Why do people keep saying Bill Russell is of the GOATs?

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Could somebody explain to me the early 1960s rule interpretations on sagging off a man with the ball and the rule interpretation of playing zone during a fast break.

I saw young Wilt, I think 1964. Wilt was getting the ball in the half court offense in the corner near where the 3 point line would be if had it existed. His team was clearing out the side for him like late 1990s isolation ball. Wilt's defender was coming out to within about 3 to 4 feet of Wilt and Wilt was blowing past his defender. I was thinking what is the defender doing, "stay near the rim" Wilt can't shoot from the outside; the I realized the defender probabably had to be near Wilt in order to not be called for playing a zone defense.

Now watching the 1962 Celtics I see Russell guarding nobody and playing zone on the fast break. It is the fast break so I guess you can play zone for a few seconds but Russel seemed to be playing zone for the first 4 seconds of the offense even as the failed fast break is becoming a half court set. How long could you play zone near the rim on the fast break if ball never comes within a few feet of the paint?

Russell often looks like he is playing a zone.

[Mutnt]

When you get to Wilt, my quibble would be that that Wilt's got a lot of issues that really don't have anything to do with era.

There's certainly a lot of interesting stuff to talk about when it comes to Wilt but I didn't want to dwell on him too much, this is a discussion about Russell primarily anyway.

What I mean is that there's no reasonable way to dispute his physical talent. Sure some exaggerate it, but Wilt would be a mega-prospect in any era. That's something people don't necessarily agree to about Russell.

I'm not disputing Wilt as a physically dominant presence nor do I think he wouldn't have been an interesting prospect in any era, far from it. I just think a lot of people are overzealous when it comes to how dominant Wilt was offensively because of his gaudy numbers. For a minute, let's ignore the impact and strategic stupidity that was in effect at the time, this guy averaged 50 points per game... And the funniest part about it is that he did it all by living in the paint with horrible free-throw shooting. If you knew nothing about basketball that would seem impossible, so you go watch tape and you immediately see how Wilt was scoring most of his points. He'd get the ball down low and teams simply had no answer because he was just so physically overwhelming compared to everyone back then that they didn't know what to do. This wouldn't be the case in the modern era. Today just being physically dominant with basic basketball skills isn't enough to make you unstoppable. That's why I referenced Howard (and yes, while he isn't exactly on Wilt's level, especially size-wise, he's still pretty overwhelming in regards to the rest of the league.

When I start talking about this to people a lot of them immediately pull out Shaq. ''Well, Shaq didn't have any game outside the paint and he still did plenty fine for himself''. Yes, Shaq had a couple of parallels to Wilt on offense but Shaq was a totally different animal. He might not have Wilt's size, arm strength and leaping ability, but when it came down to raw power, core-body strength, finding opportunities in the paint and finishing in traffic Shaq was miles ahead of Wilt and he played much tougher defenses. He also had ballerina-like footwork and a much better handle on the ball than Wilt (even though Wilt's was pretty good for his time).

If we're talking about dominant offensive big men in the history of the game, there's just no feasible way I can envision a scenario where Wilt would be better than Shaq from what I've seen of both (this is without the kind of - ''Oh, but Wilt would practice his footwork a lot more in the modern era'' talk that people often refer to. Shaq was just a better and more capable player on offense and Wilt's impact wasn't only clouded by the way he played but also by when he played. I can see him average 30 ppg if he really wanted, but his efficiency would pale compared to some of the best scorers in league history.

Re: flip shots & rebounding. Dude, Wilt was plenty efficient in his shooting. You're imagining that entire difference between he and Howard.

No, I was more trying to point out to the stylistic/competitive differences of now and 50 years ago. Wilt could afford to be more offensively challenged because his athleticism was much more of potent factor than it's now for about any player in the league + defenses were worse. Also, the game was much faster and scrappier, that favored players who were exceptional track & field athletes, which we all know Wilt was. I don't want to start imagining what Howard would do playing in the 60's but I find it very likely that he wouldn't need to practice all those post moves and stuff he does now, because how things were back then, he could get away with being a lot more raw and still play effectively.

I also have to note that as we stand here in 2014, it blows my mind to see people still talking about Howard as if he's a physical talent for the ages next to Wilt. I mean, c'mon, meet Anthony Davis. Howard's very much a strong talent, but he's not a super-outlier physically, and he's sure as hell not one mentally.

I don't know, to me Howard is up there. Of course we can't put everyone in the same basket. Anthony Davis and Shaq are both super-outlier physical talents but the difference in what areas they're most gifted is night and day. Howard has a lot of size, a big frame, great leaping ability and relatively quick feet. Davis doesn't have as much muscle and weight so obviously he is built much more like a small forward except with great size and tremendous length.

I think it's crucial though to recognize that there were other guys having big impact back then defensively. What shocked me when I did more detailed analysis was how far beyond Russell was than everyone else. So again, without making any claims to exactly what Russell could do today, I think you've got to look at Russell as a perfect storm type guy for doing what he was trying to do back then, and should be very skeptical when people assert that others could have done the same thing.

The opening line kinda reinforces one of the main points I'm trying to bring across. The era back then was more tailored towards bigs having huge defensive impacts individually. Russell was just better than everyone else back then at taking advantage of that. That's not a slight on Russell, in fact it's very impressive that he stood out as much as he did, but I don't believe he's the only guy in NBA history who could replicate that. However, there's just no way to find that out beyond making educated assumptions.

And when the impact you had and the, by far, biggest strengths you possessed (defense/rebounding) get exceedingly more difficult to translate in more eras than they actually can be replicated in, than I think we have a problem at hand, well, at least in the scope of a GOAT conversation.

Re: Why wouldn't those guys do what Russell did. Well fundamentally, Russell's defense was predicated on him being extremely long and extremely quick, and knowing when to go out to challenge, when to go back, etc. He was playing a game considered high risk high reward, without making his team really feel the risk involved. Between that and what you get when you hear him talk, to me the guy just seems like a brilliant BBIQ guy.

His defense was also predicated on (the majority) of his opponents NOT being extremely long or extremely quick while basically having a contest of ''who can put up the most bad shots and hope they go in'' out there on the floor. Because, there's always two sides of the coin, I think you're too fixated on what Russell did well while kinda tossing aside what other teams/players didn't do well that made everything come out as it did. And that side of the coin comes out severely different when talking about other potential all-time great defenders who could've done what Russell did.

RE: Comparing all the guys (KG, Hakeem, D-Rob, Deke etc.) to Russell

I appreciate your attempt at dissecting most of the greatest defenders of all-time and lining them up against Russell to see how they compare but personally, I'd be wary in doing so. We only (partially) know how good Russell was in certain aspects in his own era, how do we know if that would exactly translate in a different time and space? We can say Russell was one of, if not the best, shot-blocker of all-time based on what he did in his era, and while we have no reason to believe he wouldn't have been a dominant shot-blocker in any other universe, we can pretty much speculate that his impact from blocking shots would greatly diminish from where it was, if he played in an era with better/more efficient offensive talent both individually and team-wise + all the rule changes. Same goes for his steals and rebounding. So basically, I find it hard to compare, for example, Hakeem to Russell defensively via the impact both had in their respective teams because Russell's impact was created in a, for him, far more advantageous playing field. We don't know if Hakeem would've done a better, worse or about the same job as Russell playing in his shoes. Maybe Russell would still be a better defender than Hakeem, even in the 90's, I don't throw that out the realm of possibility, but I think it's pretty obvious, or it should be, that he wouldn't have been able to have such a profound impact on the defensive end, that's something that a lot of Russell supporters sweep under the rug and in a way, which bothers me.

