Bill Russell vs Magic Johnson, who would you start a team ..

JordansBulls · Post #1 » by **JordansBulls** » Tue Apr 1, 2008 10:20 pm

Two top 5 players in Russell and Magic, which player would you rather start a team with?

Post #2 » by **5DOM** » Wed Apr 2, 2008 1:37 am

it's really hard to compare two players of different era.

even harder when one of them played like a million years ago.

im picking magic but can understand either pick

Post #3 » by **Doctor MJ** » Wed Apr 2, 2008 3:10 am

Wow. I don't have a strong opinion. Love'em both. Best offensive player of all time vs best defensive player of all time.

In the end, I guess I'll vote Russell based on what actually happened with Russell still leading his team to titles at an age where Magic was out of the league.

JordansBulls · Post #4 » by **JordansBulls** » Wed Apr 2, 2008 12:38 pm

I used this comparison as both players played on great teams pretty much for their entire career.

#1KnicksFan · Post #5 » by **#1KnicksFan** » Wed Apr 2, 2008 6:56 pm

Easily Russell.

If you could take Ben Wallace, add 10 more points, 5 more rebounds, and 2 more blocks, you'd have Russell.

And that's just the stat part of it.

He was every bit the leader Magic was. Could lead the break or outlet it, was just a great great basketball mind.

AND A WINNER.

Pats19andO · Post #6 » by **Pats19andO** » Wed Apr 2, 2008 7:46 pm

Id take Magic because hes not 80

Sedale Threatt · Post #7 » by **Sedale Threatt** » Wed Apr 2, 2008 9:55 pm

#1KnicksFan wrote:Easily Russell.

If you could take Ben Wallace, add 10 more points, 5 more rebounds, and 2 more blocks, you'd have Russell.

And that's just the stat part of it.

He was every bit the leader Magic was. Could lead the break or outlet it, was just a great great basketball mind.

AND A WINNER.

Which is an important quality to emphasize, because Magic never won anything.

Post #8 » by **tsherkin** » Thu Apr 3, 2008 4:48 am

Tough call.

In the 60s, Russell, period.

Anytime thereafter? I'm much more likely to go with Magic.

The_Believer · Post #9 » by **The_Believer** » Thu Apr 3, 2008 4:54 am

Magic was the greatest offensive talent of all-time IMO. He was essentially the size of Carlos Boozer (height/weight wise) with the greatest passing ability ever; you can't go wrong with that.

chrice · Post #10 » by **chrice** » Thu Apr 3, 2008 5:10 am

Doctor MJ wrote:In the end, I guess I'll vote Russell based on what actually happened with Russell still leading his team to titles at an age where Magic was out of the league.

That's totally unfair. Magic was forced to retire when he still wanted to keep playing. Even when he was out of shape and dealing with HIV, the Lakers were winning more games with him than without him. He proved that his game translates in the modern era.

Patterns · Post #11 » by **Patterns** » Thu Apr 3, 2008 5:19 am

Easily Magic.

If you build around Russell right now, you'd be the worst team in the NBA.

Post #12 » by **tsherkin** » Thu Apr 3, 2008 2:36 pm

Patterns wrote:Easily Magic.

If you build around Russell right now, you'd be the worst team in the NBA.

That much isn't true; Bill Russell was like a better version of Dikembe Mutombo meets Vlade Divac... You'd be a lot better than the worst team with that guy as your pivot.

chrice wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

That's totally unfair. Magic was forced to retire when he still wanted to keep playing. Even when he was out of shape and dealing with HIV, the Lakers were winning more games with him than without him. He proved that his game translates in the modern era.

And how; in the 95-96 season, the Lakers to which Magic returned played at a pace of 92.4, which would be presently good for 25th in the league, tied with Toronto. He managed to post 14.6 ppg, 5.7 rpg and 6.9 apg in just under 30 mpg from the power forward position, whilst shooting 48% FG (9.2 FGA), 38% 3P (1.8 3PA) and 86% FT (6.3 FTA).

It's functionally clear that pace would have no effect on Magic, no appreciable effect whatsoever.

And frankly, while Russell's numbers would take a hit and a chunk of that would be pace, I think it'd be more than teams wouldn't play him 44 mpg anymore, closer to 38-40 mpg and that'd be a big chunk of it. You could still expect him to be a 15+ rpg type player and a guy who'd probably block 3-4 shots a game at least. And you could very reasonably expect 4-5 apg from him even in this era, especially on a team that knows how to use a high-post big.

I'd still take Magic, sure, but let's not make this out to be a very clear divide. Bill Russell was a bloody astonishing basketball player.

ILikeTheGrizz · Post #13 » by **ILikeTheGrizz** » Thu Apr 3, 2008 2:41 pm

chrice wrote: He proved that his game translates in the modern era.

!!!

I'm sure we just have different definitions of 'modern era', but when I think of it I'm thinking of the game since the incredible pace of the early 60s. The 80s and 90s are in the modern era as surely as the 40s are still in the modern era of baseball. Just seemed like a weird way to phrase it, like Magic was playing with a monocle on or something.

Post #14 » by **Doctor MJ** » Thu Apr 3, 2008 3:08 pm

chrice wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

That's totally unfair. Magic was forced to retire when he still wanted to keep playing. Even when he was out of shape and dealing with HIV, the Lakers were winning more games with him than without him. He proved that his game translates in the modern era.

I'm curious what you think *is* fair. I mean, if Walton has no injuries, maybe he ends up the GOAT. Are you seriously saying you wouldn't factor in Walton's injuries when considering starting a team because they weren't his fault? I'd say time missed do to irresponsible off court behavior is at least as fair game as that, wouldn't you?