NBA GOAT discussion

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
Hey, there's no live sports so why not?

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/29021691/nba-goat-debate-big-questions-michael-jordan-greatest-players-ever
Let's start by making the top 10 list, then we can narrow it down from there. Obviously some names will be on all our lists, but I'm sure some will be different. Here's my top 10, in alphabetical order (by last name).

Larry Bird - 12x all star, 3x champ, 10x all NBA, 3x all defense, 3x MVP, 2x finals MVP
Wilt Chamberlain - 13x all star, 7x scoring champ, 2x champ, 4x MVP, 10x all NBA
Steph Curry - 6x all star, 3x champ, 6x all NBA, 2x MVP
Tim Duncan - 15x all star, 15x all NBA, 5x champ, 3x finals MVP, 15x all defense, 2x MVP
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 19x all star, 15x all NBA, 6x champ, 6x MVP, 2x finals MVP
LeBron James - 16x all star, 15x all NBA, 4x MVP, 6x all defense, 3x finals MVP, 3x champ
Magic Johnson - 12x all star, 5x champ, 10x all NBA, 3x MVP, 3x finals MVP
Michael Jordan - 14x all star, 10x scoring champ, 11x all NBA, 9x all defense, 5x MVP, 6x finals MVP
Oscar Robertson - 12x all star, 1x MVP, 11x all NBA
Bill Russell - 12x all star, 11x all NBA, 11x champ, 5x MVP

Guys who are obviously elite Hall of Famers that didn't make the top 10 for me: Jerry West, Moses Malone, Charles Barkley, Julius Erving, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, Steve Nash, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Isiah Thomas, John Havlicek, Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant.

Who ya got?
 

SoxJox

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2003
7,077
Rock > SoxJox < Hard Place
I don't think he's the GOAT, but to omit John Stockton from the Top 10 is a crime.

Beyond eye popping assists - with a near-3,800 assist edge over his closest competitor (Jason Kidd), he was the Cal Ripken of the NBA...playing all 82 games in 17 of 20 years...missing only 22 games in those seasons in which he did not play in all. 17 of those were at the start of the 97-98 season when he needed to recover from a pre-seaon MCL injury.

Plus, he is one of only 3 players to record 1,000+ assists in a season. Kevin Porter and Isiah Thomas each did it once. Stockton did it 7 times.

Oh, and he also holds the NBA career steals record.

Not to mention...he was one very tough nut.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,667
It's Michael Jordan. Jordan and Russell stand alone as the two talents that when they were in their primes and had at least a comparable roster to their rivals, they won the title. Russell won the title every year he was in the league, except when he hurt his ankle during his second season, and during his first season as player-coach. Jordan dragged a bad supporting cast into the playoffs during the late 80s, and once his teammates got up to a decent level, he won six titles in seven seasons played, the only miss being when he came back from baseball mid-season.

Jordan and Russell are the only two players that if you put them in their primes with a decent supporting cast, they won you the title, often in dominating fashion. LeBron is close, but he has some blips on his radar that Jordan and Russell do not (mainly being outplayed by Jason Terry in an NBA Finals when LeBron was 26).

Stockton had amazing longevity, but part of the reason his lead in assists is so dominant is that during the 80s and 90s the official scorers were way more liberal with how they tabulated assists, which is why out of the top 20 highest apg averages for a single season, 17 of them came between 1983 and 1994.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,753
Pittsburgh, PA
Wasn't there some very-detailed rankings somebody made, where he spent like 5000 words on each of the top 50 players, mixing scouting with analytics? I remember a few charts and discussions of efficiency from there, but I also remember he had Jordan at #2 and Kareem at #1.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,095
Jordan sits on the throne. The 4 players that get to join him in the inner sanctum are Russell, Wilt, Kareem, and LeBron. I value career accomplishments, and dominance relative to the era they played far more than flawed WAR-type stats.

The remaining players get to jockey for position around the 3 point line.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,667
I know I just said the answer was Jordan, but really it depends on what you want to value. If you want to value longevity, you would go with Kareem or maybe LeBron. If you want to value peak skill, you could argue Magic or Bird. If you wanted to go pure RINGZ, than Russell. If you want to just go by pure possible dominance, Wilt or Shaq might be the answer. If you want to toss all of those together, you get Jordan.

An intriguing argument for Kareem could be that he had the best BASKETBALL CAREER in history. Add in his high school and college accomplishments; his incredible longevity in the league and his accolades and he is hard to beat. When Kareem retired he had the following on his resume:

*6x NBA Champion, titles he won over a 17 year span.
* 6x MVP, most in history
* All-time scoring leader
* All-Time leader in blocks (now third)
* 3x NCAA Champion
* 3x NCAA Player of the Year
* 3x NYC Champion in high school

Nobody else can really match that list of accomplishments.
 

Was (Not Wasdin)

family crest has godzilla
SoSH Member
Jul 26, 2007
3,721
The Short Bus
I think Kareem is the greatest HS basketball player of all time, greatest college player of all time, and has a legitimate case as the greatest NBA player of all time, and I say this as a diehard Celtics fan who hated him with the intensity of a thousand white hot suns (celestial suns, not Alvin Adams) when he played.

If there is one thing I ding Jordan for, it's this: It took him relatively forever to win a title in the NBA. Magic won right away, Bird won right away, Kareem won right away, Russell won right away (and just kept on winning). It took Jordan 7 full seasons to win a title, and in that time the Celtics, Lakers and Pistons all got old, and there were two rounds of expansion (4 teams total) that diluted the talent pool in the league. He had crappy coaches and crappy teammates (as LeBron did, maybe even worse so) but the fact is it took him a while to figure out how to win. I know this is like saying the filet mignon was cooked 7 seconds too long, but those are the kind of arguments that you have to make when talking about guys this great.

Edit: Kliq beat me to it and explained it better as to Kareem's overall greatness
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,667
Jordan sits on the throne. The 4 players that get to join him in the inner sanctum are Russell, Wilt, Kareem, and LeBron. I value career accomplishments, and dominance relative to the era they played far more than flawed WAR-type stats.

