2010-2011 NBA Thread

[RockRaines]

And defense. I think people underrate Bird more nowadays, I think the idea being that a white dude who never jumps could be dominant in different eras, but bird was dominant until his back gave out.

People were saying s*** about him since he was in HS. Then he dropped out of Indiana to work for a few years, went back to school and took a no-talent Indiana state team to the bring of an NCAA title. He was then drafted and the NBA talent was supposed to make his game disappear when all he did was dominated and win titles. His game translates to any era. Fundamentals, effort and desire.

[RockRaines]

You summed up what I was about to say in roughly 1/20th the words. Thank you.

 

As for the second part, pretty sure he was saying that about Russell. I'm not exactly a Russell fan and JFL is right about that era being a completely different pace, but you don't end up as the best player on a championship team 11 times by accident. He also won 5 MVP's in an era where everyone still hated black people, so that says something about the respect he had around the league.

Check out Russell's playoff stats too. The guy was a monster.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Lets see. We cant use stats? Then how would we compare? There has to be some correlation you can make to prove that a guy who's best year ever wasnt as good as the others guys worst season. Because Russell's worst rebounding year was 18.6, and Wallace's best was 15.4. Russell avg'ed 22.5 with 15 points. Wallace avg'ed 6 and 10.

 

Guys like Elgin Baylor were pulling down 15+ rebounds per game back then. You can't use stats to compare modern players to players from the 60's. Otherwise Wilt > Jordan and it's not even close. Bill Russell was a terribly inefficient offensive player. Yes, he revolutionized the game defensively. But was he really better than Ben Wallce when he was racking up all those DPOYs and spearheading some of the great defenses of all-time? Basketball reference has pace adjusted metrics. And the difference between the two is negligible at best.

[RockRaines]

Guys like Elgin Baylor were pulling down 15+ rebounds per game back then. You can't use stats to compare modern players to players from the 60's. Otherwise Wilt > Jordan and it's not even close. Bill Russell was a terribly inefficient offensive player. Yes, he revolutionized the game defensively. But was he really better than Ben Wallce when he was racking up all those DPOYs and spearheading some of the great defenses of all-time? Basketball reference has pace adjusted metrics. And the difference between the two is negligible at best.

Can you post those please. I would like to see what you are looking at to support that he is 1. Inefficient and 2. The same player as Ben Wallace

[Jordan4life_2007]

You summed up what I was about to say in roughly 1/20th the words. Thank you.

 

As for the second part, pretty sure he was saying that about Russell. I'm not exactly a Russell fan and JFL is right about that era being a completely different pace, but you don't end up as the best player on a championship team 11 times by accident. He also won 5 MVP's in an era where everyone still hated black people, so that says something about the respect he had around the league.

 

And that to me is what makes him overrated. The 11 rings. How many hall of famers did he play with? I'm not trying to minimize his importance and impact (sounds like it, though). But there were like 10 teams in the league back then and the talent overall just wasn't that great to begin with.

[LittleHurt05]

You summed up what I was about to say in roughly 1/20th the words. Thank you.

 

As for the second part, pretty sure he was saying that about Russell. I'm not exactly a Russell fan and JFL is right about that era being a completely different pace, but you don't end up as the best player on a championship team 11 times by accident. He also won 5 MVP's in an era where everyone still hated black people, so that says something about the respect he had around the league.

 

A black player won the MVP award every year from 1960-1972, a period which encompassed 4 of Russell's MVP awards. His championships are impressive, but there were only 8 or 9 teams in the entire league back then, so winning a title was much easier back then. He also played with Cousy, Havlicek, among others, those were some talented Celtics teams.

[southsider2k5]

People were saying s*** about him since he was in HS. Then he dropped out of Indiana to work for a few years, went back to school and took a no-talent Indiana state team to the bring of an NCAA title. He was then drafted and the NBA talent was supposed to make his game disappear when all he did was dominated and win titles. His game translates to any era. Fundamentals, effort and desire.

 

Plus it is such a different game. The last guy on the bench today is a much better athlete than the top player on a team 30 years ago. That person is also bigger, stronger, and faster than the top players of 30 years ago. Some things you can compare, others you can't. It is much like trying to compare different eras in baseball. I really try to compare players relative levels in their respective games. Bird was a consensus top 3 or 4 player in his day. Until this playoff run, I am not sure that Dirk would get that mention. Bird was that player for a decade. So was Bill Russell.

[southsider2k5]

And that to me is what makes him overrated. The 11 rings. How many hall of famers did he play with? I'm not trying to minimize his importance and impact (sounds like it, though). But there were like 10 teams in the league back then and the talent overall just wasn't that great to begin with.

