ShaqAttac wrote:Eni cookin, but ill try and do my best. I aint ever write this muuch but imma try to format proper like ppl tell me too.
I know we aint votin on em all, but imma list the 6 players who i think should get noms first
1 Russ, will say more down under
2 Mikan, will say more down under
3 Bron, Nukes every1 but russ n cap in "Impact", crazy longetvity, plays in way better league, apm goes craaazy
4 Cap, Crazzy longetvity, also better in "impact" for his peak than every1 but bron n russ from what im seein, was awesome before he even entereed nba
5. Timmy D, always on a good team, all-time carry job in 03, all-time leadeer who took paycuts to help antonio win, n honestly, was prob the best player of the 2000's, I thought shaq was 1 but i cant argue with da facts.
6. Dream, I know its crazy soundin, but I think he got a good arg here from what im seein. same rs impaact, n went nova in the pos. Eni n KD make really goood points so ill let em d up. basically tho his "impact' In rs is comp and he gets way better in the yoffs. He also carried meh help to b2b chips while MJ literallly only won with an uberduper superteam. Unless im missin sumthn MJ would be the only nom whose never won without a deathsquad.
VOTE BILL RUSSELL
this is p easy. He won 11 rings as the best player by faar and was so good ppl been strugglin hard to come up with any kinda arg against the season when he was bout to retire. Man literally crusshes superteams with bad help n was also the coach. He also was facin craazy comp
ut this doesn't mean anything of itself. For the KD parallel to work, the Celtics need to be great(relative to the comp) without Russell. Nothing suggests this is true beyond the Celtics first few titles(i listed the different stuff in my previous post). Crucially everything we have suggests the opposite was true in 1969, and here the competition is far better than "not weak".
Assuming you are not trying to break era-relativity, here are 3-ways we can look at opposition strength
1. Look at how the teams look relative to the league for the era(sixers and knicks are outliers by srs, Lakers are close)
2. Look at how the comp was relative to the league that season(Celtics beat the best, 2nd best and 4th best opponent they could have had by SRS)
3. Look at how the comp was in surrounding seasons(Knicks SRS doubles en-route to a championship the following year, Bullets and Lakers srs drops but they take the Knicks to 7 and LA win a championship and make 3 finals)
By any of these approaches the Celtics faced an all-time difficult gauntlet and there is absolutely nothing to suggest the Celtics were some stacked super-squad. "Competition" is not a serious argument here. Bill went through just about the hardest possible route, with weak support, in a year where the best teams were unusually good. Not sure how that doesn't get him to a tier 1(era-relative) peak unless you arbitrarily decide to curve 1969 down to what feels reasonable without scaling the other title-winning years up.
Idrg how u can arg against a guy who won way more than every1 and also won with less help. Team went bitw to bad without him when he was supposed to be waashed. If you got him low coz the league sucked i get you. But ppl sayin they era-relative and not havin russ 1 is cap. He only ever lost when hurt and he stay winnin even when his teammates sucked facin the death-star. Ez 1 for me.
