CHALLENGE: Make an era-relative case for a non-russell season/peak against 1969 Bill Russell(read OP)

Moderators: Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal

mstat13shuh
Junior
Posts: 271
And1: 65
Joined: Oct 23, 2019

Re: CHALLENGE: Make an era-relative case for a non-russell season/peak against 1969 Bill Russell(read OP) 

Post#121 » by mstat13shuh » Sat Jul 15, 2023 1:02 am

ShaqAttac wrote:
mstat13shuh wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:
Just from his contemporaries you can make a case for Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Artis, Cowens, Reed, Lanier, Unseld, plus Hawkins and Walton (if they were healthy). I do consider him the 3rd best center of the 60s ahead of Bellamy for his defense and rebounding but his shooting and passing were negatives offensively.


I'm putting Nate on par, or at least close to: Russell, Wilt, Kareem & Artis.

The rest of them I fell he's equal to or better than.

And actually his passing was a positive to a large degree, especially considering he officially recorded the 1st NBA quadruple-double.

As well as nearly having consecutive unofficial ones early in the 67-68 season.

But if you'd like to place him at the 3rd best 1960s center, I'm perfectly content with that.

i never heard nate been hyped before


Right.

Because most of the mainstream media won't do it, since it's not in their narrative to do so.
Which, at least for me, is a true tragedy on Nate's behalf.
mstat13shuh
Junior
Posts: 271
And1: 65
Joined: Oct 23, 2019

Re: CHALLENGE: Make an era-relative case for a non-russell season/peak against 1969 Bill Russell(read OP) 

Post#122 » by mstat13shuh » Sat Jul 15, 2023 1:05 am

rk2023 wrote:
ShaqAttac wrote:
mstat13shuh wrote:
I'm putting Nate on par, or at least close to: Russell, Wilt, Kareem & Artis.

The rest of them I fell he's equal to or better than.

And actually his passing was a positive to a large degree, especially considering he officially recorded the 1st NBA quadruple-double.

As well as nearly having consecutive unofficial ones early in the 67-68 season.

But if you'd like to place him at the 3rd best 1960s center, I'm perfectly content with that.

i never heard nate been hyped before


Doesn't he grade out rather high in WOWY studies?


I'd personally guarantee you he'd rank higher in numerous additional studies had all his blocks been official.
penbeast0
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Senior Mod - NBA Player Comparisons
Posts: 30,301
And1: 9,865
Joined: Aug 14, 2004
Location: South Florida
 

Re: CHALLENGE: Make an era-relative case for a non-russell season/peak against 1969 Bill Russell(read OP) 

Post#123 » by penbeast0 » Sat Jul 15, 2023 2:41 am

Like Russell, he gets underestimated because there aren't nice neat numbers to look at. His scoring was inefficient and his rebounding, while outstanding, wasn't up to the level of Russell or Wilt. And,unlike Russell, he doesn't have the winning legacy either; his teams weren't that special. Just some strong head to head matchups with the great centers of the day to show his defensive ability.
“Most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination,” Andrew Lang.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 29,839
And1: 25,175
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: CHALLENGE: Make an era-relative case for a non-russell season/peak against 1969 Bill Russell(read OP) 

Post#124 » by 70sFan » Sat Jul 15, 2023 7:38 am

mstat13shuh wrote:
70sFan wrote:
mstat13shuh wrote:
Well, for starters, his career high was 43 points & I feel, like Russell, if necessary, he could've scored 50 points in an NBA game.

Corey Brewer has career high of 51 points, I am sure he could have scored 60 points if necessary. He had to be a good scorer right?

If that's your only argument, it's very weak one.


Corey Brewer was a nice scorer & no, it's not my only argument.

See some of the above posts in case you might've forgotten.

