Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This doesn't show that teams had 50 extra possessions fifty years ago.
The game is changing all the time, so again, no one era's the measuring stick for statistics. All I've done when comparing Jordan and Russell, is viewing what each achieved during their relative time, and Russell achieved more.
Russell 's TEAM achieved more. Yes, he was the driving force, but come on dude. Is it really that hard to comprehend that if there was a greater talent disparity with Russell's Celtics and the 60's competition, than Jordan's Bulls and the 90's competition, that if the Celtics got to benefit from first round byes meaning less games to win the title, less teams meaning less travel and wear and tear, that this makes comparisons with teams from other eras with different rules impossible? You do realize that Jordan had 4 years of crap teammates before Pippen and Grant, and it took those guys 3 years to develop into players good enough in their own right to support Jordan? Let me guess, doesn't matter....right?
YOU CANNOT OBJECTIVELY COMPARE THE SITUATIONS. I mean, how much more than this be simplified?
Russell 's TEAM achieved more. Yes, he was the driving force, but come on dude. Is it really that hard to comprehend that if there was a greater talent disparity with Russell's Celtics and the 60's competition, than Jordan's Bulls and the 90's competition, that if the Celtics got to benefit from first round byes meaning less games to win the title, less teams meaning less travel and wear and tear, that this makes comparisons with teams from other eras with different rules impossible? You do realize that Jordan had 4 years of crap teammates before Pippen and Grant, and it took those guys 3 years to develop into players good enough in their own right to support Jordan? Let me guess, doesn't matter....right?
YOU CANNOT OBJECTIVELY COMPARE THE SITUATIONS. I mean, how much more than this be simplified?
I thought you said Russell wasn't being penalized for anything?
Expansion spread the talent amongst a greater number of teams. On one hand, one can argue that it diluted the teams, on the other you can argue that it made for greater competitive balance. That must have been one boring league in the 60s watching the Celtics win 8 in a row, unless you lived in Boston.
There are guys who played with Russell who aren't in the hall of fame either, so those who made it to the hall from the 60's Celtics don't owe it all to the good graces of Bill Russell, though obviously he was great enough to elevate the play of guys around him. Guys like Bob Cousy, Sam and K.C Jones, Havlicek were pretty damn fine players in their own right.
No, I don't 'need' to continue raising the 'context' points, but as long as you continue to say 'yeah, but it doesn't matter'.....well.....I've had to repeat himself, hence the term 'circular discussion'.
Google. Not being nasty, but its pretty easy to research this stuff. Though if memory serves, the link I provided earlier from the Bleacher report speaks to it.
You make a claim, the burden of proof is on you.
And I don't remember saying that your "context" didn't matter, just that you said Russell wasn't to be penalized for things outside his control, so I'm wondering how this changes anything, when I've already stated I understand there were fundamental differences in each's playing career.
And I don't remember saying that your "context" didn't matter, just that you said Russell wasn't to be penalized for things outside his control, so I'm wondering how this changes anything, when I've already stated I understand there were fundamental differences in each's playing career.
If it interests you enough to find out, make it your business to do the research. I'm not your personal internet search engine. Or would you like to spend the next 3 days arguing that too? The article I referenced above speaks to possessions per game.
Look on basketball-reference: In the year 1961 Wilt averaged 27.2 rebounds, Russell 23.9. The league field goal average was 41.5% shooting. The league average for total shot attempts that year was 8642. Fast forward to 1996( just picking a random year from the decade) the league field goal average was 46.2 percent, and that includes 3 point field goal percentage which while counted separately, also is counted towards total field goal percentage. The league average for shots over the season was 6575. So, in 1961 teams had 2000+ extra shot attempts,on much lower field goal percentage. The nobrainer conclusion from this is superior athletes like Wilt and Russell would gobble up the lions share of rebounds in that era.