It's always debatable how to factor in the spearhead aspect of a player's legacy. However when you're talking about it giving a longevity edge in impact due in part to that player's own intuition on how to play, to me it's a big deal, and so I haven't been able to rank Hakeem ahead of Russell based on imagining Hakeem in Russell's shoes.

See to me, ''impact due to the player's own intuition on how to play'' is definitely deserving of respect and adoration but it's hard for me to punish guys like Hakeem who is just out there doing the right thing when he's listening to instructions from his coaches. Because at the end of the day, it's not Hakeem's job to tell his team how to play, that's why you pay the guys on the coaching staff. Also, we can't just assume that because Red/Russell had a great mutual relationship and the other players on the team respected their advice that every situation is that rosy, most aren't even close. We don't know, maybe Hakeem told Maxwell to stop taking so much stupid shots for no reason. Maybe he did, maybe he kept quiet his whole stint there, what we know is that in either case, the team didn't respond or translate that onto the court for various reasons.

Might offense have been enough to turn the comparison? Possibly, but to me what we've seen again and again is that the offensive impact of bigs tends to be overrated. There are a few exceptions, but for the most part if you want to make a great offense with a volume scoring big, you need sophisticated coaching and the right players around the big. I don't have faith that the guys you're talking about are the ones who break that mold. Yes they'd have an advantage over Russell on this front, but Russell's defensive impact was so off the charts that unless I feel a guy can really be right in that same ballpark, I have trouble talking anyone getting 12 rings instead of 11.

I don't think I necessarily buy this ''offensive impact of bigs tends to be overrated.'' isn't that just a matter of perspective? I mean, you work with what you got. If Hakeem had someone like prime Wade to carry the offense or Popovich's coaching prowess to reconstruct the entire offensive scheme then I think he'd gladly take the backseat and focus on defense and other things even moreso. You always need sophisticated coaching and the right players, I don't see how that would be different if I have Shaq or Mutombo on my roster. Certainly it's favorable to find a nice balance out of the situation you've got, but if my offense is struggling and I have Hakeem out there, best believe I'm getting him the ball and in positions to score the best way I can.

Russell broke the scoring record in the NCAA tournament before he came to Boston. Then, even though he wasn't the offensive focus, he soon got to a point where he scoring comparable volume to his teammates with better efficiency than most. Among those being Cousy, who is considered an all-time great for no reason other than his offense.

And Beasley averaged 26/13 with great efficiency in college... But seriously, I'm very careful in these sort of predictions, it becomes really easy to curve the line. I can as easily claim LeBron could average Jordan-esque volume/efficiency scoring if he so choose to do so. I can as easily make a claim that Magic would've been one of the best scorers of all-time if he finished more of his possessions with a shot than with a pass. Well at least those two guys actually have consistently had a track record of high volume/high efficiency production in the NBA. Russell couldn't even perform admirably in his limited role, yet people want to make a case of him being able to take a bigger role with better results? That's some kinda of logic.

Again this is not to say that Russell isn't overshadowed on this from by other superstar bigs, but the bottom line is that no one would have said Russell was terrible as a scorer early on, and there's every reason to think he could have improved a lot had that been the best way for him to help his team.

This is also counter-logical in a way. Russell focused on defense, I get that, but how did he not think that with an improved offensive game he would be anything but helpful to his team? That doesn't even mean he'd needed to take on a larger role, but simply be more efficient in whatever opportunity he was given, and he was given a decent amount of them, he was just poor at executing them efficiently, no other way around it.

Re: Most don't get to mold their game. Actually nowadays most do. The days where it was expected that you get a big to anchor both sides of the ball are mostly done. It was stupid basketball strategy.

How are they done? Just because there's no Hakeem, D-Rob, Ewing playing on talentless team doesn't mean these 'days' are done. As soon as a guy that can anchor a defense and is talented enough to be the first option on offense gets into the league on a bad team, he'll do just that. Howard did that in Orlando. Do I think that situation was an ideal offense, heck no, not even close, but in all honestly is the best Orlando could've done given their personnel. You can argue Davis is the offensive anchor for the Pelicans even though he's primarily an off-ball player.

I think if you watch Tim Duncan in his prime what should immediately become clear is how little he has to move out there compared to the small players. He's still burning calories because he's big, but he's not flying around everywhere. To some degree this IS why bigs can be two-way players. If you watch a Wade or a Rondo when they totally cranked, you can see how they would be DPOY level guys if they would sustain that energy. But they don't. They can't. A big can simply stand there and have an effect.

No argument here, I agree.

Russell's molding to some extent represents a focus on practice in the sense that he could have been better about fine-tuning his shooting coordination. But much of what we're really talking about is an offense that used Russell to get it going, rather than one that was trying to feed him. He'd start the break with rebounds and blocks. And then in the half court he'd work further away from the basket as a point center, which also allowed him to be back on defense quicker. We're not, therefore, really talking about a guy who got to rest on one side of the ball. We're just talking about a guy who understood that working the post wasn't going to be his bread & butter.

Right, there were guys doing this as recently as Ben Wallace and Mutombo. I know that Russell is a lot faster than both but the thing here is, while those guys proved that specific brand of basketball can lead to success, the fact remains that none of them had as much impact as Russell did defensively because of era-differences. And if they're not having as much impact then their teams are not as dominant leading to less titles and less success. It's just not possible to maximize that end of the floor as much as Russell did in his own time. Much like it was not possible back then to maximize the offensive end of the floor as much as Nash did with the help of the 3pt-line. This is the things I think we need to take into account when comparing players from different generations.


[quote]
Don't set up false ideals here. The move away from bigs as volume scorers isn't about getting them to NOT score, it's about simply using them as one more option, whereas there's a traditional hold over in thinking of "Get it to the guy closest to the goal" based on basketball being a field sport where "guards" are defensive player.[quote]

Again, I don't really see this shift of moving away from bigs as volume scorers. I guess it depends on how you define volume but last time I checked Griffin, Aldridge, Davis, Gasol/Randolph are still in the game. They aren't putting up 30 points per game but they're first options on their teams. I don't think anyone was complaining when Shaq or Nowitzki volume scored. The final point is that someone HAS to score and usually you'd be incline to give the ball to the guys who do that most well on your team (if that happens to be Hakeem, so be it).