The remaining players get to jockey for position around the 3 point line.
I don't have to delve into advanced metrics to tell you that Tim Duncan was a better player than Wilt. Wilt's numbers are eye-popping without any context thrown in them, but his excessive scoring/rebounding totals can mostly be explained by the rapid pace of play, combined with a lack of offensive goaltending rules and poor shooting in general, all things that rewarded someone who could be planted near the basket and re-direct any misses (or shots that were going in). Wilt was a fantastic player, but he is poster child for stats not telling the whole story, and more importantly, how over time context and nuance are lost as people only look at the hard stats and make determinations based off of them.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
I don't have to delve into advanced metrics to tell you that Tim Duncan was a better player than Wilt. Wilt's numbers are eye-popping without any context thrown in them, but his excessive scoring/rebounding totals can mostly be explained by the rapid pace of play, combined with a lack of offensive goaltending rules and poor shooting in general, all things that rewarded someone who could be planted near the basket and re-direct any misses (or shots that were going in). Wilt was a fantastic player, but he is poster child for stats not telling the whole story, and more importantly, how over time context and nuance are lost as people only look at the hard stats and make determinations based off of them.
It's an interesting question. Clearly Wilt benefitted from all that you mentioned. But he was SO utterly dominant over his competition, the numbers are just so warped. It's hard to know what his true level was. I mean, it was obviously *great*. How great? Maybe we should stack him up in H2H scenarios against other elite big men when he played and see how he comes out. I'm pretty sure those numbers - yes even against Russell - are very favorable for Wilt.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

critical thinker
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
9,386
Bill Burr (of all people) talked about this on a podcast awhile back.

Basically, he said Jordan will ALWAYS be the GOAT because he changed the game, and by that he meant how the game was played to account for him and what his skillset allowed he and his team to do that no others could do before. Nobody since Jordan has had that kind of transformative impact on the game, not Kobe nor LeBron nor Giannis nor anyone else. Jordan altered how the game was play, how shots were defended, and how the painted area was occupied. Until someone else can do that, he will always be leagues ahead of the next best.

YMMV but it sounds legit to me.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,095
I don't have to delve into advanced metrics to tell you that Tim Duncan was a better player than Wilt. Wilt's numbers are eye-popping without any context thrown in them, but his excessive scoring/rebounding totals can mostly be explained by the rapid pace of play, combined with a lack of offensive goaltending rules and poor shooting in general, all things that rewarded someone who could be planted near the basket and re-direct any misses (or shots that were going in). Wilt was a fantastic player, but he is poster child for stats not telling the whole story, and more importantly, how over time context and nuance are lost as people only look at the hard stats and make determinations based off of them.
There are 2 ways to answer the question: one is who are the top players you would pick if you were able to build a team of prime Wilt's, Jordan's, Bird's, etc. It's like an NBA2K style draft of all the available players. And you are playing today's rules. Sure, in that case, Wilt would be dealing with much better opposition than he had in the 1960's.

I took it a different direction: who was most dominant in their era (with apologies to George Mikan) and who had the most accomplished career overall. Wilt was absolutely dominant in his era, and continued his high level of play into the early 1970's, even holding his own against Kareem during the first few times they faced each other.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
I think Kareem is the greatest HS basketball player of all time, greatest college player of all time, and has a legitimate case as the greatest NBA player of all time, and I say this as a diehard Celtics fan who hated him with the intensity of a thousand white hot suns (celestial suns, not Alvin Adams) when he played.

If there is one thing I ding Jordan for, it's this: It took him relatively forever to win a title in the NBA. Magic won right away, Bird won right away, Kareem won right away, Russell won right away (and just kept on winning). It took Jordan 7 full seasons to win a title, and in that time the Celtics, Lakers and Pistons all got old, and there were two rounds of expansion (4 teams total) that diluted the talent pool in the league. He had crappy coaches and crappy teammates (as LeBron did, maybe even worse so) but the fact is it took him a while to figure out how to win. I know this is like saying the filet mignon was cooked 7 seconds too long, but those are the kind of arguments that you have to make when talking about guys this great.

Edit: Kliq beat me to it and explained it better as to Kareem's overall greatness
To amplify your point about Jordan, it was actually six new teams in eight years. There were 23 in the 87-88 season and 29 in the 95-96 one. And the international players in the early 90s weren't good enough to fill the talent pool yet. You see this with the erosion of basic skills like free throw shooting and shooting efficiency during that era. It really wasn't until the end of the decade that the talent pool caught up to the number of teams.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,667
It's an interesting question. Clearly Wilt benefitted from all that you mentioned. But he was SO utterly dominant over his competition, the numbers are just so warped. It's hard to know what his true level was. I mean, it was obviously *great*. How great? Maybe we should stack him up in H2H scenarios against other elite big men when he played and see how he comes out. I'm pretty sure those numbers - yes even against Russell - are very favorable for Wilt.
Numbers don't tell the whole story. With the exception of a few of his former teammates, when both men retired almost no contemporary players thought that Wilt was better than Russell. It wasn't until time started to set in and Wilt's individual numbers became more absurd with age that people started thinking that Wilt was better than Russell, now I'd wager most people under 40 think that Wilt was better, he wasn't. Wilt was good at putting up individual numbers, but his teams routinely failed in big games, Wilt frequently playing worse in the playoffs than in the regular season (unlike pretty much every other all-time great player) and his teammates and coaches hated him. Wilt was traded twice during his prime, more than any other all-time great player except for Shaq.

I just finished Elgin Baylor's awesome biography Hang Time, that came out last year. Baylor speaks about Russell in reverential tones, and he absolutely buries Wilt. According to Elgin, Wilt was a terrible teammate who spent his entire time in LA feuding with his coaches, whining to his teammates and demanding the ball. When a player made a shot it was not uncommon for Wilt to start yelling at them about how he was open under the basket. It is fascinating to read about a former teammate of Wilt's kill him, while praising Russell.


If Tim Duncan is in the conversation, Kevin Garnett deserves mention.
Duncan is so much better than KG. I love KG but he is overrated; he was for most of his career, a disappointing playoff performer who settled for jump shots and fadeaways during big moments, and shot a poor percentage from the field during the playoffs. Duncan is one of the five or six best players ever. KG didn't have a lot of help in Minnesota, but Tim Duncan went through a brutal WC that included the Kobe/Shaq dynasty and won a title with Stephen Jackson as his best teammate. There is a reason Duncan has five rings and KG has one, and it isn't just because Duncan played for Pop.
 

jaytftwofive

New Member
Jan 20, 2013
1,182
Drexel Hill Pa.
It's a tough choice. I say Jordan greatest all around player, Wilt the greatest and most dominant. I mean he re-wrote the record book and they changed rules because of him. The 3 second rule and the free throw lane possibly? And Russell the greatest winner. Are Kareem's stats better then Russell's? Yes of course but what Russ did in his time of turning the game into defense, rebounding, and fast breaks is Epic. Then I go LeBron and Kareem or vice versa 4 and 5. That's my top 5.
 
