113 replies to this topic

[Pedro Cerrano]

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?

 

Lol, a HUGE argument that Babe Ruth detractors make is the fact that he never played against any black players, so yea, that's something to consider when evaluating him.  I think if Babe Ruth played in today's era of baseball he wouldn't be nearly as successful.

 

And yes, I believe Wilt's mind-boggling numbers wouldn't be as high either.  No way he scores 100 points in today's game and puts up the ridiculous numbers he averaged.  I do think he was better than Russell though, and it's not close.

[SportsGuy]

And so what if they dominated an era without FA.  Everyone else was on the same playing field.

 

Your Lakers lost to them 6 times in the finals and then lost to the Knicks after that.

 

So, your Lakers were really good teams but not good enough.  They basically dominated an era as well, just didn't win it all.  So, that part of Lakers history means very little, right?

[SportsGuy]

Lol, a HUGE argument that Babe Ruth detractors make is the fact that he never played against any black players, so yea, that's something to consider when evaluating him.  I think if Babe Ruth played in today's era of baseball he wouldn't be nearly as successful.

 

And yes, I believe Wilt's mind-boggling numbers wouldn't be as high either.  No way he scores 100 points in today's game and puts up the ridiculous numbers he averaged.  I do think he was better than Russell though, and it's not close.

So basically, you are saying only the players of today can really be considered the all time greats?(or at least players of the last 30ish years)

[Pedro Cerrano]

And so what if they dominated an era without FA.  Everyone else was on the same playing field.

 

Your Lakers lost to them 6 times in the finals and then lost to the Knicks after that.

 

So, your Lakers were really good teams but not good enough.  They basically dominated an era as well, just didn't win it all.  So, that part of Lakers history means very little, right?

 

It wasn't a level playing field, that's my point. 

 

Look, the number one argument I hear for Russell is that he won a bunch of rings, and that has to count.  Sure, titles count, but it's not nearly as impressive when you consider the fact that once the Celtics were assembled, that was it, there was no breaking them up.  So year in and year out they were able to just steamroll everyone.  If that had happened in today's game, players would have left via FA because there wouldn't be a way for the Celtics to keep everyone under the cap.  In the end, Russell doesn't win nearly as many titles IMO and his biggest supporting argument is in shambles.

 

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to drive home with the Lakers.  If you want me to admit that those teams were artificially overrated I have no issue doing that either.  I think what the Shaq/Kobe Lakers accomplished and what Jordan's Bulls accomplished piss on whatever Russell's Celtics accomplished, given the era and the rules.

 

I've already conceded that Wilt is also overrated so the Laker thing doesn't really hold much water.

[Pedro Cerrano]

So basically, you are saying only the players of today can really be considered the all time greats?(or at least players of the last 30ish years)

 

No.  Just because I think Ruth's #s wouldn't be as gaudy if he played today doesn't mean I don't think he would be a HOF or considered an all-time great.

 

Also, because size matters in the NBA much more (especially for centers) I think the fact that Russell was 220 pounds HAS to be considered when talking about how he'd fair today.  He'd basically have to be a swing-man, power forward with no outside offensive game to speak of.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Again, apologies to Peter for the derailed thread.  Perhaps we can move this discussion elsewhere on the board?  I'd like to hear what Seth, Weber and some of the other NBA junkies have to say.

[SportsGuy]

Again, apologies to Peter for the derailed thread.  Perhaps we can move this discussion elsewhere on the board?  I'd like to hear what Seth, Weber and some of the other NBA junkies have to say.

Weber is going to say you are wrong.

 

When you hear our podcast from last night, talking Jim Brown vs Barry Sanders, you will know why I say this.

 

BTW, I am more or less playing devils advocate here.  While I do think Russell is one of the greatest ever and probably one of the top 5-10 greatest ever, I do not think he should be in the top 2.

 

I think your Celtics argument about the FA thing is a really poor argument though...Every team had to deal with that..the fact that they were able to win all of those titles is absolutely incredible and nothing should be taken away from them.

[Pedro Cerrano]

What about it is poor?  Yes, they were an incredible group of players once assembled, and whoever managed to put them all together should get credit (that wasn't Russell, obviously).

 

My point is, in another era that team itself would NEVER have been able to stay together for like a decade.  The main reason the Celtics (and Russell) won all those titles is because they were pretty much immune from ever being split up.  Not so sure what's poor about that argument.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Say those same Celtics come together in 2000.  They win 3 titles just like Shaq/Kobe did.  Guys eventually hit FA, some are dealt to remain under the cap, etc etc.  Russell's Celtics win those 3 titles and say, 2 more scattered over the next several years.