This isn't really much different from SG's volume scoring. I don't want to see Kobe volume score, there's no reason for him to be taking over 20 shots in any situation, but hey, you can't argue the guy has found success by doing so in different set of scenarios and the same goes for Jordan even though MJ was infinitely better than Kobe.

I don't know, I just think you're giving too much credit to certain strategies or how you think basketball should be played without adjusting to numerous factors out there. That's not to say that you're spouting illogical stuff, an offense has successfully anchored by anyone from Shaq to Dirk to LeBron to MJ and to Nash while the defenses have been historically anchored only by big guys, so naturally you'd want your big to expend more energy there if possible while offense allows for more flexibility. But like I said, there's many ways you can go about it. For example, the Lakers proved that you can have Shaq volume scoring while still having the best defense in the league in route to a cruise job to the title.

[payton2kemp]

When I start talking about this to people a lot of them immediately pull out Shaq. ''Well, Shaq didn't have any game outside the paint and he still did plenty fine for himself''. Yes, Shaq had a couple of parallels to Wilt on offense but Shaq was a totally different animal. He might not have Wilt's size, arm strength and leaping ability, but when it came down to raw power, core-body strength, finding opportunities in the paint and finishing in traffic Shaq was miles ahead of Wilt and he played much tougher defenses. He also had ballerina-like footwork and a much better handle on the ball than Wilt (even though Wilt's was pretty good for his time).

This is a great point. Also Shaq didn't have the benefiting of using his strength to intimidate opponents the same way that he would have in the 1960s. According The Rivalry, "Russell also received negative attention. Constantly provoked by New York Knicks center Ray Felix during a game, he complained to coach Auerbach. The latter told him to take matters into his own hands, so after the next provocation, Russell punched Felix unconscious, paid a $25 fine and was no longer a target of cheap fouls."

The NBA changed its rules because of the cheap fouls on Shaq, https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball ... --nba.html, but I am pretty sure that if Russell could scare the s* out of people with a punch, I'm guessing Shaq could have done the same. Russell would have been even less useful on offense if he wasn't able to use that deterrent.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

This is a great point. Also Shaq didn't have the benefiting of using his strength to intimidate opponents the same way that he would have in the 1960s. According The Rivalry, "Russell also received negative attention. Constantly provoked by New York Knicks center Ray Felix during a game, he complained to coach Auerbach. The latter told him to take matters into his own hands, so after the next provocation, Russell punched Felix unconscious, paid a $25 fine and was no longer a target of cheap fouls."

The NBA changed its rules because of the cheap fouls on Shaq, https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball ... --nba.html, but I am pretty sure that if Russell could scare the s* out of people with a punch, I'm guessing Shaq could have done the same. Russell would have been even less useful on offense if he wasn't able to use that deterrent.

That does't fit with what I actually see in the films. I see the games being called tighter in the 1960s. Especially the offensive fouls.

Maybe you can punch a guy without a long suspension prior to Kermit Washington breaking Rudy's face but that is a rare occurrence. I think Chamberlain was actually hindered by the tight calls and limited from knocking people off balance the way Shaq knocked people off balance.

[SkyHookFTW]

[/quote]
Is Russel such a winner that everybody around him elevates their game? I don't really have evidence for that. It is not as if Bailey Howell did not have a decent career before he joined the Celtics. Russel as Coach couldn't transform the Sonics.[/quote]

Russell as coach has nothing to do with Russell the player. I could go through every major sport and point out great players who were lousy coaches.

[SkyHookFTW]

When you get to Wilt, my quibble would be that that Wilt's got a lot of issues that really don't have anything to do with era.

There's certainly a lot of interesting stuff to talk about when it comes to Wilt but I didn't want to dwell on him too much, this is a discussion about Russell primarily anyway.

What I mean is that there's no reasonable way to dispute his physical talent. Sure some exaggerate it, but Wilt would be a mega-prospect in any era. That's something people don't necessarily agree to about Russell.

I'm not disputing Wilt as a physically dominant presence nor do I think he wouldn't have been an interesting prospect in any era, far from it. I just think a lot of people are overzealous when it comes to how dominant Wilt was offensively because of his gaudy numbers. For a minute, let's ignore the impact and strategic stupidity that was in effect at the time, this guy averaged 50 points per game... And the funniest part about it is that he did it all by living in the paint with horrible free-throw shooting. If you knew nothing about basketball that would seem impossible, so you go watch tape and you immediately see how Wilt was scoring most of his points. He'd get the ball down low and teams simply had no answer because he was just so physically overwhelming compared to everyone back then that they didn't know what to do. This wouldn't be the case in the modern era. Today just being physically dominant with basic basketball skills isn't enough to make you unstoppable. That's why I referenced Howard (and yes, while he isn't exactly on Wilt's level, especially size-wise, he's still pretty overwhelming in regards to the rest of the league.

When I start talking about this to people a lot of them immediately pull out Shaq. ''Well, Shaq didn't have any game outside the paint and he still did plenty fine for himself''. Yes, Shaq had a couple of parallels to Wilt on offense but Shaq was a totally different animal. He might not have Wilt's size, arm strength and leaping ability, but when it came down to raw power, core-body strength, finding opportunities in the paint and finishing in traffic Shaq was miles ahead of Wilt and he played much tougher defenses. He also had ballerina-like footwork and a much better handle on the ball than Wilt (even though Wilt's was pretty good for his time).

If we're talking about dominant offensive big men in the history of the game, there's just no feasible way I can envision a scenario where Wilt would be better than Shaq from what I've seen of both (this is without the kind of - ''Oh, but Wilt would practice his footwork a lot more in the modern era'' talk that people often refer to. Shaq was just a better and more capable player on offense and Wilt's impact wasn't only clouded by the way he played but also by when he played. I can see him average 30 ppg if he really wanted, but his efficiency would pale compared to some of the best scorers in league history.

Re: flip shots & rebounding. Dude, Wilt was plenty efficient in his shooting. You're imagining that entire difference between he and Howard.

No, I was more trying to point out to the stylistic/competitive differences of now and 50 years ago. Wilt could afford to be more offensively challenged because his athleticism was much more of potent factor than it's now for about any player in the league + defenses were worse. Also, the game was much faster and scrappier, that favored players who were exceptional track & field athletes, which we all know Wilt was. I don't want to start imagining what Howard would do playing in the 60's but I find it very likely that he wouldn't need to practice all those post moves and stuff he does now, because how things were back then, he could get away with being a lot more raw and still play effectively.

I also have to note that as we stand here in 2014, it blows my mind to see people still talking about Howard as if he's a physical talent for the ages next to Wilt. I mean, c'mon, meet Anthony Davis. Howard's very much a strong talent, but he's not a super-outlier physically, and he's sure as hell not one mentally.

I don't know, to me Howard is up there. Of course we can't put everyone in the same basket. Anthony Davis and Shaq are both super-outlier physical talents but the difference in what areas they're most gifted is night and day. Howard has a lot of size, a big frame, great leaping ability and relatively quick feet. Davis doesn't have as much muscle and weight so obviously he is built much more like a small forward except with great size and tremendous length.