Last edited:

jaytftwofive

New Member
Jan 20, 2013
1,182
Drexel Hill Pa.
Hey, there's no live sports so why not?

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/29021691/nba-goat-debate-big-questions-michael-jordan-greatest-players-ever
Let's start by making the top 10 list, then we can narrow it down from there. Obviously some names will be on all our lists, but I'm sure some will be different. Here's my top 10, in alphabetical order (by last name).

Larry Bird - 12x all star, 3x champ, 10x all NBA, 3x all defense, 3x MVP, 2x finals MVP
Wilt Chamberlain - 13x all star, 7x scoring champ, 2x champ, 4x MVP, 10x all NBA
Steph Curry - 6x all star, 3x champ, 6x all NBA, 2x MVP
Tim Duncan - 15x all star, 15x all NBA, 5x champ, 3x finals MVP, 15x all defense, 2x MVP
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 19x all star, 15x all NBA, 6x champ, 6x MVP, 2x finals MVP
LeBron James - 16x all star, 15x all NBA, 4x MVP, 6x all defense, 3x finals MVP, 3x champ
Magic Johnson - 12x all star, 5x champ, 10x all NBA, 3x MVP, 3x finals MVP
Michael Jordan - 14x all star, 10x scoring champ, 11x all NBA, 9x all defense, 5x MVP, 6x finals MVP
Oscar Robertson - 12x all star, 1x MVP, 11x all NBA
Bill Russell - 12x all star, 11x all NBA, 11x champ, 5x MVP

Guys who are obviously elite Hall of Famers that didn't make the top 10 for me: Jerry West, Moses Malone, Charles Barkley, Julius Erving, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, Steve Nash, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Isiah Thomas, John Havlicek, Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant.

Who ya got?
On that next list you're missing Elgin Baylor???. Red Auerbach said he was the player he feared the most in the 60's and the most dominant.He threw a clipboard down in one game and yelled at his team about their defense on him. "Can't anybody stop that SOB" !!!!
 
Last edited:

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,539
South Boston
Hey, there's no live sports so why not?

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/29021691/nba-goat-debate-big-questions-michael-jordan-greatest-players-ever
Let's start by making the top 10 list, then we can narrow it down from there. Obviously some names will be on all our lists, but I'm sure some will be different. Here's my top 10, in alphabetical order (by last name).

Larry Bird - 12x all star, 3x champ, 10x all NBA, 3x all defense, 3x MVP, 2x finals MVP
Wilt Chamberlain - 13x all star, 7x scoring champ, 2x champ, 4x MVP, 10x all NBA
Steph Curry - 6x all star, 3x champ, 6x all NBA, 2x MVP
Tim Duncan - 15x all star, 15x all NBA, 5x champ, 3x finals MVP, 15x all defense, 2x MVP
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 19x all star, 15x all NBA, 6x champ, 6x MVP, 2x finals MVP
LeBron James - 16x all star, 15x all NBA, 4x MVP, 6x all defense, 3x finals MVP, 3x champ
Magic Johnson - 12x all star, 5x champ, 10x all NBA, 3x MVP, 3x finals MVP
Michael Jordan - 14x all star, 10x scoring champ, 11x all NBA, 9x all defense, 5x MVP, 6x finals MVP
Oscar Robertson - 12x all star, 1x MVP, 11x all NBA
Bill Russell - 12x all star, 11x all NBA, 11x champ, 5x MVP

Guys who are obviously elite Hall of Famers that didn't make the top 10 for me: Jerry West, Moses Malone, Charles Barkley, Julius Erving, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, Steve Nash, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Isiah Thomas, John Havlicek, Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant.

Who ya got?
Curry does not belong anywhere near this list (yet). If he does the same thing for 5-6 more years, then we can talk. Hakeem deserves to take him place, IMO.

This could go in the "Joe DiMaggio" thread, but who was (is?) the poster that had this been a thread 7-8 years ago, would have argued Scottie Pippen deserves mention in the top-10? I think he was a Whaler fan, too?
 

Seels

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
4,948
NH
Jordan is the best I saw.

I think the Jordan / Lebron comparisons are kind of goofy. Lebron has now played longer, but Jordan was better at his best, better in the playoffs, and did it in a tougher conference Lebron ever dealt with.

For me it's Jordan and you can reasonably argue guys like Lebron Kareem Russell and even Bird and Magic for #2.
 

jaytftwofive

New Member
Jan 20, 2013
1,182
Drexel Hill Pa.
And at this point I would put Kobe in over Steph Curry. You have to, I think. When Stephs career is done that will probably change but right now I put Kobe on their over Curry. And I hated to leave Magic off my top 5 but that was my list. Magic is the greatest point guard in NBA history.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
Numbers don't tell the whole story. With the exception of a few of his former teammates, when both men retired almost no contemporary players thought that Wilt was better than Russell. It wasn't until time started to set in and Wilt's individual numbers became more absurd with age that people started thinking that Wilt was better than Russell, now I'd wager most people under 40 think that Wilt was better, he wasn't. Wilt was good at putting up individual numbers, but his teams routinely failed in big games, Wilt frequently playing worse in the playoffs than in the regular season (unlike pretty much every other all-time great player) and his teammates and coaches hated him. Wilt was traded twice during his prime, more than any other all-time great player except for Shaq.

I just finished Elgin Baylor's awesome biography Hang Time, that came out last year. Baylor speaks about Russell in reverential tones, and he absolutely buries Wilt. According to Elgin, Wilt was a terrible teammate who spent his entire time in LA feuding with his coaches, whining to his teammates and demanding the ball. When a player made a shot it was not uncommon for Wilt to start yelling at them about how he was open under the basket. It is fascinating to read about a former teammate of Wilt's kill him, while praising Russell.
The "his teammates hated him" stuff is not stuff that I put much stock in, even if it's true. Wilt wasn't as much of a winner as Russell was, for sure. But Wilt dominated Russell head to head statistically. It's not close.

