113 replies to this topic

[DJ MC]

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.

From everything I've ever heard about Jordan's personality, even considering what happened in 1993 before he retired, I find it very hard to believe he wouldn't have been motivated.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Jordan didn't retire, he was suspended two years for gambling on basketball.

 

/Simmons.

[DJ MC]

Jordan didn't retire, he was suspended two years for gambling on basketball.

 

/Simmons.

I'm still waiting for his book where he lays all of that out. I'm perfectly willing to believe it.

[Pedro Cerrano]

You know what book I'd love to read (right after someone FINALLY publishes a tell-all about being recruited by a major football/basketball program)?

 

A book basically listing the top 50 or so bone-headed things done by the commissioners of professional sports leagues over the years.  I think it would be a riot.

[DJ MC]

You know what book I'd love to read (right after someone FINALLY publishes a tell-all about being recruited by a major football/basketball program)?

 

A book basically listing the top 50 or so bone-headed things done by the commissioners of professional sports leagues over the years.  I think it would be a riot.

So Gary Bettman's autobiography?

[mweb08]

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? 

 

Like I said, I don't think that's relevant at all. When I compare all-time greats, I just look at what they did in their era and then factor in extreme circumstances like players of color being held out or how poor the quality of play often is at the very beginning of a league.

 

If you were to go the other way and put Shaq or LeBron or MJ or Durant in the 60's, then they'd dominate way more than they have, but I just don't think it makes sense to look at it that way because then no players from the old days are in the discussion for top 10 or even 20 players unless you're going to play this game where they would have used modern PED's and training as well as developed better skills, but if you're going to that extreme, what's the point?

[mweb08]

From everything I've ever heard about Jordan's personality, even considering what happened in 1993 before he retired, I find it very hard to believe he wouldn't have been motivated.

 

I didn't say he wouldn't have been. But there are degrees of motivation, and I think he would have been less motivated in '96 going for 6 in a row compared to the actual situation. More noticeably, his teammates would have less motivated imo.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Like I said, I don't think that's relevant at all. When I compare all-time greats, I just look at what they did in their era and then factor in extreme circumstances like players of color being held out or how poor the quality of play often is at the very beginning of a league.

 

If you were to go the other way and put Shaq or LeBron or MJ or Durant in the 60's, then they'd dominate way more than they have, but I just don't think it makes sense to look at it that way because then no players from the old days are in the discussion for top 10 or even 20 players unless you're going to play this game where they would have used modern PED's and training as well as developed better skills, but if you're going to that extreme, what's the point?

 

Well my problem is, if you're comparing players of different eras when you make your "best all time" list, it's sort of unfair to look at a guy in a vacuum (just the era he played in) and then compare him to a modern guy.  I think it's even more unfair when talking about the NBA because size is so important.

 

I think we can both agree that, based on Russell's skill set, he could only really play center, regardless of the era.  And yes he dominated in his time, but how is it fair to put him ahead of someone like Shaq when there is a sound argument to be made that if Russell and Shaq played head to head, Shaq would have destroyed him?

[Pedro Cerrano]

And I'm not completely biased against the older guys.  I think Wilt would have held his own in this era, and I think a guy like Pistol Pete would have been fun as hell to watch playing with more modern athletic bigs and wings to distribute the ball to.

 

I just think Russell is somewhat of a special case because so much of his aura is surrounded by him dominating clearly inferior competition, something that most other players didn't have the luxury of enjoying.

 

Spirited debate either way though.

[BSLChrisStoner]

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.

 

To me it's extremely relevant for what you just said. He obviously wouldn't do as well today. If it's obvious he wouldn't do as well today, that has to impact where you rank him among the best ever.

[mweb08]

Well my problem is, if you're comparing players of different eras when you make your "best all time" list, it's sort of unfair to look at a guy in a vacuum (just the era he played in) and then compare him to a modern guy.  I think it's even more unfair when talking about the NBA because size is so important.

 

I think we can both agree that, based on Russell's skill set, he could only really play center, regardless of the era.  And yes he dominated in his time, but how is it fair to put him ahead of someone like Shaq when there is a sound argument to be made that if Russell and Shaq played head to head, Shaq would have destroyed him?