I think it's crucial though to recognize that there were other guys having big impact back then defensively. What shocked me when I did more detailed analysis was how far beyond Russell was than everyone else. So again, without making any claims to exactly what Russell could do today, I think you've got to look at Russell as a perfect storm type guy for doing what he was trying to do back then, and should be very skeptical when people assert that others could have done the same thing.

The opening line kinda reinforces one of the main points I'm trying to bring across. The era back then was more tailored towards bigs having huge defensive impacts individually. Russell was just better than everyone else back then at taking advantage of that. That's not a slight on Russell, in fact it's very impressive that he stood out as much as he did, but I don't believe he's the only guy in NBA history who could replicate that. However, there's just no way to find that out beyond making educated assumptions.

And when the impact you had and the, by far, biggest strengths you possessed (defense/rebounding) get exceedingly more difficult to translate in more eras than they actually can be replicated in, than I think we have a problem at hand, well, at least in the scope of a GOAT conversation.

Re: Why wouldn't those guys do what Russell did. Well fundamentally, Russell's defense was predicated on him being extremely long and extremely quick, and knowing when to go out to challenge, when to go back, etc. He was playing a game considered high risk high reward, without making his team really feel the risk involved. Between that and what you get when you hear him talk, to me the guy just seems like a brilliant BBIQ guy.

His defense was also predicated on (the majority) of his opponents NOT being extremely long or extremely quick while basically having a contest of ''who can put up the most bad shots and hope they go in'' out there on the floor. Because, there's always two sides of the coin, I think you're too fixated on what Russell did well while kinda tossing aside what other teams/players didn't do well that made everything come out as it did. And that side of the coin comes out severely different when talking about other potential all-time great defenders who could've done what Russell did.

RE: Comparing all the guys (KG, Hakeem, D-Rob, Deke etc.) to Russell

I appreciate your attempt at dissecting most of the greatest defenders of all-time and lining them up against Russell to see how they compare but personally, I'd be wary in doing so. We only (partially) know how good Russell was in certain aspects in his own era, how do we know if that would exactly translate in a different time and space? We can say Russell was one of, if not the best, shot-blocker of all-time based on what he did in his era, and while we have no reason to believe he wouldn't have been a dominant shot-blocker in any other universe, we can pretty much speculate that his impact from blocking shots would greatly diminish from where it was, if he played in an era with better/more efficient offensive talent both individually and team-wise + all the rule changes. Same goes for his steals and rebounding. So basically, I find it hard to compare, for example, Hakeem to Russell defensively via the impact both had in their respective teams because Russell's impact was created in a, for him, far more advantageous playing field. We don't know if Hakeem would've done a better, worse or about the same job as Russell playing in his shoes. Maybe Russell would still be a better defender than Hakeem, even in the 90's, I don't throw that out the realm of possibility, but I think it's pretty obvious, or it should be, that he wouldn't have been able to have such a profound impact on the defensive end, that's something that a lot of Russell supporters sweep under the rug and in a way, which bothers me.

It's always debatable how to factor in the spearhead aspect of a player's legacy. However when you're talking about it giving a longevity edge in impact due in part to that player's own intuition on how to play, to me it's a big deal, and so I haven't been able to rank Hakeem ahead of Russell based on imagining Hakeem in Russell's shoes.

See to me, ''impact due to the player's own intuition on how to play'' is definitely deserving of respect and adoration but it's hard for me to punish guys like Hakeem who is just out there doing the right thing when he's listening to instructions from his coaches. Because at the end of the day, it's not Hakeem's job to tell his team how to play, that's why you pay the guys on the coaching staff. Also, we can't just assume that because Red/Russell had a great mutual relationship and the other players on the team respected their advice that every situation is that rosy, most aren't even close. We don't know, maybe Hakeem told Maxwell to stop taking so much stupid shots for no reason. Maybe he did, maybe he kept quiet his whole stint there, what we know is that in either case, the team didn't respond or translate that onto the court for various reasons.

Might offense have been enough to turn the comparison? Possibly, but to me what we've seen again and again is that the offensive impact of bigs tends to be overrated. There are a few exceptions, but for the most part if you want to make a great offense with a volume scoring big, you need sophisticated coaching and the right players around the big. I don't have faith that the guys you're talking about are the ones who break that mold. Yes they'd have an advantage over Russell on this front, but Russell's defensive impact was so off the charts that unless I feel a guy can really be right in that same ballpark, I have trouble talking anyone getting 12 rings instead of 11.

I don't think I necessarily buy this ''offensive impact of bigs tends to be overrated.'' isn't that just a matter of perspective? I mean, you work with what you got. If Hakeem had someone like prime Wade to carry the offense or Popovich's coaching prowess to reconstruct the entire offensive scheme then I think he'd gladly take the backseat and focus on defense and other things even moreso. You always need sophisticated coaching and the right players, I don't see how that would be different if I have Shaq or Mutombo on my roster. Certainly it's favorable to find a nice balance out of the situation you've got, but if my offense is struggling and I have Hakeem out there, best believe I'm getting him the ball and in positions to score the best way I can.

Russell broke the scoring record in the NCAA tournament before he came to Boston. Then, even though he wasn't the offensive focus, he soon got to a point where he scoring comparable volume to his teammates with better efficiency than most. Among those being Cousy, who is considered an all-time great for no reason other than his offense.

And Beasley averaged 26/13 with great efficiency in college... But seriously, I'm very careful in these sort of predictions, it becomes really easy to curve the line. I can as easily claim LeBron could average Jordan-esque volume/efficiency scoring if he so choose to do so. I can as easily make a claim that Magic would've been one of the best scorers of all-time if he finished more of his possessions with a shot than with a pass. Well at least those two guys actually have consistently had a track record of high volume/high efficiency production in the NBA. Russell couldn't even perform admirably in his limited role, yet people want to make a case of him being able to take a bigger role with better results? That's some kinda of logic.

Again this is not to say that Russell isn't overshadowed on this from by other superstar bigs, but the bottom line is that no one would have said Russell was terrible as a scorer early on, and there's every reason to think he could have improved a lot had that been the best way for him to help his team.

This is also counter-logical in a way. Russell focused on defense, I get that, but how did he not think that with an improved offensive game he would be anything but helpful to his team? That doesn't even mean he'd needed to take on a larger role, but simply be more efficient in whatever opportunity he was given, and he was given a decent amount of them, he was just poor at executing them efficiently, no other way around it.

Re: Most don't get to mold their game. Actually nowadays most do. The days where it was expected that you get a big to anchor both sides of the ball are mostly done. It was stupid basketball strategy.

How are they done? Just because there's no Hakeem, D-Rob, Ewing playing on talentless team doesn't mean these 'days' are done. As soon as a guy that can anchor a defense and is talented enough to be the first option on offense gets into the league on a bad team, he'll do just that. Howard did that in Orlando. Do I think that situation was an ideal offense, heck no, not even close, but in all honestly is the best Orlando could've done given their personnel. You can argue Davis is the offensive anchor for the Pelicans even though he's primarily an off-ball player.

