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.
You know, you're not making quoting you any easier, with your writing within my own posts.
It's easy enough to quote the post, put numbers in front of each point you want to address, and number your responses accordingly.
-Shooting guards are supposed to be able to play off the ball and shoot. And your Rip Hamilton comment tells me you didn't see him play in his prime. His handles weren't the tightest, but he could still drive it and finish, even posting up smaller guards from here to there, as did Shuttlesworth.
Saw plenty of him. Ray Allen was on whole nother plane as a player. Occasional forays to the basket doesn't count as a strength of his game. Rip was primarily a mid-range shooter coming off screens, cut from the Reggie Miller cloth but didn't have nearly the range, flair, or penchant for the dramatic clutch play. Reggie was an assassin out there.
Not so sure about The Truth, as from what I remember seeing of him in his prime, he's mostly ball-dominant and high to mid-post dominant, not really predicating much of his game from off-ball movement consistently, could be wrong though.
Paul Pierce was and is a multi-faceted offensive player, very skilled, which is why his play at 35 isn't much of a drop off from his peak. Very capable and competent at off the ball play, bearing in mind that Rondo has run the Celtics offense the past 5 years.
-Jordan has not won as much on the college and professional levels as Russell though.
No-one has. If that's your measuring stick for what makes the GOAT, fair enough. The GOAT conversation is a futile debate because the criteria is different for everyone.
-Great you mention Westbrick, the perfect example of what I'm speaking of. He cannot effectively run the offense down there in Oklahoma; I've watched Eric Maynor run a much smoother offense than Westbrick. And Westbrick cannot shoot or play off the ball
Great that you single out Westbrook. The other examples killed your argument I guess. Anyways, Westbrook is a natural shooting guard who was converted to point guard for the NBA. His instincts as a player is more scoring than passing.
-Not saying you're the one saying Jordan's better due to his scoring, but as you know, that's the general consensus.
And your contention that it is strictly due to scoring is wrong IMO. Plenty of players were better scorers than Russell who aren't even in the conversation for a top 100 player, let alone a GOAT candidate.
- So a) why bring up Russell's HOF teammates then if he isn't to be punished by it?
Because there is such a thing called context. The context behind Russell winning 11 titles is that he played on a team with as many as 8 HOF players on the team. If you wish to ignore that because it's an inconvenient truth, that's on you.
And b) what should Russell have shot from the field, and how much should he have scored?
Don't know, and really what I 'think' he should have averaged isn't important. The simple fact is that he was a great defensive player, and average offensively. Jordan was prolific on both ends of the court, so if it's an argument as to who was more well-rounded, well it's not really an argument is it? Like Calidude said, comparing Jordan and Russell as players is ridiculous anyways. Different players, different eras, different skillsets.
1) Reggie came up short in the clutch more often than he came through, that's a fact. You should look into that, you'd most definitely find it on the first page of google. If not, I'll post a link later debunking this myth when I get the chance, no problem.
2) & 3) I respect your opinion, but are we really going the ad populum route here?
This thread is about MJ. Did he come up short? Or should I google that too...
Should I concede the popular choice for GOAT to the view of 1 person on a forum who may or may not know anything about basketball?
And if you want to discount made clutch shots by highlighting missed ones, be my guest.
What makes it difficult, is the fact that I have to scroll down the page to address what you wrote, instead of having it right in front of me, as when you quote me, it's within that same box.
Of course Hamilton's not as good on the ball as Shuttlesworth, I'm just saying he could score off the dribble, and finish at the rim, although dunking wasn't a strength as much as it was Ray. He's a traditional SG, so he dedicates most of his game to playing off the ball so the 1's can run the offense. I've seen him score on the ball plenty of times when he was a 3 in Washington, when Jordan would be on the bench.
I'd love to see highlights of Pierce consistently playing off the ball, because, from what I've seen, much like Flash and James, Rondo and Pierce would take turns sharing the ball, as opposed to Pierce just posting up in the mid-range, or again, having the ball in his hands.
So why do you believe then that some will say that Jordan's better than Russell, if it isn't due to scoring?