In 1996, Dennis Rodman averaged 14. 9 rebounds a game in an era which shot 5% higher than 1960 on 2000 less shots. Again, the obvious conclusion is that Rodman's rebounding numbers have to be viewed within the context of that era. Does it mean that we 'penalize' Wilt and Russell for putting up numbers in an era of significantly higher shot attempts and worse shooting, leading to more rebounds? No. It simply means that you can't compare them to Rodman as far as rebounding goes. Rodman averaged as much as 18.7 rebounds in 1992, league average total shots that year was 7163, league average field goal was 47.2%. Is it fair to say Rodman, in the 60's, would average similar rebound numbers to Wilt and Russell? Absolutely. Is it reasonable to say that Wilt and Russell would average less rebounds in the 90's( and todays era) with the league shooting much better and much less as compared to 1960, as well as playing against opponents physically superior to who they played against in the 60's? Absolutely. There was no Hakeem, Shaq, Ewing, Mutombo, Mourning, Robinson playing in Russell's era.
You've said on several occasions that all the factors raised do not affect your rankings, hence they don't matter in other words. My point has always been, and will continue to be, that the two players Jordan and Russell aren't really comparable as players, or even their careers in terms of what was accomplished individually and on a team level, ultimately making any comparison or ranking between them close to impossible. Hence I've always said they should be measured by the era they played in.
You on the other hand feel that its perfectly fine to rank players separated by 50 years and multiple rule changes and other factors, taking accomplishments in a bubble and ignore the rest. You claim you understand the fundamental differences, but it doesn't impact your rankings. Ok whatever, we're arguing from fundamentally opposite perspectives so we're more or less pissing up a tree at this point.
I thought you said Russell wasn't being penalized for anything?
He wasn't. You confuse being penalized with looking at all factors before reaching an informed conclusion. You forget that you're the one saying Russell is better than Jordan. You're the one that has to present rational arguments to back up that claim, and I will respond accordingly. You keep going on with this 'being penalized' thing, because your claim has been crapped on several times by now with facts and context, and you offer little in return but the same redundant replies. Admit you're just biased,and we can move on. Hell I'll gladly admit that I'm a Jordan nut, and I'm not so close minded as to claim he was definitely better than Wilt, Kareem, Russell,Magic, Bird. There's just so many factors involved.
He wasn't. You confuse being penalized with looking at all factors before reaching an informed conclusion. You forget that you're the one saying Russell is better than Jordan. You're the one that has to present rational arguments to back up that claim, and I will respond accordingly. You keep going on with this 'being penalized' thing, because your claim has been crapped on several times by now with facts and context, and you offer little in return but the same redundant replies. Admit you're just biased,and we can move on. Hell I'll gladly admit that I'm a Jordan nut, and I'm not so close minded as to claim he was definitely better than Wilt, Kareem, Russell,Magic, Bird. There's just so many factors involved.