I think if you watch Tim Duncan in his prime what should immediately become clear is how little he has to move out there compared to the small players. He's still burning calories because he's big, but he's not flying around everywhere. To some degree this IS why bigs can be two-way players. If you watch a Wade or a Rondo when they totally cranked, you can see how they would be DPOY level guys if they would sustain that energy. But they don't. They can't. A big can simply stand there and have an effect.

No argument here, I agree.

Russell's molding to some extent represents a focus on practice in the sense that he could have been better about fine-tuning his shooting coordination. But much of what we're really talking about is an offense that used Russell to get it going, rather than one that was trying to feed him. He'd start the break with rebounds and blocks. And then in the half court he'd work further away from the basket as a point center, which also allowed him to be back on defense quicker. We're not, therefore, really talking about a guy who got to rest on one side of the ball. We're just talking about a guy who understood that working the post wasn't going to be his bread & butter.

Right, there were guys doing this as recently as Ben Wallace and Mutombo. I know that Russell is a lot faster than both but the thing here is, while those guys proved that specific brand of basketball can lead to success, the fact remains that none of them had as much impact as Russell did defensively because of era-differences. And if they're not having as much impact then their teams are not as dominant leading to less titles and less success. It's just not possible to maximize that end of the floor as much as Russell did in his own time. Much like it was not possible back then to maximize the offensive end of the floor as much as Nash did with the help of the 3pt-line. This is the things I think we need to take into account when comparing players from different generations.

Don't set up false ideals here. The move away from bigs as volume scorers isn't about getting them to NOT score, it's about simply using them as one more option, whereas there's a traditional hold over in thinking of "Get it to the guy closest to the goal" based on basketball being a field sport where "guards" are defensive player.

Again, I don't really see this shift of moving away from bigs as volume scorers. I guess it depends on how you define volume but last time I checked Griffin, Aldridge, Davis, Gasol/Randolph are still in the game. They aren't putting up 30 points per game but they're first options on their teams. I don't think anyone was complaining when Shaq or Nowitzki volume scored. The final point is that someone HAS to score and usually you'd be incline to give the ball to the guys who do that most well on your team (if that happens to be Hakeem, so be it).

This isn't really much different from SG's volume scoring. I don't want to see Kobe volume score, there's no reason for him to be taking over 20 shots in any situation, but hey, you can't argue the guy has found success by doing so in different set of scenarios and the same goes for Jordan even though MJ was infinitely better than Kobe.

I don't know, I just think you're giving too much credit to certain strategies or how you think basketball should be played without adjusting to numerous factors out there. That's not to say that you're spouting illogical stuff, an offense has successfully anchored by anyone from Shaq to Dirk to LeBron to MJ and to Nash while the defenses have been historically anchored only by big guys, so naturally you'd want your big to expend more energy there if possible while offense allows for more flexibility. But like I said, there's many ways you can go about it. For example, the Lakers proved that you can have Shaq volume scoring while still having the best defense in the league in route to a cruise job to the title.

A lot of Wilt disrespect. Wilt was the strongest player and finest athlete ever to be in the NBA. His core strength was second to none. Most of the tall tales about his power are not tall tales but facts that people don't want to believe (especially on these boards) even when it comes from the mouths of eyewitnesses who saw it in person. Yes, he really broke a guy's toe with a dunk--as admitted by the victim. Yes, he really separated a guy's shoulder blocking a dunk--again, admitted by the victim. Yes, Hank Stram, the old KC Chief's coach, wanted him to play in the NFL--no joke, as Stram talked about it in his book. Yes, the USOC wanted him for the decathalon. Yes, he was a NCAA high jump champion three times. Yes, he put weightlifters to shame and could bench 500+ pounds. All verified facts by the people who saw it happen, happened to, and in the record books. Yes, he ran the quarter mile, put the shot, and triple jumped...even held the Pennsylvania high school shot put record for many years.

Why do I mention all this? Because Bill Russell had to play against this guy at least eight times a year. Wilt is the ultimate physical outlier, yet Russell went toe-to-toe with Wilt (all right, he didn't have the best stats against him, but who would) and has some success against him. There is no doubt in my mind that he could do the same today. A guy like Wilt would roll Dwight Howard into a ball and kick him into the stands. I say this as a fan, a player (crappy D1 player, but still a player, lol), and former coach. Bill Russell deserves to be in the GOAT conversation.

[ChokeFasncists]

......is as bad as complaining about today's music being horrible by comparing John Coltrane and Miles Davis to Miley Cyrus and Iggy Azalea.

Mind explaining a bit?

It's not a fair comparison to use some of the best musicians in their respected genre(s) and compare two pop artists who are not representative of 'good music' in Cyrus and Azalea. There may be very well be excellent musicians in today's music, but you aren't gaining a proper assessment using some of the 'worst artists' of today's game.

Using the examples of the freakish athleticism of Westbrook and the post skills of Hakeem to judge the 60s as inferior is bad because these two players are outliers in their own eras of their highlighted abilities. You don't compare a 70s Pinto with a 2014 Corvette on its HP, since they aren't in the same class of automobiles, why should you do the same with players?

Hey, I was trying to reply to your message but seems like your setting disallow it?

[Mutnt]

A lot of Wilt disrespect. Wilt was the strongest player and finest athlete ever to be in the NBA. His core strength was second to none. Most of the tall tales about his power are not tall tales but facts that people don't want to believe (especially on these boards) even when it comes from the mouths of eyewitnesses who saw it in person. Yes, he really broke a guy's toe with a dunk--as admitted by the victim. Yes, he really separated a guy's shoulder blocking a dunk--again, admitted by the victim. Yes, Hank Stram, the old KC Chief's coach, wanted him to play in the NFL--no joke, as Stram talked about it in his book. Yes, the USOC wanted him for the decathalon. Yes, he was a NCAA high jump champion three times. Yes, he put weightlifters to shame and could bench 500+ pounds. All verified facts by the people who saw it happen, happened to, and in the record books. Yes, he ran the quarter mile, put the shot, and triple jumped...even held the Pennsylvania high school shot put record for many years.

That's up for debate but all you're doing with this post is reinforcing my claim of how many areas Wilt had an advantage over his contemporaries. He was bigger, longer, faster, stronger and could jump higher than anyone, that's not really a secret as I've nodded that he was a phenomenal track & field athlete. Put the rose-tinted glassed down for a moment and really think about who's disrespecting who. Is it me who's disrespecting Wilt or are you the one who is disrespecting modern professional athletes with intricate training regimes since age 5 and all the modern benefits they have at their disposal. I mean, when you talk about strength you reference the tales in which Wilt injured a couple of guys while playing basketball but don't even stop to acknowledge that Shaq was actually tearing down backboards and whole basketball hoops down to their foundation for breakfast. That means nothing to you?

Why do I mention all this? Because Bill Russell had to play against this guy at least eight times a year. Wilt is the ultimate physical outlier, yet Russell went toe-to-toe with Wilt (all right, he didn't have the best stats against him, but who would) and has some success against him. There is no doubt in my mind that he could do the same today. A guy like Wilt would roll Dwight Howard into a ball and kick him into the stands. I say this as a fan, a player (crappy D1 player, but still a player, lol), and former coach. Bill Russell deserves to be in the GOAT conversation.