But why still bring up that context though? I'm well aware of the caliber of teammates he played with, not ignoring anything, just wonder why you brought it up
And honestly, Derrick Rose really isn't much better than Westbrick. He's another zero guard, he just doesn't fly off the handle like Westbrick does. Of course Jordan is more well-rounded than William, but so is Garnett, so I'm not sure where you're going with that. And with that being said, I'm not sure how to say Jordan's greater than William, when he's led his team to 11 titles, on top of his portion of the record book himself. There's no greater winner in basketball history than Bill Russell, and since the name of the game is winning, I don't see how there's a debate to be honest
1)So why do you believe then that some will say that Jordan's better than Russell, if it isn't due to scoring?
2)But why still bring up that context though? I'm well aware of the caliber of teammates he played with, not ignoring anything, just wonder why you brought it up
3)Of course Jordan is more well-rounded than William, but so is Garnett, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.
4)And with that being said, I'm not sure how to say Jordan's greater than William, when he's led his team to 11 titles, on top of his portion of the record book himself. There's no greater winner in basketball history than Bill Russell, and since the name of the game is winning, I don't see how there's a debate to be honest
1) Could be any number of factors. Overall skillset, combined with a combination of team and individual accomplishments. Really I don't know, and I don't presume to speak for others. I haven't made any argument that Jordan is better, or vice versa, nor do I particularly care to. Also bear in mind that Russell played in an era of limited national exposure. For anyone old enough to see him play, he may still be greatest in their eyes. Jordan came into the spotlight just as the NBA was getting national attention off the back of the fabled 80's Lakers/Celtics rivalry, so he came at the right time for his legacy to be etched into people's minds moreso than guys who played 50 years ago.
Every generation of fans has that one player who they latch onto. If you grew up watching basketball in the 70's, Oscar may be your personal GOAT. For the 90's, general consensus is Jordan. Nowadays, Lebron.
2) Why ignore it? If the debate is about winning championships, than its a relevant point within the boundaries of this discussion. If the debate wasn't about championships won, then it wouldn't be a point to raise. You clearly place championships won as the penultimate deciding factor in the GOAT debate, regardless of the context. It basically means that your thought process begins and ends with the fact that Russell won 11 titles, more than anyone else, and so nothing anyone else says is going to matter to you. It pretty much makes any debate with you pointless, because what you're doing is more or less along the lines of blocking your ears, and singing 'la la la Russell won 11 titles, he's the best la la la'.
The bottomline is if you acknowledge that he played with 8 HOFs on his team, which would certainly give the Celtics a major competitive edge, and since you place great emphasis on titles won in your criteria for GOAT, then by extension you have to acknowledge that had he played with lesser teammates and won far less titles, by your own criteria he'd have far less of a case to be considered the greatest ever. Hypothetical of course, who's your GOAT if Russell and Wilt won the same amount of championships?
3) You need to learn to distinquish the difference between oncourt ability and legacy. If the discussion is legacy, then obviously Russell is pretty much unmatched. If its about actual oncourt ability.....you ready for this......hold onto your seat.......Garnett is a better allaround player than Russell ever was. Yes, blasphemous statement, right?
4) Clearly your definition of the GOAT, as mentioned above, is defined by rings. No problem with that whatsoever. For someone else, singular statisitical dominance may be their criteria, in which case Wilt is unquestionably GOAT. You seem to have a hard time grasping or accepting the idea that people have different criteria than your own. I think most reasonable minded people understand that championships is a team accomplishment, and while great players are proportionately more responsible than role players for winning titles, there are plenty of great players who won nothing simply because they just didn't have the right team around them, or there was just someone a little bit better playing at the same time. How would Bill Russell be viewed if he only won 2 titles instead of 11? How would Karl Malone's legacy be viewed if he won a handful of titles, instead of none?
1) Could be any number of factors. Overall skillset, combined with a combination of team and individual accomplishments. Really I don't know, and I don't presume to speak for others. I haven't made any argument that Jordan is better, or vice versa, nor do I particularly care to. Also bear in mind that Russell played in an era of limited national exposure. For anyone old enough to see him play, he may still be greatest in their eyes. Jordan came into the spotlight just as the NBA was getting national attention off the back of the fabled 80's Lakers/Celtics rivalry, so he came at the right time for his legacy to be etched into people's minds moreso than guys who played 50 years ago.