Regular season, H2H:
Russell: 37.0% fg, 14.2 pts, 22.9 reb, 4.4 ast
Wilt: 48.8% fg, 29.9 pts, 28.1 reb, 3.8 ast

Playoffs, H2H:
Russell: 41.7% fg, 14.9 pts, 24.7 reb, 4.9 ast
Wilt: 50.8% fg, 25.7 pts, 28.0 reb, 4.1 ast

Obviously we don't have defensive stats from back then, and I'll assume Russell's were better, but maybe not. This is kind of the eternal debate, right, I mean...Russell was by FAR the bigger winner - no contest. Yet statistically, Wilt dominated Russell. He really did. You can't look at those numbers and say that Russell was Wilt's equal, from a numbers perspective. Russell definitely did a better job on Wilt than the rest of the league did - holding him to fewer points and a lower FG% than his career numbers. But he didn't keep Wilt off the boards - Wilt averaged 5+ rebounds more a game against Russell than his career number of 22.9. In fact, he averaged more rebounds a game against Russell than his rebounding average in his BEST season (27.2).

It's kind of like the Peyton vs. Brady debate from early in Brady's career. But then....Brady blew past him statistically too, so now the only thing Peyton has on him is more MVPs. Otherwise Brady has him beat in both the winning and statistical categories. Russell could never come close to Wilt statistically.

So I'm not saying Wilt is better. Just saying...this is a legit debate.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
And at this point I would put Kobe in over Steph Curry. You have to, I think. When Stephs career is done that will probably change but right now I put Kobe on their over Curry. And I hated to leave Magic off my top 5 but that was my list. Magic is the greatest point guard in NBA history.
If "changing the game" is part of the criteria, it's hard to envision many players who have changed the game more than Steph Curry.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,678
I think the Jordan / Lebron comparisons are kind of goofy. Lebron has now played longer, but Jordan was better at his best, better in the playoffs, and did it in a tougher conference Lebron ever dealt with.
Not even close. Jordan's prime fell in the era when the NBA was at its most talent diluted. Drop prime LeBron into the NBA of the early to mid 90s and he would have put up numbers not seen since the days of Wilt.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,667
The "his teammates hated him" stuff is not stuff that I put much stock in, even if it's true. Wilt wasn't as much of a winner as Russell was, for sure. But Wilt dominated Russell head to head statistically. It's not close.
Why not put stock in it? As you point out, purely statistical analysis shows that Wilt was better than Russell, yet why did Russell win so much more often, including many head to head wins? It can't be just that he had better teammates, at different points in his career Wilt had better teammates than Russell, yet Russell continued to dominate with the exception of one season, when Wilt had an all-time team surrounding him and Russell struggled under his first year duties as player-coach. Perhaps it was because the selfishness that allowed Wilt to put up such great stats was not as conductive to winning as Russell's selfless attitude. Wilt's most successful seasons are years when his stats actually declined.

My point is that not many people, teammates, coaches, executives, other players, outside observers, believed that Wilt was better than Chamberlain when they both retired. Read Tall Tales by Terry Pluto for all the first-hand accounts. 50 years later people look at some stats and say that all those people at the time are wrong. I really hope that in 50 years, people compare Karl Malone and Tim Duncan and say that Malone was a better player because of the stats.
 

Pablo's TB Lover

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 10, 2017
5,959
Hey, there's no live sports so why not?

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/29021691/nba-goat-debate-big-questions-michael-jordan-greatest-players-ever
Let's start by making the top 10 list, then we can narrow it down from there. Obviously some names will be on all our lists, but I'm sure some will be different. Here's my top 10, in alphabetical order (by last name).

Larry Bird - 12x all star, 3x champ, 10x all NBA, 3x all defense, 3x MVP, 2x finals MVP
Wilt Chamberlain - 13x all star, 7x scoring champ, 2x champ, 4x MVP, 10x all NBA
Steph Curry - 6x all star, 3x champ, 6x all NBA, 2x MVP
Tim Duncan - 15x all star, 15x all NBA, 5x champ, 3x finals MVP, 15x all defense, 2x MVP
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 19x all star, 15x all NBA, 6x champ, 6x MVP, 2x finals MVP
LeBron James - 16x all star, 15x all NBA, 4x MVP, 6x all defense, 3x finals MVP, 3x champ
Magic Johnson - 12x all star, 5x champ, 10x all NBA, 3x MVP, 3x finals MVP
Michael Jordan - 14x all star, 10x scoring champ, 11x all NBA, 9x all defense, 5x MVP, 6x finals MVP
Oscar Robertson - 12x all star, 1x MVP, 11x all NBA
Bill Russell - 12x all star, 11x all NBA, 11x champ, 5x MVP

Guys who are obviously elite Hall of Famers that didn't make the top 10 for me: Jerry West, Moses Malone, Charles Barkley, Julius Erving, Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, Steve Nash, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Isiah Thomas, John Havlicek, Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant.

Who ya got?
My only nitpick: Curry definitely has a compelling narrative as far as how he helped change the modern game, I just don't think he is quite in the top 10 yet. If you are to look at current players, I think Durant (10x AS, 9x all NBA) is barely ahead of Curry. And if you need both in or out I'd say both out until they each put up high level play an additional 3-5 years. Durant is the bigger wild card going forward obviously due to his injury as compared to Steph's.

Of course, that forces me to pick a new 10th which is tough. I came of age on the downside of Moses Malone's career but can't help notice the peak of his career from around 1978-1985 on the basketball reference page. The man was really a force! But really it's time to flip a coin on whether you are partial to wing men or big guys, modern vs historical game, etc.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
Why not put stock in it? As you point out, purely statistical analysis shows that Wilt was better than Russell, yet why did Russell win so much more often, including many head to head wins? It can't be just that he had better teammates, at different points in his career Wilt had better teammates than Russell,
Did he though? From: https://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/index4f3e.html?p=4229

"One of the long-held NBA aphorisms used to explain the gulf in championships between Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain, arguably the two greatest centers of all time (OK, Kareem & Shaqmight dispute this notion, but that's another argument for another day), is the idea that Russell played on Celtics teams stacked to the rafters with All-Star and/or Hall of Fame talent, while Chamberlain suited up with lesser teammates who held him back. Certainly that's the impression you'll get from our Quality of Teammates post, where we found that Russell played with the 10th-most talented set of teammates (weighted by career minutes played) of any player in NBA history, while Chamberlain's teammates were average at best, and hardly spectacular like Russell's.