Your logic is fallacious. What made Russell, or anyone else for that matter, a great defender wasn't the ability to consistently shut down someone with a push of a button, but rather how he impacted the defense in many different facets. KG and Duncan aren't great defenders because they could go 'toe-to-toe' with Shaq and stop him from getting his. No one stopped Shaq and no one was stopping Wilt back then. In turn, teams found different strategic ways to help the guy guarding Shaq out, collectively limiting his domination in the paint, while Russell and many of the far weaker athletes going against Wilt back then were pretty much left to their own devices.

[JeepCSC]

Point to someone saying this please. I don't think you can find a single person calling Russell GOAT who believes Ben Wallace or Howard are better basketball players. Heck I don't think you can find many intelligent posters here who would never consider Russell GOAT who think those 2 guys are better players.

Incidentally I went back to see who specifically mentioned Ben Wallace. One of them was you, when you said that you didn't care if a Wallace was a better player than Russell because it was irrelevant. I honestly have no idea what your thoughts are on Russell, Ben Wallace, or how you set about ranking them.

[Warspite]

I am looking more for the greatest basketball player. That to me is the player who could best help the most teams in the most eras in the most leagues win their championships or at least win more games if that player was added to the team.

This is the crux of the issue since we all dont have your criteria (which I used to use myself). If you are then your have to have a huge bigman bias which here is very unpopular. I would imagine that you dont have any wing players in the top 10-15 based on that criteria. A player like Nate Thurmond or Alonzo Mourning would have more impact on more teams than a HoF wing simply because of defensive impact and the fact that bigs are more scarce.

Adding MJ to Run TMC gives you about 5 more wins but adding Russell gives you 20.
Adding LBJ to Doug Moes Nuggets makes them a 55 win team but adding DRob gives you the title.

The more I think about it Russell might be the GOAT with your criteria. Most teams would get better with a def big man who doesnt demand shots, is highly mobile and would be the best rebounder in the league more than they would a flashy wing or a low post scorer.

Im guessing Hakeem is your GOAT.

[SkyHookFTW]

A lot of Wilt disrespect. Wilt was the strongest player and finest athlete ever to be in the NBA. His core strength was second to none. Most of the tall tales about his power are not tall tales but facts that people don't want to believe (especially on these boards) even when it comes from the mouths of eyewitnesses who saw it in person. Yes, he really broke a guy's toe with a dunk--as admitted by the victim. Yes, he really separated a guy's shoulder blocking a dunk--again, admitted by the victim. Yes, Hank Stram, the old KC Chief's coach, wanted him to play in the NFL--no joke, as Stram talked about it in his book. Yes, the USOC wanted him for the decathalon. Yes, he was a NCAA high jump champion three times. Yes, he put weightlifters to shame and could bench 500+ pounds. All verified facts by the people who saw it happen, happened to, and in the record books. Yes, he ran the quarter mile, put the shot, and triple jumped...even held the Pennsylvania high school shot put record for many years.

That's up for debate but all you're doing with this post is reinforcing my claim of how many areas Wilt had an advantage over his contemporaries. He was bigger, longer, faster, stronger and could jump higher than anyone, that's not really a secret as I've nodded that he was a phenomenal track & field athlete. Put the rose-tinted glassed down for a moment and really think about who's disrespecting who. Is it me who's disrespecting Wilt or are you the one who is disrespecting modern professional athletes with intricate training regimes since age 5 and all the modern benefits they have at their disposal. I mean, when you talk about strength you reference the tales in which Wilt injured a couple of guys while playing basketball but don't even stop to acknowledge that Shaq was actually tearing down backboards and whole basketball hoops down to their foundation for breakfast. That means nothing to you?

Why do I mention all this? Because Bill Russell had to play against this guy at least eight times a year. Wilt is the ultimate physical outlier, yet Russell went toe-to-toe with Wilt (all right, he didn't have the best stats against him, but who would) and has some success against him. There is no doubt in my mind that he could do the same today. A guy like Wilt would roll Dwight Howard into a ball and kick him into the stands. I say this as a fan, a player (crappy D1 player, but still a player, lol), and former coach. Bill Russell deserves to be in the GOAT conversation.

Your logic is fallacious. What made Russell, or anyone else for that matter, a great defender wasn't the ability to consistently shut down someone with a push of a button, but rather how he impacted the defense in many different facets. KG and Duncan aren't great defenders because they could go 'toe-to-toe' with Shaq and stop him from getting his. No one stopped Shaq and no one was stopping Wilt back then. In turn, teams found different strategic ways to help the guy guarding Shaq out, collectively limiting his domination in the paint, while Russell and many of the far weaker athletes going against Wilt back then were pretty much left to their own devices.

It is not my intent to disrespect any athlete of today. I'm not looking back with rose-colored glasses, I'm simply saying what is known to be true by the people who participated in the events. I really don't know how actual events that happened are up for debate. When I hear that it makes me think that the person is either a hater or is too lazy to verify information. That's not changing the past, it is merely stating what happened. As far as tearing down backboards...Darryl Dawkins did the same, but I'm not going to compare him to Shaq. In any event, tearing down a backboard is a matter of physics and can be done by any reasonably strong man (maybe not today with new technology, but it could back in the day). It's a matter of torque, Physics 101.

Russell certainly impacted the defense in different facets. His opponents say as much. Since they played against him, and neither you or I did, I'll take their word for it. I'll also trust my eyes since I saw it in person.

I also think some posters here like to downplay Wilt and Shaq because they had such a size and strength advantage over others. We don't penalize people with great hand-eye coordination or fantastic speed, so we shouldn't do the same with great strength--not saying you're doing this, but others have. Both Wilt and Shaq had holes in their game, but their weak areas were far surpassed by their strengths in other areas. Bill Russell was not a great scorer in the NBA compared to others in the GOAT conversation, but everything else he brought to the table outweighs that. If someone wants to tell me that Russell is the GOAT, I'll listen.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I am looking more for the greatest basketball player. That to me is the player who could best help the most teams in the most eras in the most leagues win their championships or at least win more games if that player was added to the team.

This is the crux of the issue since we all dont have your criteria (which I used to use myself). If you are then your have to have a huge bigman bias which here is very unpopular. I would imagine that you dont have any wing players in the top 10-15 based on that criteria. A player like Nate Thurmond or Alonzo Mourning would have more impact on more teams than a HoF wing simply because of defensive impact and the fact that bigs are more scarce.

Adding MJ to Run TMC gives you about 5 more wins but adding Russell gives you 20.
Adding LBJ to Doug Moes Nuggets makes them a 55 win team but adding DRob gives you the title.

The more I think about it Russell might be the GOAT with your criteria. Most teams would get better with a def big man who doesnt demand shots, is highly mobile and would be the best rebounder in the league more than they would a flashy wing or a low post scorer.