I apologize for whatever part I've played in this drawn-out debate. I'm going to make my points clear, as to prime this discussion:
-I'm going on with the penalization thing, due to the fact that you don't seem to accept Russell as the GOAT, when winning is the objective, and no one's done it better than him, which ties directly to my second point:
- Wilt was statistically a better player than Russell, yet Russell received MVP during Wilt's 50-point season, and was unanimously voted the GOAT. Michael and Wilt are considered to be better than Russell by many due to being more well-rounded players >>>> which is determined by stats, which is misleading. Michael and Wilt cared more about their own individual numbers, while Bill didn't, so of course their numbers will look better. Russell scored when he needed to, evidenced by his collegiate numbers, and his playoff and Finals numbers, including his impressive game 7 resume. The offense ran through Bill Russell just as much as the defense did, as evidenced by Hondo's admission of this after Russell called it quits, when Boston fell apart on both ends. Point being here, that Russell's offense seemed to suit him just fine; the only way, imho, that Russell should receive criticism for his offense, is that if someone should be saying he should've won it every year he played (remember he was injured for one of those seasons)
I apologize for whatever part I've played in this drawn-out debate. I'm going to make my points clear, as to prime this discussion:
-I'm going on with the penalization thing, due to the fact that you don't seem to accept Russell as the GOAT, when winning is the objective, and no one's done it better than him, which ties directly to my second point:
- Wilt was statistically a better player than Russell, yet Russell received MVP during Wilt's 50-point season, and was unanimously voted the GOAT. Michael and Wilt are considered to be better than Russell by many due to being more well-rounded players >>>> which is determined by stats, which is misleading. Michael and Wilt cared more about their own individual numbers, while Bill didn't, so of course their numbers will look better. Russell scored when he needed to, evidenced by his collegiate numbers, and his playoff and Finals numbers, including his impressive game 7 resume. The offense ran through Bill Russell just as much as the defense did, as evidenced by Hondo's admission of this after Russell called it quits, when Boston fell apart on both ends. Point being here, that Russell's offense seemed to suit him just fine; the only way, imho, that Russell should receive criticism for his offense, is that if someone should be saying he should've won it every year he played (remember he was injured for one of those seasons)
No, I don't accept Russell as the GOAT. Why? Because I don't accept ANYONE as the GOAT, Jordan included. You need to get over it, as if I or anyone else is obligated to subscribe to your criteria. Russell played the game to his strengths, as did Jordan and Wilt. So, you can argue your points till the cows come home. I don't agree with your arguments presented that Russell is GOAT, and I've understood your points from the getgo. If you prefer the way Russell played the game, fine whatever. That's a preference which doesn't require explanation. Otherwise, get with the reality that you aren't convincing me that Russell is GOAT, which seems very important to you. I mean seriously, even though we've been going back and forth for days, I really don't care much about your opinion and you don't care about mine. Or at least you shouldn't...
Jordan was a more well rounded player not simply by stats, he was simply a dominant two way player offensively and defensively. The eyetest would show that, not merely stats. Russell concentrated primarily on defense, and simply was not as prolific a scorer. Whether it was a case of him 'scoring when he needed' or just being limited offensively, whatever. Not interested in the semantics route.....
Now, are we done or do you wish to continue flogging the horse?
No, I don't accept Russell as the GOAT. Why? Because I don't accept ANYONE as the GOAT, Jordan included. You need to get over it, as if I or anyone else is obligated to subscribe to your criteria. Russell played the game to his strengths, as did Jordan and Wilt. So, you can argue your points till the cows come home. I don't agree with your arguments presented that Russell is GOAT, and I've understood your points from the getgo. If you prefer the way Russell played the game, fine whatever. That's a preference which doesn't require explanation. Otherwise, get with the reality that you aren't convincing me that Russell is GOAT, which seems very important to you. I mean seriously, even though we've been going back and forth for days, I really don't care much about your opinion and you don't care about mine. Or at least you shouldn't...
Jordan was a more well rounded player not simply by stats, he was simply a dominant two way player offensively and defensively. The eyetest would show that, not merely stats. Russell concentrated primarily on defense, and simply was not as prolific a scorer. Whether it was a case of him 'scoring when he needed' or just being limited offensively, whatever. Not interested in the semantics route.....
Now, are we done or do you wish to continue flogging the horse?
So you don't rank players at all then?
So, in your opinion, Jordan was more well-rounded due to the criteria you value, ok, that's fine.
This doesn't show that teams had 50 extra possessions fifty years ago.
The game is changing all the time, so again, no one era's the measuring stick for statistics. All I've done when comparing Jordan and Russell, is viewing what each achieved during their relative time, and Russell achieved more.
If you can't tell by looking at those stats that there were significantly more possessions then vs. now...then you're not looking at them at all.
If you can't tell by looking at those stats that there were significantly more possessions then vs. now...then you're not looking at them at all.
There were more possessions when Russell played, than, at the very least, from the mid-90's onward, I don't think I've ever denied this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
