is funny, and knows his stuff. Too bad most of you didn't see his great work in the 70s and early 80's. For Lakers fans, I know he was on hand for their 1972 and 1980 le clinching games doing the color commentary. Shame on Lakers fans for booing him in LA when he presented Kobe the trophy that bears his name. He was very fair to the Lakers and their talent in those series.
Oh, two more things. Jerry West won the first NBA finals MVP but his team lost to Russell in his last year. West was incredible. When the Lakes finally did win in Lo Angeles, West shot about 30% against the Bucks and the Knicks. He was simply caught up in the drama and succombed to it, just as Kobe did and admitted in his finals MVP speech.
Lastly, the best thing about Russell's Celtics were the last 3 les, not the first 8. Boston was virtually a 95% favorite to win just about every series through 1965. In 1966, Wilt and Philadelphia got a better record but couldn't beat Boston in the playoffs. They did in 1967, but lost in 1968 after being ahead 3-1 in the conference finals. In 1969, Boston won every series without HCA, a feat the 2010 Celtics tried their best to copy with their last 3 series. Those closing 4 years can be divided between Championship experience and a great roster.
Back in a week, maybe.
A lot of what you say is interesting stuff...
I think heights of players have been exaggerated either way for a long time. You'd have players stretching 6'3 into 6'5, perhaps arguing "with shoes" and rounding up. And you have some players like KG and Duncan who have rounded down to get under that "7-foot" imaginary line of distinction so as not to be considered "centers" in the game. Seems like the listed heights of players back in the 60s and 70s, at least as they've been listed now years later, were more reflective of their heights "without shoes." Who knows really? I've followed the NBA since the mid 80s, so again I don't know about the accuracies of height and weight back before then. But listed heights have actually intrigued me a lot when it comes to NBA players. I remember in the early to mid 90s when Jordan and the Bulls were meeting in the Knicks in the playoffs, John Starks suddenly went from 6'3 to getting listed 6'5. Again, who knows the rhyme and reason, much less the actual accuracy.
Here are some interesting pictures though:
This is one of the better pictures to show the difference, because a lot of the in game action pictures I saw had one or both of them in bended and contorted body positions. But, this picture shows Wilt even somewhat slouching and still much, much more physically imposing than Russell. Eye level and waist level, Wilt has a good 3-4 inches at least on Russell.
I know Kareem has that afro but look at the eye-level difference. Damn. Maybe Kareem really was closer to 7'4 than he was 7'2.
Kareem might have an inch or so on Wilt, perhaps even two. Both giant men. I think Russell was still a big man by the standards of that era in NBA history, but his size was not at the same level as Wilt or Kareem.
Kobe is damned talented and he's a winner as much as Duncan, but hey, what would have happened to Kobe if he didn't play alongside Shaq, who was a constant double and triple-team guy during his prime? I believe, no one, in any era can handle Shaq during his prime. I agree that both players needed each other during their run, but Shaq, was clearly the bigger part of the equation than Kobe.
Duncan, in his prime, could carry a team to a championship as evidenced by what he did in 2003. What did he have back in 2003? A very young and erratic Parker, a good but still wet behind the ears Manu, an inconsistent S-Jax, and a good, but already fading D-Rob. If that's your definition of stacked, then ok.
Jordan Bulls would've probably lost to the Rockets had they beaten the Magic in 95, but the press just use his unbeaten Finals record legacy to his advantage. I'll say this again it don't matter if you reach the finals or not make the playoffs. The losers will never be remembered. The west was weak during Magic's le days, and you can say that the west has become weak again (especially after 2007).
LOL at Kobe taking over the team before the Lakers started winning. You Laker fans aren't giving enough credit for the man responsible for the last three-peat in the NBA. Just because Shaq faceraped Buss doesn't give you the right to re-write history.
So Kobe can win if he has best big man in the game or the second best big man in the game. Wow so impressive.
it is impressive...he has a good big man and he knows how to win with them. HOw come Duncan cant win every year? He is one of the best big men this past decade. what happened in 06 or 08?
The sooner people respect Kobe, the sooner the hate goes away... But hey it's hard for some Cavs fans, Heat fans and (heck pretty the whole NBA fanbase) to not hate Kobe.
Kobe was the MVP vs the Spurs in 2001 & 2002 playoffs because the Spurs didn't have anyone to stop Kobe back then (heck they still don't). What the Pistons & the Celtics have done in the past will always be overlooked.
I'll say this again, no one gave the 2004 Pistons a chance, but look what a great defense can do to a HOF player like Kobe.
He not only has the second best big man(best offensively) but great role players as well. It is not just pau and kobe you idiot.
He could if he had the kind of talent kobe has had and the officials help. By the way Kobe doesn't win every year either. You should know this unless you are a two year old.
Best player of the past decade.
Story of Tim Duncan's career. Sadly he'll retire while he's irrelevant.
Another idiotic comment
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