Im guessing Hakeem is your GOAT.

Your right. I was going with MJ as GOAT but by the criteria I claim to be using I have to go with a center due to the shortage of quality big men which is well illustrated by RunTMC. The Issel Nuggets could have always used a great center who would have let Issel slide over to power forwards as he did when he played next to Gilmore.

Sometimes I say that centers and large power forwards are a different species and must be judged separately from the other players.

To get MJ as GOAT by the criteria I claim to be using I must first give every team prime Dikembe Motumbo and then see what player increases all the Dikembe modified teams win totals and championships the most.

Among the centers Chamberlain, Kareem, Hakeem and Shaq are my contenders. I did not like the way Cowens was able to affect Kareem so that sort of leaves me with Chamberlain, Shaq and Hakeem

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

This loose ball foul on Russell vs Chaberlain at 1 minute 13 seconds just looks so minor
1964 finals. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti2Ncll2K64
On second look maybe that little arm hook by Russel would be called in another era but the fouls are definitely called very tightly.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m188YsgQCXQ
Same game, longer segment but in spanish
I do feel like the 2014 Spurs given a year to adjust to the 1964 refs would blow out either of these teams.
Russell and Chamberlain don't help themselves look like the GOAT in these films.

[SkyHookFTW]

This loose ball foul on Russell vs Chaberlain at 1 minute 13 seconds just looks so minor
1964 finals. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti2Ncll2K64
On second look maybe that little arm hook by Russel would be called in another era but the fouls are definitely called very tightly.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m188YsgQCXQ
Same game, longer segment but in spanish
I do feel like the 2014 Spurs given a year to adjust to the 1964 refs would blow out either of these teams.
Russell and Chamberlain don't help themselves look like the GOAT in these films.

Most people don't make an opinion based off of a sample size of 15 minutes of old game film. That arm hook pulled Wilt back, so I think it's more than just minor, and I'm sure it gets called today. When you talk to most people they will tell you that the game was rather physical back then. Should I base LeBron's career on a night his team gets blown out by 29 points, like it did last week?

Of course the 2014 Spurs beat either team, but not because Russell or Wilt or the other starters aren't good (watch the whole second half and check out some of the passing). Teams today from the 7th-12th man down the bench are simply better, as the average NBA player today is better than the average NBA player of the early 60's. Still, there were outlier teams. I don't think the 2014 Spurs beat the '67 Sixers and would have a very hard time against the '72 Lakers. But as I stated, these are outliers. Some still consider the 1967 team as the best ever.

[turk3d]

This loose ball foul on Russell vs Chaberlain at 1 minute 13 seconds just looks so minor
1964 finals. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti2Ncll2K64
On second look maybe that little arm hook by Russel would be called in another era but the fouls are definitely called very tightly.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m188YsgQCXQ
Same game, longer segment but in spanish
I do feel like the 2014 Spurs given a year to adjust to the 1964 refs would blow out either of these teams.
Russell and Chamberlain don't help themselves look like the GOAT in these films.

Most people don't make an opinion based off of a sample size of 15 minutes of old game film. That arm hook pulled Wilt back, so I think it's more than just minor, and I'm sure it gets called today. When you talk to most people they will tell you that the game was rather physical back then. Should I base LeBron's career on a night his team gets blown out by 29 points, like it did last week?

Of course the 2014 Spurs beat either team, but not because Russell or Wilt or the other starters aren't good (watch the whole second half and check out some of the passing). Teams today from the 7th-12th man down the bench are simply better, as the average NBA player today is better than the average NBA player of the early 60's. Still, there were outlier teams. I don't think the 2014 Spurs beat the '67 Sixers and would have a very hard time against the '72 Lakers. But as I stated, these are outliers. Some still consider the 1967 team as the best ever.

I'm not so sure that the Spurs beat them. It all depends on whether the 3 ptr is in play (if you go by rules back in the 60s then I'm assuming it's not). If you think that Duncan is going to dominate the way he does in this era, you're mistaken. Both Russell and Chamberlain would dominate the boards and with only 2 pt shots, there would be no way for the Spurs to match.

If you don't believe me, then just look back to all the Duncan vs Shaq battles (Shaq was the closest thing to Wilt) and note that Duncan could not handle Shaq inside and always stayed more on the perimeter during Shaq's prime years when they played and the Spurs relied more on their shooting. The Celtics had some of the greatest shooters of all time on those Russell teams.

[turk3d]

I am looking more for the greatest basketball player. That to me is the player who could best help the most teams in the most eras in the most leagues win their championships or at least win more games if that player was added to the team.

This is the crux of the issue since we all dont have your criteria (which I used to use myself). If you are then your have to have a huge bigman bias which here is very unpopular. I would imagine that you dont have any wing players in the top 10-15 based on that criteria. A player like Nate Thurmond or Alonzo Mourning would have more impact on more teams than a HoF wing simply because of defensive impact and the fact that bigs are more scarce.

Adding MJ to Run TMC gives you about 5 more wins but adding Russell gives you 20.
Adding LBJ to Doug Moes Nuggets makes them a 55 win team but adding DRob gives you the title.

The more I think about it Russell might be the GOAT with your criteria. Most teams would get better with a def big man who doesnt demand shots, is highly mobile and would be the best rebounder in the league more than they would a flashy wing or a low post scorer.

Im guessing Hakeem is your GOAT.

Your right. I was going with MJ as GOAT but by the criteria I claim to be using I have to go with a center due to the shortage of quality big men which is well illustrated by RunTMC. The Issel Nuggets could have always used a great center who would have let Issel slide over to power forwards as he did when he played next to Gilmore.

Sometimes I say that centers and large power forwards are a different species and must be judged separately from the other players.

To get MJ as GOAT by the criteria I claim to be using I must first give every team prime Dikembe Motumbo and then see what player increases all the Dikembe modified teams win totals and championships the most.

Among the centers Chamberlain, Kareem, Hakeem and Shaq are my contenders. I did not like the way Cowens was able to affect Kareem so that sort of leaves me with Chamberlain, Shaq and Hakeem

Prior to the advent of the 3 pt shot, I agree with you, I'd always take a Center (as the Center was always the dominant force in the NBA) but after the 3 pt, it's changed quite a bit (becoming more and more less Center oriented and more guard and perimeter player oriented in the modern era).

With styles of playing having changed you're starting to see more and more bigs being asked to play the perimeter ("stretch" positions), pass more, set deep screens wheras in the past all the were asked to do was rebound, defend the paint and post up. This is probably one of the things that makes it even harder to compare between eras, pre and post 3. The style of play (and the rules) have changed so much over the years it makes it almost impossible to determine.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

This loose ball foul on Russell vs Chaberlain at 1 minute 13 seconds just looks so minor
1964 finals. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti2Ncll2K64" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
On second look maybe that little arm hook by Russel would be called in another era but the fouls are definitely called very tightly.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m188YsgQCXQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Same game, longer segment but in spanish
I do feel like the 2014 Spurs given a year to adjust to the 1964 refs would blow out either of these teams.
Russell and Chamberlain don't help themselves look like the GOAT in these films.