 

That also means he would have played with more Hall of Famers because talent wasn't as watered down as it is today.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Can you post those please. I would like to see what you are looking at to support that he is 1. Inefficient and 2. The same player as Ben Wallace

 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/russebi01.html

 

And it looks like I was wrong in that they don't have the advanced metrics for players in the 60's. Rebound rate is what I was looking for. But they don't have it listed for him. But look at those shooting percentages and try not to barf.

[bmags]

I agree with J4L that it's hard to imagine putting comparing Bill Russell to today's players. I guess the other argument to be made is with modern nutrition and weightlifting would BIll Russel have still been a monster? Maybe.

 

But like I said, I feel confident with the post 1980 comparisons. ABA has been consolidated. Athletes are entering the league. I still think Magic and Bird would be great in any era. The only one that consistently confuses me is Barkley b/c of his height.

[Jordan4life_2007]

A black player won the MVP award every year from 1960-1972, a period which encompassed 4 of Russell's MVP awards. His championships are impressive, but there were only 8 or 9 teams in the entire league back then, so winning a title was much easier back then. He also played with Cousy, Havlicek, among others, those were some talented Celtics teams.

 

Weren't there only 2 rounds of playoffs back then? lol. Get out of here (not you LH). I think Russell was great for his time. But he's most definitely overrated.

[Steve9347]

And that to me is what makes him overrated. The 11 rings. How many hall of famers did he play with? I'm not trying to minimize his importance and impact (sounds like it, though). But there were like 10 teams in the league back then and the talent overall just wasn't that great to begin with.

It doesn't matter. You make yourself come off completely silly and as if you are only here for arguments and to play devil's advocate when you reach to such insane ends that you say Bill Russell = Ben Wallace. Come on man, Wallace had no actual skills, just grab boards and block. Russell played in a much different era, of course, but he was the f***ing man of that f***ing era.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Steve9347

[ZoomSlowik]

Guys like Elgin Baylor were pulling down 15+ rebounds per game back then. You can't use stats to compare modern players to players from the 60's. Otherwise Wilt > Jordan and it's not even close. Bill Russell was a terribly inefficient offensive player. Yes, he revolutionized the game defensively. But was he really better than Ben Wallce when he was racking up all those DPOYs and spearheading some of the great defenses of all-time? Basketball reference has pace adjusted metrics. And the difference between the two is negligible at best.

 

Relative to the era, Russell wasn't that inefficient offensively. Shooting percentages league-wide were in the low-40's and Russell was a fair amount above that ever year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that to me is what makes him overrated. The 11 rings. How many hall of famers did he play with? I'm not trying to minimize his importance and impact (sounds like it, though). But there were like 10 teams in the league back then and the talent overall just wasn't that great to begin with.

 

They still won EVERY year. Wilt Chamberlain was probably a better individual player than him, but the Sixers beat them once even though Wilt eventually had guys like Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham and Chet Walker on his team. Plus the West/Baylor duo never beat them and the Celtics beat a Lakers team with West, Baylor AND Wilt in the 68-69 Finals.

 

I don't quite know where I'd put Russell because of the huge difference in eras, but to compare him to Ben Wallace is just asanine. if nothing else, he was a way better passer and played at that level for 13 years, not 5-7 depending on when you think Big Ben started to fall off. He also scored 15 PPG at an above league average FG%, while Wallace was pretty much useless if it wasn't a dunk or putback.

Edited June 13, 2011 by ZoomSlowik

[Steve9347]

Dwight Howard told NBA.com that he will definitely become a free agent rather than sign an extension with Orlando.

Howard expressed his desire to stay in Orlando, but stressed the importance that he wants to see the team win a championship before putting pen to paper and signing an extension to remain with the team. That means he'll opt out of the final year of his contract and become an unrestricted free agent after next season. Similar to the LeBron James in Cleveland situation, the pressure is now on the Magic to deliver Howard the players he needs.

[RockRaines]

Dwight Howard told NBA.com that he will definitely become a free agent rather than sign an extension with Orlando.

Howard expressed his desire to stay in Orlando, but stressed the importance that he wants to see the team win a championship before putting pen to paper and signing an extension to remain with the team. That means he'll opt out of the final year of his contract and become an unrestricted free agent after next season. Similar to the LeBron James in Cleveland situation, the pressure is now on the Magic to deliver Howard the players he needs.

Wow. Clear f***ing cap space Gar, this is the one player you need to add if you want a title.

[Jordan4life_2007]

It doesn't matter. You make yourself come off completely silly and as if you are only here for arguments and to play devil's advocate when you reach to such insane ends that you say Bill Russell = Ben Wallace. Come on man, Wallace had no actual skills, just grab boards and block. Russell played in a much different era, of course, but he was the f***ing man of that f***ing era.