 

That's just not the way most people look at best of all-time lists imo. And for good reason, because despite what you say in your next post, it becomes super hard to argue for anyone from before the 70's in the top 20 or so imo in football or basketball if that's the way you're going to do it. Could Wilt have played now, sure, but he wouldn't have been nearly as good unless you factor in modern training and such which I think just gets convoluted.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Like I said, I don't think that's relevant at all. When I compare all-time greats, I just look at what they did in their era and then factor in extreme circumstances like players of color being held out or how poor the quality of play often is at the very beginning of a league.

 

If you were to go the other way and put Shaq or LeBron or MJ or Durant in the 60's, then they'd dominate way more than they have, but I just don't think it makes sense to look at it that way because then no players from the old days are in the discussion for top 10 or even 20 players unless you're going to play this game where they would have used modern PED's and training as well as developed better skills, but if you're going to that extreme, what's the point?

 

Sure, I think you should also consider that players in previous eras would have had better training today. Year round job as opposed to guys who used to have to have 2nd jobs. I don't think that is extreme, I think that is extremely relevant to the discussion.

[mweb08]

To me it's extremely relevant for what you just said. He obviously wouldn't do as well today. If it's obvious he wouldn't do as well today, that has to impact where you rank him among the best ever.

 

No. It doesn't. IMO. But seriously, if that's the way you and Pedro want to do your lists, I want to see what football and basketball players who played most of their careers before the 70's would make your top 20 lists. Or even better, Olympic sports that are timed. Athletes have consistently been getting better throughout time so if you guys are comfortable having the 10th best player of the modern era above the best or second best player from 50 or 60 years ago in the various sports, fine, but that's going to be a crazy looking list. And Babe Ruth shouldn't even be in consideration for the best ever under this approach.

 

The best of all time list isn't about using a time machine and putting the actual players on the field/court. It's about measuring greatness during their time imo and then making small adjustments based on the factors of that time.

[mweb08]

Sure, I think you should also consider that players in previous eras would have had better training today. Year round job as opposed to guys who used to have to have 2nd jobs. I don't think that is extreme, I think that is extremely relevant to the discussion.

 

So how the hell are you figuring out how good these guys would have been when you're basically postponing their birth x amount of years?

 

If Russell is in today's time, maybe he would have been taller too if you're going to play that game.

[BSLChrisStoner]

So how the hell are you figuring out how good these guys would have been when you're basically postponing their birth x amount of years?

 

If Russell is in today's time, maybe he would have been taller too if you're going to play that game.

 

You could argue with some reason that he'd be taller today. I think you can more legitimately argue that he'd be in better shape, and stronger. However, even if you give him another 15 lbs of muscle... he would have only been the same weight as Durant.

 

Even if you give him some extra strength, it would be crazy to think he would have ever been able to guard Shaq.  Hell, Dikembe Mutombo was a great defensive player... was 7'2, 260 and he 0% chance of doing anything against Shaq. Russell would have been crushed.

 

That's not comparing eras unfairly, that's just basic logic. Russell was great in his era. He should be regarded as one of the best of his era, and one of the games all-time great. However, if you are going to make a list of the best of all-time... I don't see how you put him ahead of guys you know he'd have no chance of defending.

[BSLChrisStoner]

No. It doesn't. IMO. But seriously, if that's the way you and Pedro want to do your lists, I want to see what football and basketball players who played most of their careers before the 70's would make your top 20 lists. Or even better, Olympic sports that are timed. Athletes have consistently been getting better throughout time so if you guys are comfortable having the 10th best player of the modern era above the best or second best player from 50 or 60 years ago in the various sports, fine, but that's going to be a crazy looking list. And Babe Ruth shouldn't even be in consideration for the best ever under this approach.

 

The best of all time list isn't about using a time machine and putting the actual players on the field/court. It's about measuring greatness during their time imo and then making small adjustments based on the factors of that time.

 

When the '85 Bears won the Super Bowl, there was something like 3-5 players in the league over 300 lbs. Now every roster has numerous such guys. It's a completely different game, with improved size and strength (and rules). My NFL history is generally weak, but picturing D-lineman from the '60's trying to get around Ogden is laughable.

 

You can rank those previous players as the best of their era, but if you are going to list the best of all-time... they have to be knocked down the list.

[mweb08]

You could argue with some reason that he'd be taller today. I think you can more legitimately argue that he'd be in better shape, and stronger. However, even if you give him another 15 lbs of muscle... he would have only been the same weight as Durant.

 

Even if you give him some extra strength, it would be crazy to think he would have ever been able to guard Shaq.  Hell, Dikembe Mutombo was a great defensive player... was 7'2, 260 and he 0% chance of doing anything against Shaq. Russell would have been crushed.