Most people don't make an opinion based off of a sample size of 15 minutes of old game film. That arm hook pulled Wilt back, so I think it's more than just minor, and I'm sure it gets called today. When you talk to most people they will tell you that the game was rather physical back then. Should I base LeBron's career on a night his team gets blown out by 29 points, like it did last week?

Of course the 2014 Spurs beat either team, but not because Russell or Wilt or the other starters aren't good (watch the whole second half and check out some of the passing). Teams today from the 7th-12th man down the bench are simply better, as the average NBA player today is better than the average NBA player of the early 60's. Still, there were outlier teams. I don't think the 2014 Spurs beat the '67 Sixers and would have a very hard time against the '72 Lakers. But as I stated, these are outliers. Some still consider the 1967 team as the best ever.

I have watched a lot of 1960s film, but still not enough 1960s film. I see one game from a playoff series and I want to see the other games from the series but they are not online. It seems that after I have seen the few widely circulated films finding more more films is going to be like searching for hidden treasure.

On the 1964 Celtics I am not convinced Sanders and Ramsey were really good players. Havlicek is clearly a quality player but he was a very erratic shooter. Out of Havlicek's long career he only had a few good shooting years in terms of efficiency. 1960s Havlicek would not been given the green light to shoot from the outside during the 1980's to present.

I like Guy Rodgers on the Warriors but like Havlicek his shooting was too erratic.

I watched the 1967 76ers. I think the Spurs beat them as well.
I would like to see more of the 1967 76ers but finding the videos is not so easy. I am not sure that Hal Greer and Chet Walker are all that special.

I appreciated what Lucious Jackson did in the film that I watched a few times. Jackson is a big strong somewhat mobile man, but that does not mean that Jackson was as good as Clifford Rozier. I really thought Rozier would be a quality player.

Most people will say the game was more physical back in the 1960s but look at the film, most people are wrong. most People think Larry Bird was a small forward just because McHale is clearly not a small forward; but most people are wrong. the Celtics played 2 power forwards. Bird rarely defended small forwards.

Most people being wrong is not uncommon. We repeat what we hear.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

This loose ball foul on Russell vs Chaberlain at 1 minute 13 seconds just looks so minor
1964 finals. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti2Ncll2K64" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
On second look maybe that little arm hook by Russel would be called in another era but the fouls are definitely called very tightly.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m188YsgQCXQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Same game, longer segment but in spanish
I do feel like the 2014 Spurs given a year to adjust to the 1964 refs would blow out either of these teams.
Russell and Chamberlain don't help themselves look like the GOAT in these films.

Most people don't make an opinion based off of a sample size of 15 minutes of old game film. That arm hook pulled Wilt back, so I think it's more than just minor, and I'm sure it gets called today. When you talk to most people they will tell you that the game was rather physical back then. Should I base LeBron's career on a night his team gets blown out by 29 points, like it did last week?

Of course the 2014 Spurs beat either team, but not because Russell or Wilt or the other starters aren't good (watch the whole second half and check out some of the passing). Teams today from the 7th-12th man down the bench are simply better, as the average NBA player today is better than the average NBA player of the early 60's. Still, there were outlier teams. I don't think the 2014 Spurs beat the '67 Sixers and would have a very hard time against the '72 Lakers. But as I stated, these are outliers. Some still consider the 1967 team as the best ever.

I'm not so sure that the Spurs beat them. It all depends on whether the 3 ptr is in play (if you go by rules back in the 60s then I'm assuming it's not). If you think that Duncan is going to dominate the way he does in this era, you're mistaken. Both Russell and Chamberlain would dominate the boards and with only 2 pt shots, there would be no way for the Spurs to match.

If you don't believe me, then just look back to all the Duncan vs Shaq battles (Shaq was the closest thing to Wilt) and note that Duncan could not handle Shaq inside and always stayed more on the perimeter during Shaq's prime years when they played and the Spurs relied more on their shooting. The Celtics had some of the greatest shooters of all time on those Russell teams.

In these "Time Machine" simulations I always want to give the time travelers a year or more to adjust to the rules. The long 2 is the wors shot in basketball today. The Spurs are loaded with people who practice 3 pointers. Pop would have to adjust his shooters to a mid range game. I think the Spurs have too much depth, too much athleticism, speed, playground skills, and shooting ability to not blow out the early 1960s teams.

When Splitter sits Duncan can pull Russell and Chamberlain just far away enough from the basket to reduce their ability to block the shots of other players. Thurmand was young. You can't ask Thurmand to defend Diaw. I have a lot of problems with the 1960s man to man defense. There too many players getting shots up without a hand in their face. I do recognize the good 1960s use of picks and screens but that alone does not account for how open so many shots are.

Maybe the 1960s players did not try too hard to get a hand in the face of the outside shooters because they were not good shooters and therefore it was OK to allow outside shots. The 1964 Warriors and Celtics had better not let the Spurs shoot open shots.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Russell said, (paraphrasing) that prior to him the NBA did not have any very mobile big men.

I think that shows in how unprepared players were for Russell's quickness and ability to leap. Now days there are often 2 or 3 guys in the front court who are 6' "7 or taller and very mobile leapers. A penetrating guard might avoid the defensive center only to be blocked by the small forward swooping in. A penetrating guard had better elevate with power and quickness or shoot high floaters or have eyes in the back of his head and be ready to abort the drive if any shot blockers are closing on him.

[thamadkant]

Why are you judging by eras?

If John Stockton was in today's league he wouldn't be near Westbrook and Curry because of their elite skillset.
If Charles Barkley was in today's league he would be shunned like J-Smoove because of his shooting.
If Robert Pack had declared for the 2014 Draft he'd be a lottery pick simply because of his athleticism.

We are in a league where the two of the top five young centers (Deandre Jordan and Andre Drummond) in the NBA are historically bad offensive players and shady defensive IQ.

Just 10 years ago we had a 6-9 center lockdown the 2nd most dominant player in NBA History post-1986. Ben Wallace's offensive wasn't any better than the big men in today's era, but his IQ defensively lead to him receiving not 1, not 2, not 3, but FOUR DPOY awards in 5 seasons.

huh?
Stockton in today's league is a Sharp-shooting Rondo.... so you have a top 3 PG, would thrive since the 3pt shot has become critical to point guards to help spread defenses.

Barkley is a lot closer to an efficient Carmelo Anthony/Kevin Love than J-Smoove.
I don't agree with the names you used as examples... nor the general direction of your point.

But one thing... its extremely difficult to compare different eras, especially from an era where the game was NEW to eras where the game has evolved... players back then didnt have the benefits of that players got in the last 20 years or so... and 20 years from now, we'll be saying the same things. 20 years from now, players will be able to play longer and longer due to advancement in medical technology, players will continue to benefit from decades of nutrient/health improvements etc.

There is no way to compare apples to apples from eras separated by 30+ years.
Too different and the living conditions have a big impact on player physicalities.