In fact, according to career Win Shares per minute, Russell's teammates were worth 8.10 WS/3000 MP over his career, while Chamberlain's were worth 6.06. So if both men played 3,300 minutes per season, with a schedule of 80 games and 48.3 MPG (the NBA's all-time average), that gives roughly 16,000 minutes to each center's teammates in total for each year:

((8.10 - 6.06) / 3000) * 16000 = 10.88

In other words, Russell's teammates alone were worth approximately 11 more wins than Chamberlain's per regular season... And in the playoffs since 1957, teams with 10-12 more regular-season wins than their opponent won 71 of 85 series (83.5%). So should it have been any surprise that Russell and the C's were coming out ahead of Chamberlain's Warriors & Sixers?"

yet Russell continued to dominate with the exception of one season, when Wilt had an all-time team surrounding him and Russell struggled under his first year duties as player-coach. Perhaps it was because the selfishness that allowed Wilt to put up such great stats was not as conductive to winning as Russell's selfless attitude. Wilt's most successful seasons are years when his stats actually declined.

My point is that not many people, teammates, coaches, executives, other players, outside observers, believed that Wilt was better than Chamberlain when they both retired. Read Tall Tales by Terry Pluto for all the first-hand accounts. 50 years later people look at some stats and say that all those people at the time are wrong. I really hope that in 50 years, people compare Karl Malone and Tim Duncan and say that Malone was a better player because of the stats.
Yeah, I never saw either of them play so I'm just going by what I read, some youtube videos, and the numbers. I don't know who was actually better, but I just instinctively flinch when I hear such definitive statements that either was without question better than the other (you didn't use that term, but that's how your view came across to me...apologies if I'm reading it wrong).
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,651
where I was last at
Not even close. Jordan's prime fell in the era when the NBA was at its most talent diluted. Drop prime LeBron into the NBA of the early to mid 90s and he would have put up numbers not seen since the days of Wilt.
Jordan's biggest rival (who the Bulls could beat) were the fucking Ewing Knicks. The epitome of ugly graceless basketball. That should put some context into the Jordan rings of the 90's. It was LeBron's misfortune he was generally a one-man team (pre-South Beach) against some legit really good/great teams in the post-season.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,667
Did he though? From: https://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/index4f3e.html?p=4229

"One of the long-held NBA aphorisms used to explain the gulf in championships between Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain, arguably the two greatest centers of all time (OK, Kareem & Shaqmight dispute this notion, but that's another argument for another day), is the idea that Russell played on Celtics teams stacked to the rafters with All-Star and/or Hall of Fame talent, while Chamberlain suited up with lesser teammates who held him back. Certainly that's the impression you'll get from our Quality of Teammates post, where we found that Russell played with the 10th-most talented set of teammates (weighted by career minutes played) of any player in NBA history, while Chamberlain's teammates were average at best, and hardly spectacular like Russell's.

In fact, according to career Win Shares per minute, Russell's teammates were worth 8.10 WS/3000 MP over his career, while Chamberlain's were worth 6.06. So if both men played 3,300 minutes per season, with a schedule of 80 games and 48.3 MPG (the NBA's all-time average), that gives roughly 16,000 minutes to each center's teammates in total for each year:

((8.10 - 6.06) / 3000) * 16000 = 10.88

In other words, Russell's teammates alone were worth approximately 11 more wins than Chamberlain's per regular season... And in the playoffs since 1957, teams with 10-12 more regular-season wins than their opponent won 71 of 85 series (83.5%). So should it have been any surprise that Russell and the C's were coming out ahead of Chamberlain's Warriors & Sixers?"



Yeah, I never saw either of them play so I'm just going by what I read, some youtube videos, and the numbers. I don't know who was actually better, but I just instinctively flinch when I hear such definitive statements that either was without question better than the other (you didn't use that term, but that's how your view came across to me...apologies if I'm reading it wrong).
I'm not going to argue with the sports reference people on statistical deep-dives, but...for starters that analysis is based almost entirely on valuing win shares as definite which is faulty; ESPECIALLY when evaluating Wilt's teammates. Wilt was a hog, he dominated the ball in a way that Russell never did on offense. Russell's teammates were going to be better in part because Russell allowed them to be better. Do you think Cousy/Heinsohn/Havlicek/Jones etc. would have as impressive WS/48 numbers if they were just standing around watching Wilt try and score 50 points every game?

The other thing is that Russell had better teammates during certain stretches of his career, particularly the early 60s, when the Celtics were a complete juggernaut. By the back half of his career, especially once he left the Warriors and went back to Philly, Wilt's teammates were significantly better than Russell's. I think Russell did have better teammates, but I don't think the gap is big enough to justify Russell's incredible championship success when compared to Wilt. There was something about Wilt's statistical dominance that wasn't conducive to winning.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,083
I agree with consensus that Jordan was best but, due to timing, he never once beat a truly elite team for the title. Aging Lakers? Blazers? Suns? Sonics? Jazz? All decent teams but none of them come close to stacking up with the recent Warriors, prime Spurs, 80s Celtics, Lakers, Sixers, etc. You can only play who is on the schedule but the Bulls’ competition was weak.

Put the 1990s Bulls in the 1980s and I believe they have about 3 titles like the Celtics. Really is too bad that we never got to see the 1994 Rockets against the Bulls.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,539
South Boston
If "changing the game" is part of the criteria, it's hard to envision many players who have changed the game more than Steph Curry.
No where in the article you posted (which literally asked the "experts"...sorry Jackie Mac...for their traits and accomplishments...I consider that to be the criteria) or your original post did it mention anything about "changing the game". If that were the case, we'd have to include George Mikan.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
Did he though? From: https://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/index4f3e.html?p=4229

"One of the long-held NBA aphorisms used to explain the gulf in championships between Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain, arguably the two greatest centers of all time (OK, Kareem & Shaqmight dispute this notion, but that's another argument for another day), is the idea that Russell played on Celtics teams stacked to the rafters with All-Star and/or Hall of Fame talent, while Chamberlain suited up with lesser teammates who held him back. Certainly that's the impression you'll get from our Quality of Teammates post, where we found that Russell played with the 10th-most talented set of teammates (weighted by career minutes played) of any player in NBA history, while Chamberlain's teammates were average at best, and hardly spectacular like Russell's.