If Corey Brewer is your standard of a "nice scorer", then I guess Thurmond can be called amazing scorer by these criteria. Just to keep that in mind - Brewer was a horrible scorer, he scored low volume on poor efficiency for almost all of his seasons and he got a lot of his points in transition.
mstat13shuh
Junior
Posts: 271
And1: 65
Joined: Oct 23, 2019

Re: CHALLENGE: Make an era-relative case for a non-russell season/peak against 1969 Bill Russell(read OP) 

Post#125 » by mstat13shuh » Sun Jul 23, 2023 6:49 am

70sFan wrote:
mstat13shuh wrote:
70sFan wrote:Corey Brewer has career high of 51 points, I am sure he could have scored 60 points if necessary. He had to be a good scorer right?

If that's your only argument, it's very weak one.


Corey Brewer was a nice scorer & no, it's not my only argument.

See some of the above posts in case you might've forgotten.

If Corey Brewer is your standard of a "nice scorer", then I guess Thurmond can be called amazing scorer by these criteria. Just to keep that in mind - Brewer was a horrible scorer, he scored low volume on poor efficiency for almost all of his seasons and he got a lot of his points in transition.


Brewer a "horrible" scorer?

I certainly won't go there, but I will say he was at least average or slightly above.

All I was asserting about Thurmond was that I feel he was a slightly better scorer than Russell,
at least in terms of scoring ability.
mstat13shuh
Junior
Posts: 271
And1: 65
Joined: Oct 23, 2019

Re: CHALLENGE: Make an era-relative case for a non-russell season/peak against 1969 Bill Russell(read OP) 

Post#126 » by mstat13shuh » Sun Jul 23, 2023 6:55 am

"Like Russell, he gets underestimated because there aren't nice neat numbers to look at"

Like nice, neat, shot-blocking numbers?

As you may have noticed, both here & on other chat forums, I provide these once in awhile whenever I deem necessary.

And no, he certainly doesn't have the winning legacy of Russell, or several other more well-known centers & players, etc.

Nonetheless, I'm still convinced he shouldn't be blamed for his teams failures & lack of success compared with other players.

Lastly, I'm still asserting Warrior management was wrong for depriving Nate of his 1st & only NBA title ring.

He deserved better.

Much better.
Owly
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,616
And1: 3,133
Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Re: CHALLENGE: Make an era-relative case for a non-russell season/peak against 1969 Bill Russell(read OP) 

Post#127 » by Owly » Sun Jul 23, 2023 10:29 am

mstat13shuh wrote:"Like Russell, he gets underestimated because there aren't nice neat numbers to look at"

Like nice, neat, shot-blocking numbers?

As you may have noticed, both here & on other chat forums, I provide these once in awhile whenever I deem necessary.

And no, he certainly doesn't have the winning legacy of Russell, or several other more well-known centers & players, etc.

Nonetheless, I'm still convinced he shouldn't be blamed for his teams failures & lack of success compared with other players.

Lastly, I'm still asserting Warrior management was wrong for depriving Nate of his 1st & only NBA title ring.

He deserved better.

Much better.

There is evidence through impact stuff that Nate was ... well great. Such numbers are fuzzy, aggregating disparate data/info on older players is tough etc. But I could see people getting really high on Thurmond.

I would imagine odd forum posts of game numbers (what I'd guess you have) are indeed less "nice [and] neat" than official ones available universally. Beyond availability comprehensiveness, context (comparable with all peers) would also help with this. One would hope, as official statistics, presumably with official guidance, they would be recorded more consistently than reporters counts.

Not sure on the last, bolded bit. It reads as though...

1) A team title is a player accolade
2) Thurmond rightfully possessed one ("his 1st & only").
3) The Warriors knew it was happening and "deprived" him of it. They did "wrong".

The Warriors didn't know it was coming. Play it again with Thurmond (and this would seem by no means to be the best version of Thurmond) or without him and they probably don't win. If players being traded is objectionable (and there is some case for this, though realistically it's part of a franchise structure of league and the CBA and players know they're signing NBA contracts) then it's a much bigger case than Nate Thurmond. And if one were arguing on player performance 67-68, maybe '69 depending on the data one uses are where he's showing huge impact. It could be said to be unfortunate that a great player left a team before a title (though at an advanced age he brought in a productive piece [and a pick]) but going beyond that with the moralizing angle ... isn't for me. A ring isn't a player achievement and Thurmond wasn't on the '75 Warriors.

Return to Player Comparisons