Every generation of fans has that one player who they latch onto. If you grew up watching basketball in the 70's, Oscar may be your personal GOAT. For the 90's, general consensus is Jordan. Nowadays, Lebron.
2) Why ignore it? If the debate is about winning championships, than its a relevant point within the boundaries of this discussion. If the debate wasn't about championships won, then it wouldn't be a point to raise. You clearly place championships won as the penultimate deciding factor in the GOAT debate, regardless of the context. It basically means that your thought process begins and ends with the fact that Russell won 11 titles, more than anyone else, and so nothing anyone else says is going to matter to you. It pretty much makes any debate with you pointless, because what you're doing is more or less along the lines of blocking your ears, and singing 'la la la Russell won 11 titles, he's the best la la la'.
The bottomline is if you acknowledge that he played with 8 HOFs on his team, which would certainly give the Celtics a major competitive edge, and since you place great emphasis on titles won in your criteria for GOAT, then by extension you have to acknowledge that had he played with lesser teammates and won far less titles, by your own criteria he'd have far less of a case to be considered the greatest ever. Hypothetical of course, who's your GOAT if Russell and Wilt won the same amount of championships?
3) You need to learn to distinquish the difference between oncourt ability and legacy. If the discussion is legacy, then obviously Russell is pretty much unmatched. If its about actual oncourt ability.....you ready for this......hold onto your seat.......Garnett is a better allaround player than Russell ever was. Yes, blasphemous statement, right?
4) Clearly your definition of the GOAT, as mentioned above, is defined by rings. No problem with that whatsoever. For someone else, singular statisitical dominance may be their criteria, in which case Wilt is unquestionably GOAT. You seem to have a hard time grasping or accepting the idea that people have different criteria than your own. I think most reasonable minded people understand that championships is a team accomplishment, and while great players are proportionately more responsible than role players for winning titles, there are plenty of great players who won nothing simply because they just didn't have the right team around them, or there was just someone a little bit better playing at the same time. How would Bill Russell be viewed if he only won 2 titles instead of 11? How would Karl Malone's legacy be viewed if he won a handful of titles, instead of none?
1) Robertson unfortunately not to his credit for the most part, was (and is now whenever he's rarely mentioned) criticized for being a looter in a riot, more or less before Alcindor. Actually like Lew, he wasn't the most likeable person, which didn't help his reputation and legacy. To his credit though, he was playing in arguably the toughest era in basketball history, and did earn his ring once he got legitimate help. But yes, as far as just pure talent and the eye test, not sure there'll ever be players more (emphasis on more, equally sure) talented than pre-injury Baylor, Wilt, and Robertson.
2) Sure, it shouldn't be ignored, but it doesn't change anything.
3) As far as on-court ability, Russell's numbers actually went up in the post-season, and went up even more during the Finals. That's the thing with numbers, in determining that Russell wasn't legit offensively (not saying you're saying he wasn't). Jordan was taking the Pistons and Celtics to TASK in his prime, James was putting on his own Jordan-esque performance aganist Orlando, Olajuwon was putting up numbers, Baylor was AVERAGING 40 in a Finals once, yet they can't get out the first round, or win a ring. Yet, Orlando runs Charlotte out the ******* building, and Dwight Howard doesn't even average 10 points, you know, since he was the low-key decoy. Obviously not always, but sometimes great offense transcends the numbers.
4) Russell WAS statistically dominant though, he has his big ******* share of the record book as well; that, coupled with his MVPs (that coincidentally the players themselves voted on, even in a season in which Wilton averages 50 ), and winning make it easy for me. I mean, the damn championship trophy's named after this man
It's just that assists were harder to come by in his day, blocks weren't recorded, select awards hadn't existed, etc. I get what you're saying though, but it's not as if Russell was some glorified Ben Wallace out there. And sure, if Russell hadn't had his teammates, he may not have won as much, just like if Jordan never had Pippen, he might've never made it to the Finals, or if James never had Wade, West had Wilt, Oscar had Alcindor, Duncan had Gino and Parker, Shaquille had Kobe, etc. It's makes for nice conjecture, but at the end of the day, it doesn't change anything .