In fact, according to career Win Shares per minute, Russell's teammates were worth 8.10 WS/3000 MP over his career, while Chamberlain's were worth 6.06. So if both men played 3,300 minutes per season, with a schedule of 80 games and 48.3 MPG (the NBA's all-time average), that gives roughly 16,000 minutes to each center's teammates in total for each year:

((8.10 - 6.06) / 3000) * 16000 = 10.88

In other words, Russell's teammates alone were worth approximately 11 more wins than Chamberlain's per regular season... And in the playoffs since 1957, teams with 10-12 more regular-season wins than their opponent won 71 of 85 series (83.5%). So should it have been any surprise that Russell and the C's were coming out ahead of Chamberlain's Warriors & Sixers?"



Yeah, I never saw either of them play so I'm just going by what I read, some youtube videos, and the numbers. I don't know who was actually better, but I just instinctively flinch when I hear such definitive statements that either was without question better than the other (you didn't use that term, but that's how your view came across to me...apologies if I'm reading it wrong).
Doesn't win shares start with team wins and then allocate them among the players? That is how the baseball version operated. If so, the above is just a tautology---and one that doesn't value defense very much, which is kind of the point a Russell supporter would make.

For me Russell, MJ, and Kareem are the easiest to make the case for---amongst them it depends on how one values winning; longevity; and individual stats. There's also a huge era adjustment in particular between Russell and MJ.

I can imagine making the case for LBJ, and there are ways in which his career already is more impressive than Jordans (but also important ones where it is not). He is spectacular and doing it with different supporting casts is impressive in its own way.

There is a sliver of a case for Bird---which primarily is that he and Jordan each missed a full year near their prime and the Celtics fell a lot farther than the Bulls. But it's a tough case to make and I love Larry Joe Bird.

I don't see any case for Magic, who simply wasn't in the same discussion as Bird until he developed a jumper in 1987 (nor was he even the primary guy on his own team). One can certainly make a case Magic was Bird's equal or even better the last few years, but he sadly did not play long enough as a truly complete, alpha player for there to be a credible case for him. He benefits from other-worldly assists in a lot of advanced stats but that is not about the player it's about the system.

Chamberlain is a tough case---you can argue him after the top 3 or near the bottom of the top 10. I hear the box-score stats case with him but to me you gotta win the games, too. It is not all about supporting casts----did any other player here ever get benched by his coach at a key time? Wilt did, and that is telling.

Peak Shaq and Walton are tough to deal with....they are certainly more impactful than peak Magic but simply didn't do it long enough or consistently enough. Kobe is the opposite---he was spectacular offensively, but not nearly as complete a player as others on this list and his greatest attribute was being so good for so long. As we know, Shaq was the alpha on their teams and for good reason. What is the case for Kobe over Duncan, really? Kobe scored more points but Duncan was better at everything else on a court, a better teammate, and won more (though that gets complicated thanks to Shaq and Robinson's presences)

I am in the Durant over Steph camp right now, though that story is not fully written yet. I think Baylor and Robertson are in the discussion with them as well.
 

jaytftwofive

New Member
Jan 20, 2013
1,182
Drexel Hill Pa.
The only Elgin Baylor mention was about his criticism of Wilt and my post that he should be mentioned in top 20. Hello!!!!! Anybody remember him? Red said he was the most dominant player of the 60's. He was better then John Stockton and Steve Nash and Isiah Thomas and Charles Barkley and possibly Dr. J. who are on the posters list. And he was better then John Havlicek who is my favorite all time Celtic and player. He averaged 27.4 pts per game, 13.5 rebounds per game, 4.3 assists per game and made 11 all star appearances in 14 seasons with the Lakers. Elected to Hall of Fame in 1977 first year of eligibility.
 
Last edited:

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,590
02130
Not even close. Jordan's prime fell in the era when the NBA was at its most talent diluted. Drop prime LeBron into the NBA of the early to mid 90s and he would have put up numbers not seen since the days of Wilt.
I tend to think the answer to any GOAT question, especially in an athletic sport like basketball or football or hockey, is just incredibly skewed towards recent times with modern nutrition, training, and a larger population to draw from both in the US and with the spread of the game to more countries (with a mostly static number of teams). Which makes it LeBron.

I also believe that a lot of pro backups in 2020 would wipe the floor with the starters of other eras. I think the talent level is that much better now. Even if you allow for the differences in training and nutrition and rules / style of the game, there are probably a lot of potentially great players in the 70s and earlier who just never got discovered because they were working in factories or were in rural China or whatever. So you had the top 100-ish basketball players out of an exponentially smaller pool.

The exception here is specialized skills like hitting a baseball or playing quarterback, which take either an exceptional physical skill that would probably play in any era (hand-eye coordination and eyesight) or tremendous mental skills (reading defenses and making the right decisions with the football, along with all the physical needs of QBing).

But that makes this discussion kind of boring, and most people answer the question as "best player in relation to their peers" on a kind of curve, and they allow for the idea that MJ or Wilt would take advantage of modern training etc. if they lived now. So, carry on.
 

JohnnyTheBone

Member
SoSH Member
May 28, 2007
36,330
Nobody Cares
Duncan is so much better than KG. I love KG but he is overrated; he was for most of his career, a disappointing playoff performer who settled for jump shots and fadeaways during big moments, and shot a poor percentage from the field during the playoffs. Duncan is one of the five or six best players ever. KG didn't have a lot of help in Minnesota, but Tim Duncan went through a brutal WC that included the Kobe/Shaq dynasty and won a title with Stephen Jackson as his best teammate. There is a reason Duncan has five rings and KG has one, and it isn't just because Duncan played for Pop.
I know you're a younger guy, Kliq, so you didn't live through KG's early days with the T-Wolves. They were a trash fire that KG dragged into the playoffs by sheer force of will. His best teammate during those years wouldn't have cracked San Antonio's 8-man playoff rotation. Seriously, look it up. It's hard to put up huge playoff numbers when you're the only guy the opponent has to worry about. Once KG had a worthy supporting cast, his team hung up a 66-win season and clinched a title with a 39-point blowout of Kobe Bryant's Lakers. The only knock on KG during his time in 'Sota was that he was too honorable a teammate and never forced his way out of town, despite the collection of detritus with which he was forced to go to war by inept ownership. For me, that fierce loyalty is a feature, not a bug.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
I'm not going to argue with the sports reference people on statistical deep-dives, but...for starters that analysis is based almost entirely on valuing win shares as definite which is faulty; ESPECIALLY when evaluating Wilt's teammates. Wilt was a hog, he dominated the ball in a way that Russell never did on offense. Russell's teammates were going to be better in part because Russell allowed them to be better. Do you think Cousy/Heinsohn/Havlicek/Jones etc. would have as impressive WS/48 numbers if they were just standing around watching Wilt try and score 50 points every game?