 

Is that nearly as impressive as winning the 10-11 that he won back in the 60s?

[SportsGuy]

What about it is poor?  Yes, they were an incredible group of players once assembled, and whoever managed to put them all together should get credit (that wasn't Russell, obviously).

 

My point is, in another era that team itself would NEVER have been able to stay together for like a decade.  The main reason the Celtics (and Russell) won all those titles is because they were pretty much immune from ever being split up.  Not so sure what's poor about that argument.

Because it means nothing. 

 

Every other team at that time was on the same playing field.  They all had to play under the same rules.  When you dominate like that, brushing it under the carpet is poor.

[SportsGuy]

Say those same Celtics come together in 2000.  They win 3 titles just like Shaq/Kobe did.  Guys eventually hit FA, some are dealt to remain under the cap, etc etc.  Russell's Celtics win those 3 titles and say, 2 more scattered over the next several years.

 

Is that nearly as impressive as winning the 10-11 that he won back in the 60s?

Jordan's Bulls won 6 titles...likely would have won 8 had he not retired.

 

They won with a different supporting cast...Why couldn't the Celtics have done that?

[mweb08]

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.

 

Wait, wasn't that my point last night on the podcast?

 

And Russell wasn't really bigger than everyone else, but he was more athletic than other bigs with the exception of Wilt and probably a couple others.

[mweb08]

Jordan's Bulls won 6 titles...likely would have won 8 had he not retired.

 

They won with a different supporting cast...Why couldn't the Celtics have done that?

 

It's not likely that they would have won 8 imo. Kerr laughs at people who say that. The year in year out grind is very significant to win 8 straight titles. It's extremely hard both physically and mentally to win that many in a row. I think MJ's break helped in some ways as it kept him fresher and made him more motivated to recapture the title and prove any doubters wrong.

[mweb08]

Yeah, I absolutely hate the argument that if some guy from 50 years ago or whatever had to play in today's game, he wouldn't do as well. Well obviously, but why is that relevant? Greatness is measured by how well someone does against their peers, it's not fair to hold it against them that players have gotten bigger, stronger, faster, and more skilled since. No old timers in football or basketball would be nearly as good if they were transported into this era so you can either eliminate them all from best ever discussions or consider them in the context of their time.

 

I do agree with Pedro's points about Russell's offense, though. His superb passing for a big needs to be mentioned, though.

 

Oh and imo for this whole post of course.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Yeah, I absolutely hate the argument that if some guy from 50 years ago or whatever had to play in today's game, he wouldn't do as well. Well obviously, but why is that relevant? Greatness is measured by how well someone does against their peers, it's not fair to hold it against them that players have gotten bigger, stronger, faster, and more skilled since. No old timers in football or basketball would be nearly as good if they were transported into this era so you can either eliminate them all from best ever discussions or consider them in the context of their time.

 

I do agree with Pedro's points about Russell's offense, though. His superb passing for a big needs to be mentioned, though.

 

Oh and imo for this whole post of course.

 

 

This probably doesn't spoil the spirit of the podcast since Russell was long gone before 1979, but where do you suspect you would have ranked him in the all-time NBA list?

[Pedro Cerrano]

I'd also say, generally you're right with the exception of Ruth because some of his greatest peers were not even allowed to play against him.

[mweb08]

As for Scottie vs Wade, well Wade was better in his peak as he led a team to a title while dominating that series and he's been a legit MVP caliber player for multiple years. But as for how he's playing now, he's not in Pippen's league or the league below it.

 

I don't really think Scottie was overrated either as he's arguably the best non big defensive player ever and that matters imo way more than most seem to think. Plus, he was quite impressive leading that team during MJ's baseball days.

[mweb08]

This probably doesn't spoil the spirit of the podcast since Russell was long gone before 1979, but where do you suspect you would have ranked him in the all-time NBA list?

 

In the top 5.

 

MJ and Kareem would be my top 2 and then Russ comes in somewhere soon after that.

[mweb08]

I'd also say, generally you're right with the exception of Ruth because some of his greatest peers were not even allowed to play against him.

 

I agree but it's also totally different than what you're saying about Russell, which I know you realize, but just sayin.

[Pedro Cerrano]

But for Russell you have to take size into account.  If he were to play today, given his size and skill set, where exactly would you play him?  Like Stoner said, he'd be roughly the size of Kevin Durant.  Could he play center?  Would modern weight lifting make him bulkier?