 

That's not comparing eras unfairly, that's just basic logic. Russell was great in his era. He should be regarded as one of the best of his ear, and one of the games all-time great. However, if you are going to make a list of the best of all-time... I don't see how you put him ahead of guys you know he'd have no chance of defending.

 

So he could guard Wilt, but he couldn't guard Shaq? And not many could guard Shaq. Hakeem, a guy built similarly to Russ did pretty well.

 

And those weights listed are of when they were drafted I believe, and I believe that they used to be measured without shoes. So if that's true, I think it's fair to say that the size disparity that you are talking about isn't as great as being mentioned. So consider that and give him an extra inch or two and 25 pounds (compared to his prime where he likely weighed more than 220 or whatever) and he'd be fine. He was also a fantastic athlete and I guess we're upgrading that too while we are at it.

 

And no, that's not basic logic at all. It's only basic logic if you want to be very biased to the modern athlete when doing these lists, which at that point, I'm not sure the point of doing the list. You should just stick within era's if you're going to play that game.

[mweb08]

When the '85 Bears won the Super Bowl, there was something like 3-5 players in the league over 300 lbs. Now every roster has numerous such guys. It's a completely different game, with improved size and strength (and rules). My NFL history is generally weak, but picturing D-lineman from the '60's trying to get around Ogden is laughable.

 

You can rank those previous players as the best of their era, but if you are going to list the best of all-time... they have to be knocked down the list.

 

Then they can't even be on the list, and then how is that a best of all-time list???

[BSLChrisStoner]

So he could guard Wilt, but he couldn't guard Shaq? And not many could guard Shaq. Hakeem, a guy built similarly to Russ did pretty well.

 

And those weights listed are of when they were drafted I believe, and I believe that they used to be measured without shoes. So if that's true, I think it's fair to say that the size disparity that you are talking about isn't as great as being mentioned. So consider that and give him an extra inch or two and 25 pounds (compared to his prime where he likely weighed more than 220 or whatever) and he'd be fine. He was also a fantastic athlete and I guess we're upgrading that too while we are at it.

 

And no, that's not basic logic at all. It's only basic logic if you want to be very biased to the modern athlete when doing these lists, which at that point, I'm not sure the point of doing the list. You should just stick within era's if you're going to play that game.

 

I found a poster on another board post this... I don't know if it is accurate:

 

 

Wilt and Russell played against each other 142 times in 10 years. Russell's team won 88, Wilt's teams won 74. (14 game difference)

In those games Wilt averaged 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg, Russell averaged 14.5ppg and 23.7rpg

Wilt's high game vs. Russell was 62, and he had six other 50+ point games against Russell . Russell's high game against Wilt was 37, and he had only two other 30+ point games against Wilt.

Wilt's record 55 rebound game was against Russell, and he had six other 40+ rebound games vs. Bill.
Russell only had one 40+ rebound night against Wilt.

 

If that's accurate... I don't think that speaks great for Russell as a defender against Wilt, even if you account for Wilt averaging 36 points a game vs. everyone else.

 

Give Russell another 4 inches, and 40lbs from his listed height and weight, and he has Mutombo's size. How did that work out for Mutombo vs. Shaq?

 

I'm not sure the point of doing a list either. It's hard to compare eras. However, everything that can be considered should be considered if you are going to make a list of the best of all-time.

 

If you are talking all-sports... you are talking better athletes, better training today.. . and that previous players would have had that available to them. If you are talking baseball, you have to consider the lack of African-Americans, and Foreign players. If you are talking NFL, you have to consider the rule changes.

 

One reason that I like the lists you and Rob are doing, is that it is the best of your lifetime. It is easier to judge, and even that sparks debate.

 

You can convince me that Russell was one of the greats of his era, and one of the best of all-time... you will never convince me he could have guarded Shaq... or been better of any significance to Ewing, Hakeem, and Robinson. Sure, that makes me biased to the players I've seen... but I think there is plenty of merit for that.

[BSLChrisStoner]

Then they can't even be on the list, and then how is that a best of all-time list???

 

Someone like Ruth would still be on a best of all-time list to me... for what he accomplished, and being so much better than the rest of his era (also the pitching).  He just gets knocked down the list, because his competition was not as good.

 

Same thing for football players and NBA...  you judge their accomplishments, you rank them as the best of their era, and if there are ways to judge them head-to-head vs. players of today, you make that comparison.