The other thing is that Russell had better teammates during certain stretches of his career, particularly the early 60s, when the Celtics were a complete juggernaut. By the back half of his career, especially once he left the Warriors and went back to Philly, Wilt's teammates were significantly better than Russell's. I think Russell did have better teammates, but I don't think the gap is big enough to justify Russell's incredible championship success when compared to Wilt. There was something about Wilt's statistical dominance that wasn't conducive to winning.
Doesn't win shares start with team wins and then allocate them among the players? That is how the baseball version operated. If so, the above is just a tautology---and one that doesn't value defense very much, which is kind of the point a Russell supporter would make.

For me Russell, MJ, and Kareem are the easiest to make the case for---amongst them it depends on how one values winning; longevity; and individual stats. There's also a huge era adjustment in particular between Russell and MJ.

I can imagine making the case for LBJ, and there are ways in which his career already is more impressive than Jordans (but also important ones where it is not). He is spectacular and doing it with different supporting casts is impressive in its own way.

There is a sliver of a case for Bird---which primarily is that he and Jordan each missed a full year near their prime and the Celtics fell a lot farther than the Bulls. But it's a tough case to make and I love Larry Joe Bird.

I don't see any case for Magic, who simply wasn't in the same discussion as Bird until he developed a jumper in 1987 (nor was he even the primary guy on his own team). One can certainly make a case Magic was Bird's equal or even better the last few years, but he sadly did not play long enough as a truly complete, alpha player for there to be a credible case for him. He benefits from other-worldly assists in a lot of advanced stats but that is not about the player it's about the system.

Chamberlain is a tough case---you can argue him after the top 3 or near the bottom of the top 10. I hear the box-score stats case with him but to me you gotta win the games, too. It is not all about supporting casts----did any other player here ever get benched by his coach at a key time? Wilt did, and that is telling.

Peak Shaq and Walton are tough to deal with....they are certainly more impactful than peak Magic but simply didn't do it long enough or consistently enough. Kobe is the opposite---he was spectacular offensively, but not nearly as complete a player as others on this list and his greatest attribute was being so good for so long. As we know, Shaq was the alpha on their teams and for good reason. What is the case for Kobe over Duncan, really? Kobe scored more points but Duncan was better at everything else on a court, a better teammate, and won more (though that gets complicated thanks to Shaq and Robinson's presences)

I am in the Durant over Steph camp right now, though that story is not fully written yet. I think Baylor and Robertson are in the discussion with them as well.
Yeah I totally get that. We've seen guys put up huge numbers and never win. Think Karl Malone for example. Barkley is another one that comes to mind. But it wasn't like Wilt didn't win. He won 2 NBA titles.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,083
I know you're a younger guy, Kliq, so you didn't live through KG's early days with the T-Wolves. They were a trash fire that KG dragged into the playoffs by sheer force of will. His best teammate during those years wouldn't have cracked San Antonio's 8-man playoff rotation. Seriously, look it up. It's hard to put up huge playoff numbers when you're the only guy the opponent has to worry about. Once KG had a worthy supporting cast, his team hung up a 66-win season and clinched a title with a 39-point blowout of Kobe Bryant's Lakers. The only knock on KG during his time in 'Sota was that he was too honorable a teammate and never forced his way out of town, despite the collection of detritus with which he was forced to go to war by inept ownership. For me, that fierce loyalty is a feature, not a bug.
KG and Duncan were comparable talents but is there a single person who would take prime KG over prime Duncan if you had the chance to build a franchise from scratch? If yes, I’d be curious to know why.

Duncan was 1st team all-NBA 10 times. KG did that only 4 times. Duncan 2 MVPs vs 1 for KG. Duncan all defense 1st/2nd team 15 times vs 12 for KG. We obviously know the postseason success although I think that evens out a bit if KG had a longer stretch with the Celtics.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,095
The "his teammates hated him" stuff is not stuff that I put much stock in, even if it's true. Wilt wasn't as much of a winner as Russell was, for sure. But Wilt dominated Russell head to head statistically. It's not close.

Regular season, H2H:
Russell: 37.0% fg, 14.2 pts, 22.9 reb, 4.4 ast
Wilt: 48.8% fg, 29.9 pts, 28.1 reb, 3.8 ast

Playoffs, H2H:
Russell: 41.7% fg, 14.9 pts, 24.7 reb, 4.9 ast
Wilt: 50.8% fg, 25.7 pts, 28.0 reb, 4.1 ast

Obviously we don't have defensive stats from back then, and I'll assume Russell's were better, but maybe not. This is kind of the eternal debate, right, I mean...Russell was by FAR the bigger winner - no contest. Yet statistically, Wilt dominated Russell. He really did. You can't look at those numbers and say that Russell was Wilt's equal, from a numbers perspective. Russell definitely did a better job on Wilt than the rest of the league did - holding him to fewer points and a lower FG% than his career numbers. But he didn't keep Wilt off the boards - Wilt averaged 5+ rebounds more a game against Russell than his career number of 22.9. In fact, he averaged more rebounds a game against Russell than his rebounding average in his BEST season (27.2).

It's kind of like the Peyton vs. Brady debate from early in Brady's career. But then....Brady blew past him statistically too, so now the only thing Peyton has on him is more MVPs. Otherwise Brady has him beat in both the winning and statistical categories. Russell could never come close to Wilt statistically.

So I'm not saying Wilt is better. Just saying...this is a legit debate.
Nearly every season in which Wilt faced Russell, Wilt's scoring and FG% was significantly down from his season averages.

In 1961-62, Wilt averaged 50.4 ppg and shot 51% from the field, which is pretty impressive when you consider the fact that he took nearly 40 shots per game. In 17 regular season and playoff games against Russell, Wilt averaged 37 ppg and shot 47% from the field. You see similar results nearly every season they faced each other; Wilt's numbers went down significantly when he was facing Russell.