Barkley never won a ring, doesn't change the fact that he's one of the GOATs. (I probably could have used Ewing, but that'd be a NY bias.)
Bill Russell has more rings than fingers and he isn't even top five.
Goes for every sport. Rings are important, but in terms of judging individual talent they're not major. Eli has more rings than Peyton, but nobody's going to say he's the better Manning. Bradshaw has four rings. Marino has zero. Is Bradshaw a better QB than Marino? Absolutely not.
Nolan Ryan is considered by some to be the best pitcher in MLB history, and not for his work in New York, where he won his only championship, but his work elsewhere, on terrible teams.
Jordan dominated everyone in the 90s and brought the game to a new level when the NBA talent was much deeper than it had been in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Jordan is Babe Ruth. Jordan is Joe Montana. Jordan is Wayne Gretzky. They all won rings, but they had also been on good teams. If they hadn't, they wouldn't have been iconic, but they'd still be just as talented.
Let's say Jordan was on an awful team with no supporting cast and never won a ring, like LeBron in Cleveland, but he still put up the same numbers. He wouldn't be the unanimous GOAT like he is today, but he'd still be arguably the GOAT, and in the conversation with the Bird's, the Magic's, the Wilt's, etc.
Which is a testament to just how great MJ was, because those guys all had multiple rings, too.
Jason Kidd got lucky at the end of his career when his game was diminished and got a chip in Dallas. But what if he hadn't? Would that change the fact that he's arguably the greatest point guard to ever play the game? It shouldn't.
1) But yes, as far as just pure talent and the eye test, not sure there'll ever be players more (emphasis on more, equally sure) talented than pre-injury Baylor, Wilt, and Robertson.
2) Sure, it shouldn't be ignored, but it doesn't change anything.
3) As far as on-court ability, Russell's numbers actually went up in the post-season, and went up even more during the Finals. That's the thing with numbers, in determining that Russell wasn't legit offensively (not saying you're saying he wasn't). Jordan was taking the Pistons and Celtics to TASK in his prime, James was putting on his own Jordan-esque performance aganist Orlando, Olajuwon was putting up numbers, Baylor was AVERAGING 40 in a Finals once, yet they can't get out the first round, or win a ring. Yet, Orlando runs Charlotte out the ******* building, and Dwight Howard doesn't even average 10 points, you know, since he was the low-key decoy. Obviously not always, but sometimes great offense transcends the numbers.
4) Russell WAS statistically dominant though, he has his big ******* share of the record book as well; that, coupled with his MVPs (that coincidentally the players themselves voted on, even in a season in which Wilton averages 50 ), and winning make it easy for me. I mean, the damn championship trophy's named after this man
5) I get what you're saying though, but it's not as if Russell was some glorified Ben Wallace out there. And sure, if Russell hadn't had his teammates, he may not have won as much, just like if Jordan never had Pippen, he might've never made it to the Finals, or if James never had Wade, West had Wilt, Oscar had Alcindor, Duncan had Gino and Parker, Shaquille had Kobe, etc. It's makes for nice conjecture, but at the end of the day, it doesn't change anything .
1) Don't know how old you are, but this comment suggests to me you have an affinity towards older players.
2) You accept the concept that quality of teammates had an impact on number of rings won( or just rings won period). That you accept that, and continue to block your ears and maintain that its irrelevant, proves my point that having a debate with you about GOAT is pointless. For the most part you seem like a reasonable poster, so I find this tunnel vision puzzling. Its actually pretty silly to accept that quality of teammates play a factor on one hand, then on the other say it doesn't matter. Weird.
