113 replies to this topic

[PD24]

Thoughts? 

[SportsGuy]

We will be getting into this I am sure, over on our podcast, in the upcoming weeks.

 

I need to do some research on this...My first inclination is that Wade, at his best, was the more explosive player but I think I would prefer Pippen's overall game.

 

But again, I need to do look more into this.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Scottie Pippen, along with Bill Russell, are the two most overrated players in NBA history.

 

Give me Wade.  Any day.

[PD24]

Reason I asked is it was my assumption that at the time the Big 3 was formed, most thought Wade was a step or 2 above Pippen.

 

It was supposed to hinder Lebron's legacy a bit that he formed with another elite, superstar player.

But Wade's sharp decline makes this Heat time much more similar to the Bulls team IMO.

 

If it's debatable as to who was better, Wade or Pippen, then all of a sudden whatever accomplishments this Heat score continues to achieve (aka how many championships they win) looks a lot less gimmicky/bought and a lot more like the Bulls of the 90s IMO.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Especially considering Bosh is either A) way less of a factor because he's the 3rd option (what I think), or B ) soft and just not as good as people thought (what some think). 

[BSLChrisStoner]

Without doing my homework, I would imagine Pippen was regarded as the better ball-handler... always described the point-forward. Would guess most would take Pippen as the better defensive player as well.  Wade getting the edge offensively.

[SportsGuy]

Scottie Pippen, along with Bill Russell, are the two most overrated players in NBA history.

 

Give me Wade.  Any day.

Wow.

[Pedro Cerrano]

My primary arguments against Bill Russell:

 

-He played in an era where he wasn't A dominant big man, he was THE dominant big man.  I don't have all the guys he played against but, other than Wilt (who I will get to) I wonder how many big, physical centers he actually had to match up against on a given night.

 

-Despite that, people overlook the fact that he was very mediocre offensively.  He averaged 15 PPG for his career.  Yea, I know defense was his thing, but if you're going to be called (by some) the greatest or second greatest player in NBA history you should probably do more offensively than he did, especially when you consider the competition.

 

-His titles were the result of a lack of free agency and, again, were in a different era.  Imagine the Russell Celtics trying to win all those rings in this era, with trades, free agency, going up against guys like Shaq, Duncan, Dwight Howard, Marc Gasol, etc etc.

 

-Bill Simmons has the balls to say Russell was the better player than Wilt Chamberlain.  Statistically, it's not close and I've already addressed the title issue.  So that whole thing pisses me off.

 

-Screw the Celtics.

 

-Reminder, 15 PPG, same as Dale Ellis.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Without doing my homework, I would imagine Pippen was regarded as the better ball-handler... always described the point-forward. Would guess most would take Pippen as the better defensive player as well.  Wade getting the edge offensively.

 

I will say that many consider Pippen to be one of the best on the ball defenders the game has ever seen, so he has that going for him.  But it's laughable to consider him a top 50 NBA player of all time, which he was named a few years back.  If they re-did that today, I wonder if he'd make it.

 

Again, like Russell, he's artificially overrated due to some odd surrounding circumstances (aka, winning 6 rings playing alongside the greatest player of all time).

[Pedro Cerrano]

BTW, sorry to slightly derail the topic since Bill Russell wasn't mentioned at all.  Carry on.

[SportsGuy]

So, the Bill Russell issue is really because he was a Celtic...got it.

 

He isn't overrated by any means.

 

Was Brooks overrated?

[BSLChrisStoner]

So, the Bill Russell issue is really because he was a Celtic...got it.

 

He isn't overrated by any means.

 

Was Brooks overrated?

 

You can be great, and still overrated.  I do agree with Pedro about the lack of bigs in Russell's era. He would probably have been great in any era, but at what level? 

 

He was 6'10, 220... Durant is 6'9, 235..     the highlights I've seen of Russell, I always thought he would have had trouble vs. the bigs I really remember.... Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, etc. etc...  how in the world would he have guarded Shaq?

[Pedro Cerrano]

Different sports.  And I've never heard anyone call Brooks one of the greatest baseball players of all time.  Brooks is called one of the best 3B of all time, largely because of his defense, which is fine.  I won't argue that Russell isn't one of the greatest centers ever, but to be considered a top 1-2 player in NBA history you need to be a much more refined offensive player.  Winning a bunch of titles against small white guys in an era where your team is largely immune from being broken up doesn't do it for me.