Yeah, Wilt outscored and outrebounded Russell. But he was far less effective against Russell than he was against every other center in the league at that time, and it's not particularly close either.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,369
Nearly every season in which Wilt faced Russell, Wilt's scoring and FG% was significantly down from his season averages.
Which means that Russell defended Wilt better than other people did, which is no surprise. But it doesn't mean that Wilt didn't dominate statistically against Russell. Because he did.

In 1961-62, Wilt averaged 50.4 ppg and shot 51% from the field, which is pretty impressive when you consider the fact that he took nearly 40 shots per game. In 17 regular season and playoff games against Russell, Wilt averaged 37 ppg and shot 47% from the field. You see similar results nearly every season they faced each other; Wilt's numbers went down significantly when he was facing Russell.

Yeah, Wilt outscored and outrebounded Russell. But he was far less effective against Russell than he was against every other center in the league at that time, and it's not particularly close either.
Right. Jordan would have a lot more trouble scoring against a D1 college player than against me, but that doesn't mean that the D1 college player is as good as Jordan. It just means that the D1 college player is much better than me.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
KG and Duncan were comparable talents but is there a single person who would take prime KG over prime Duncan if you had the chance to build a franchise from scratch? If yes, I’d be curious to know why.

Duncan was 1st team all-NBA 10 times. KG did that only 4 times. Duncan 2 MVPs vs 1 for KG. Duncan all defense 1st/2nd team 15 times vs 12 for KG. We obviously know the postseason success although I think that evens out a bit if KG had a longer stretch with the Celtics.
Really? Prime KG is to me a no-brainer easy choice over peak Duncan....which is consistent with a 20% edge in some all-in metrics. I'd go a step farther: peak KG was better at every phase of the game than peak Duncan except post defense. Now, Duncan had the better overall career and his consistency is I think unparalleled but he also never carried a team the way peak KG had to. You cite some career stats and I agree Duncan has the edge there but if you're talking peak---Garnett is a different level. Vastly better passer, better defender (DPOY, though they were both great), more diverse offensie game and more offensive responsibility.

As to the Russell-Wilt comparison what you'd really want to look at is usage rate as well wouldn't you? Wilt was his team's focus on offense so losing up to 25% of his production is a big deal. Russell was not. I don't think anyone questions that Wilt had better stats than Russell....the question is, at what cost?
 
Last edited:

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,083
Really? Prime KG is to me a no-brainer easy choice over peak Duncan....which is consistent with a 20% edge in some all-in metrics. I'd go a step farther: peak KG was better at every phase of the game than peak Duncan except post defense. Now, Duncan had the better overall career and his consistency is I think unparalleled but he also never carried a team the way peak KG had to. You cite some career stats and I agree Duncan has the edge there but if you're talking peak---Garnett is a different level.
Peak KG was not a better post scorer. Peak KG was not a better shot blocker. Peak KG was not a better rebounder (I’d say they push there - both were awesome rebounders). Both were tremendous passers for big men. I would venture to say that most people outside of Boston/Minnesota would fall on the Duncan side of the ledger. It is close but how do you reconcile 10x 1st team All-NBA vs 4? That’s a huge difference.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,095
Which means that Russell defended Wilt better than other people did, which is no surprise. But it doesn't mean that Wilt didn't dominate statistically against Russell. Because he did.



Right. Jordan would have a lot more trouble scoring against a D1 college player than against me, but that doesn't mean that the D1 college player is as good as Jordan. It just means that the D1 college player is much better than me.
Your response ignored a key point in my argument: Russell slowed down Wilt better than any other player in the NBA, and it wasn't particularly close either. That ability to slow Wilt down is what won the Celtics games.

Yes, for many years of their overlap, the Celtics had the better team, in some cases by quite a lot. However, not all years. In 1967-68, the Celtics finished 8 games back in the standings behind a 62-win Philly that was coming off their championship season. The 76'ers still had Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham, and Chet Walker, all 3 of them Hall of Famers in their own right. For the Celtics, Sam Jones was, like Russell, nearing the end of the line, although they did have Havlicek. Wilt shot nearly 60% that season, but only 49% against Russell, as the Celtics pulled out the 7 game series.

The following season, Wilt joined the Lakers, who had some guys like Jerry West and Elgin Baylor. The Celtics won 48 games that year; the Lakers 55. Wilt averaged 20.5 ppg on 58.1% shooting. The Lakers beat the Celtics 4 of 6 times during the regular season. In the 7 game playoff series, Wilt averaged less than 12 ppg on 50% shooting.

Wilt was undoubtedly a better scorer and rebounder; Russell was by far the better defender and overall play maker.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
Peak KG was not a better post scorer. Peak KG was not a better shot blocker. Peak KG was not a better rebounder (I’d say they push there - both were awesome rebounders). Both were tremendous passers for big men. I would venture to say that most people outside of Boston/Minnesota would fall on the Duncan side of the ledger. It is close but how do you reconcile 10x 1st team All-NBA vs 4? That’s a huge difference.
You are scouting the stat line here, right---you didn't watch them, I assume.

KG was clearly a better rebounder---check the numbers. Fair that Duncan was better as a post scorer---but as I noted, Garnett at his peak was both a better and a more diverse offensive player overall. And Garnett averaged close to twice as many assists, again...check the numbers.

You keep citing career stats---I could not have been any more clear I'm talking peak. KG's peak was shorter and his decline more severe---that is why Duncan's career stats/awards are better. But at his peak, Garnett was spectacular.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,083
You are scouting the stat line here, right---you didn't watch them, I assume.

KG was clearly a better rebounder---check the numbers. Fair that Duncan was better as a post scorer---but as I noted, Garnett at his peak was both a better and a more diverse offensive player overall. And Garnett averaged close to twice as many assists, again...check the numbers.

You keep citing career stats---I could not have been any more clear I'm talking peak. KG's peak was shorter and his decline more severe---that is why Duncan's career stats/awards are better. But at his peak, Garnett was spectacular.
If you’re going to insult me, we’re done here. I spent 15 years of my life in San Antonio. I’ve watched more Tim Duncan than you, I can guarantee you that much so nice try there, buddy. I personally attended about 600 Spurs games since I had season tickets for several years, including right in the thick of Duncan’s prime in the early 2000s. I saw them compete in person more times than you as well.

Go ahead and cite the stats you’re referring to. Show me how smart you are.