I asked you a question which you unsurprisingly neglected to answer: If Wilt and Russell won the same number of titles, who's better? Because Wilt was just as dominant a rebounder, just as intimidating a shotblocker, but could literally carry an offense on his broad shoulders. As a talent, ability-wise, Wilt did more things on the court and was a singular force out there. But ring count is an easy way for you to not have to argue on the merits of actual oncourt ability, because the eye test would tell you that several players have come along who were and are more skilled and talented. Tim Duncan was a better two way player, but won less titles, so he's automatically inferior based on your criteria. Its a silly argument.
3) Your point was all over the place there. But remember that point about the eye test? If your eye tests were objective, they would see that Garnett was a more skilled player in terms of oncourt ability. I'm talking about actual oncourt ability here, as in shooting,passing, dribbling, defensive versatility. Ability. Not numbers. There's a difference.
4) As a rebounder and shotblocker, yes he was dominant and this showed up statistically( though back then block shots weren't counted). Of course, those numbers were inflated due to pace of the era, and none of those guys would be averaging 50 points, or 25 rebounds, or a triple double, in today's league. But there's that issue of context. Judging by this discussion, context doesn't factor into your equation.
5) The simple reality is that there are a number of factors that make a championship team. Quality of teammates is a vital component of a championship team, and all the great players who won multiple rings did so backed by quality teammates. Timing plays a role too, how many great players don't have a ring because they played in the 90's when Jordan ruled, and well if you weren't a Celtic or Laker in the 80s good luck winning a ring.
Now I'm on the road travelling soon, so since you will no doubt reply, don't take my delay in responding as any sign that you've won the argument.
1) Don't know how old you are, but this comment suggests to me you have an affinity towards older players.
2) You accept the concept that quality of teammates had an impact on number of rings won( or just rings won period). That you accept that, and continue to block your ears and maintain that its irrelevant, proves my point that having a debate with you about GOAT is pointless. For the most part you seem like a reasonable poster, so I find this tunnel vision puzzling. Its actually pretty silly to accept that quality of teammates play a factor on one hand, then on the other say it doesn't matter. Weird.
I asked you a question which you unsurprisingly neglected to answer: If Wilt and Russell won the same number of titles, who's better? Because Wilt was just as dominant a rebounder, just as intimidating a shotblocker, but could literally carry an offense on his broad shoulders. As a talent, ability-wise, Wilt did more things on the court and was a singular force out there. But ring count is an easy way for you to not have to argue on the merits of actual oncourt ability, because the eye test would tell you that several players have come along who were and are more skilled and talented. Tim Duncan was a better two way player, but won less titles, so he's automatically inferior based on your criteria. Its a silly argument.
3) Your point was all over the place there. But remember that point about the eye test? If your eye tests were objective, they would see that Garnett was a more skilled player in terms of oncourt ability. I'm talking about actual oncourt ability here, as in shooting,passing, dribbling, defensive versatility. Ability. Not numbers. There's a difference.
4) As a rebounder and shotblocker, yes he was dominant and this showed up statistically( though back then block shots weren't counted). Of course, those numbers were inflated due to pace of the era, and none of those guys would be averaging 50 points, or 25 rebounds, or a triple double, in today's league. But there's that issue of context. Judging by this discussion, context doesn't factor into your equation.
5) The simple reality is that there are a number of factors that make a championship team. Quality of teammates is a vital component of a championship team, and all the great players who won multiple rings did so backed by quality teammates. Timing plays a role too, how many great players don't have a ring because they played in the 90's when Jordan ruled, and well if you weren't a Celtic or Laker in the 80s good luck winning a ring.
Now I'm on the road travelling soon, so since you will no doubt reply, don't take my delay in responding as any sign that you've won the argument.
Nada big fan of the pace argument, due to the fact that not any one era is the "standard" for numbers, it could start a HUGE discredit-fest.
Missed that question the first time, but yes, if Wilton and William were to switch the amount of titles they each had, yes, he'd unquestionably be the GOAT. I actually have them 1 & 2 all-time.
Bill Russell has more rings than fingers and he isn't even top five.
Destroying your credibility with statements like this. Even if most don't have Russell upon his rightful place as #1, they at least have him in the top 4
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.
Obviously not always, but sometimes great offense transcends the numbers.