 

Perhaps you'd like to make an actual argument refuting these points?

[Pedro Cerrano]

You can be great, and still overrated.  I do agree with Pedro about the lack of bigs in Russell's era. He would probably have been great in any era, but at what level? 

 

He was 6'10, 220... Durant is 6'9, 235..     the highlights I've seen of Russell, I always thought he would have had trouble vs. the bigs I really remember.... Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, etc. etc...  how in the world would he have guarded Shaq?

 

Thank you.  My buddies and I get into this all the time.  There's no way he would have had as many blocks/rebounds, etc if he had to play against the guys you mentioned every single night.  Shaq would have destroyed him.

 

6' 10" 220 going up against 7'1" 330, lol.

[SportsGuy]

Thank you.  My buddies and I get into this all the time.  There's no way he would have had as many blocks/rebounds, etc if he had to play against the guys you mentioned every single night.  Shaq would have destroyed him.

 

6' 10" 220 going up against 7'1" 330, lol.

The hypocracy of your argument is hilarious.

 

Shaq was way bigger than everyone else, even in this era...just as Russell was in his era.  Yet, Russell gets knocked down because of it?

 

Very interesting.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I think if we looked into the size discrepancies Russell would have towered over his opponents at a much greater advantage than Shaq had.  You can throw Shaq out of the equation if you want, I don't care.  How does he handle the other guys Stoner mentioned, Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Duncan and the guys I mentioned, Howard, Gasol, etc etc

 

He never had to play against anyone close to those guys and yet still managed just 15 PPG.  Yes his rebound and block numbers are terrific but there is no way they can be taken at face value, sorry.

[SportsGuy]

Different sports.  And I've never heard anyone call Brooks one of the greatest baseball players of all time.  Brooks is called one of the best 3B of all time, largely because of his defense, which is fine.  I won't argue that Russell isn't one of the greatest centers ever, but to be considered a top 1-2 player in NBA history you need to be a much more refined offensive player.  Winning a bunch of titles against small white guys in an era where your team is largely immune from being broken up doesn't do it for me.

 

Perhaps you'd like to make an actual argument refuting these points?

Those Celtics teams had arguably the greatest coach ever, several HOFers and dominated an era.

 

YEs, Russell wasn't a great offensive player but the impact he had rebounding and defensively made up for that.

 

Some think he is a top 2 player but that's not a universal thought either...Most would say top 5 though.

[Pedro Cerrano]

It's like, imagine Kevin Durant, playing center, in today's NBA.  Except he has no discernible offensive skill really and certainly has no jump shot.

 

It would be laughable.

[SportsGuy]

I think if we looked into the size discrepancies Russell would have towered over his opponents at a much greater advantage than Shaq had.  You can throw Shaq out of the equation if you want, I don't care.  How does he handle the other guys Stoner mentioned, Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Duncan and the guys I mentioned, Howard, Gasol, etc etc

 

He never had to play against anyone close to those guys and yet still managed just 15 PPG.  Yes his rebound and block numbers are terrific but there is no way they can be taken at face value, sorry.

So, Babe Ruth wasn't as good as people say, right?

 

Wilt played against much smaller players as well...So, he wasn't as good?

[Pedro Cerrano]

Those Celtics teams had arguably the greatest coach ever, several HOFers and dominated an era.

 

YEs, Russell wasn't a great offensive player but the impact he had rebounding and defensively made up for that.

 

Some think he is a top 2 player but that's not a universal thought either...Most would say top 5 though.

Yes, they dominated an era where there was no FA.  It's the same reason we have to put up with Yankee fans spewing their crap about 28 rings.  It's easy to win a bunch of rings when you can accumulate a bunch of talent and not have to worry about them going anywhere. 

 

You want to overlook his offensive stats and instead drool over the fact he was able to out-rebound a bunch of guys way smaller than him.  That's fine, I'm just not going to make the same mistake.

[BSLChrisStoner]

The hypocracy of your argument is hilarious.

 

Shaq was way bigger than everyone else, even in this era...just as Russell was in his era.  Yet, Russell gets knocked down because of it?

 

Very interesting.

 

No, you still value Russell as great for what he accomplished in his era. He just gets moved down a peg when you consider best ever, because you have now seen better.