 

Let's put it this way: Hakeem >> Russell

 

Yet Hakeem is never mentioned as one of the all-time great centers. It's always Wilt, Kareem and Russell. Then there's the next tier. Hakeem and Shaq would make a dirty diaper outta Bill Russell. It wouldn't even be funny. It would be like when Jeff Hornacek would check Jordan.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Relative to the era, Russell wasn't that inefficient offensively. Shooting percentages league-wide were in the low-40's and Russell was a fair amount above that ever year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They still won EVERY year. Wilt Chamberlain was probably a better individual player than him, but the Sixers beat them once even though Wilt eventually had guys like Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham and Chet Walker on his team. Plus the West/Baylor duo never beat them and the Celtics beat a Lakers team with West, Baylor AND Wilt in the 68-69 Finals.

 

I don't quite know where I'd put Russell because of the huge difference in eras, but to compare him to Ben Wallace is just asanine. if nothing else, he was a way better passer and played at that level for 13 years, not 5-7 depending on when you think Big Ben started to fall off. He also scored 15 PPG at an above league average FG%, while Wallace was pretty much useless if it wasn't a dunk or putback.

 

I totally disagree and I'm pissed that basketball reference doesn't have advanced stats for players from the 60's. I guarantee when you normalize for pace that they're indeed similar. Maybe there's another site out there. Yeah, Russell was better for a longer period of time. I'll give you that. But peak wise, there was no difference. Bill Russell's 11 rings has exaggerated his standing among the all-time greats.

 

[Steve9347]

Let's put it this way: Hakeem >> Russell

 

Yet Hakeem is never mentioned as one of the all-time great centers. It's always Wilt, Kareem and Russell. Then there's the next tier. Hakeem and Shaq would make a dirty diaper outta Bill Russell. It wouldn't even be funny. It would be like when Jeff Hornacek would check Jordan.

You said Ben f***ing Wallace, not Hakeem. Now you see why you come off as a troll sometimes.

[iamshack]

Let's put it this way: Hakeem >> Russell

 

Yet Hakeem is never mentioned as one of the all-time great centers. It's always Wilt, Kareem and Russell. Then there's the next tier. Hakeem and Shaq would make a dirty diaper outta Bill Russell. It wouldn't even be funny. It would be like when Jeff Hornacek would check Jordan.

I think debates like this are extremely fascinating.

 

It's unfair to compare players of different eras though...it just is impossible.

 

Each era of players is usually better than the one that preceded them, however, that era owes their increase in skill to those that came before them.

 

Talent development in sports is the same as it is with anything...expecting Bill Russell to be like Hakeem Olajuwan is like expecting the late 1960's Apollo astronauts to have iPads. It just doesn't work that way.

[ZoomSlowik]

I totally disagree and I'm pissed that basketball reference doesn't have advanced stats for players from the 60's. I guarantee when you normalize for pace that they're indeed similar. Maybe there's another site out there. Yeah, Russell was better for a longer period of time. I'll give you that. But peak wise, there was no difference. Bill Russell's 11 rings has exaggerated his standing among the all-time greats.

 

If Ben Wallace was even remotely close to Bill Russell, then why does he only have one ring? Could it be because he didn't dominate the league to nearly the degree that Russell did? And don't give me the "there were no big guys" thing, because Russell pretty much owned Wilt for 10 years.

[iamshack]

I totally disagree and I'm pissed that basketball reference doesn't have advanced stats for players from the 60's. I guarantee when you normalize for pace that they're indeed similar. Maybe there's another site out there. Yeah, Russell was better for a longer period of time. I'll give you that. But peak wise, there was no difference. Bill Russell's 11 rings has exaggerated his standing among the all-time greats.

How many full games of Bill Russell's have you watched in their entirety?

[Jordan4life_2007]

You said Ben f***ing Wallace, not Hakeem. Now you see why you come off as a troll sometimes.

 

My point eluded you. Hakeem Olajuwon was twice the player Bill Russell was. Yet Russell's viewed as a top 3 center ever while Hakeem is perpetually stuck in the second tier. And how am I a troll? Because I don't bow down when the masses have different opinions then myself? This is why I stay out of filmbuster. I'd get banned in 22 seconds if I were to share my opinions.

[bmags]

Everyone I read basically calls Shaq unequivocally the greatest center of all time. I agree. He was unbelievably dominant for so many years.

[WHarris1]

All this debate just makes me remember how much I loved reading "The Book of Basketball".

[Steve9347]

Let's put it this way: Hakeem >> Russell

 

Yet Hakeem is never mentioned as one of the all-time great centers. It's always Wilt, Kareem and Russell. Then there's the next tier. Hakeem and Shaq would make a dirty diaper outta Bill Russell. It wouldn't even be funny. It would be like when Jeff Hornacek would check Jordan.

Although, place Bill Russell in Hakeem's era with the development, medication, training etc that was available 20+ years later and he's a different player entirely, too.