Manuel Calavera wrote:Seems like me and you have very similar criteria.
Not really. You take the most talented (EX: Wilt at number one in 69).
ElGee- Good post. Just want to add that I didn't mean to diminish what Nash does or say that he is only valuable and not good. I think if you replace Amare with prime Kemp and Q-Rich with prime Bell, that 05 PHX team shuns the notion that their problem was they needed to play small-ball to be successful and for Nash to be successful. Nash doesn't need a specific build. He doesn't need a specific situation to be great. After Gentry took over in 09, Nash had that team running at an all-time level even with my favorite player slowing them down and hanging in the paint.
I also agree that Russell is even less reliant on circumstance than Nash- mainly because I think Russ is the better and more effective player. I (and I assume many now) have learned that Russell's ability to impact defense in that era was insanely dominant, and that he affected defense like Magic affected offense in the 80's. Maybe moreso.
Wilt changes his game so much that we really do need to take it year by year to see who played better. Wilt doesn't need to play defense at Russell's level to be more effective imo. All he needs to do is be a legit defensive anchor while being a dominant offensive anchor. He's done that in 67 and 68 so far. Didn't in 69. We'll see what happens next.
Gifted Mind- Good posts regarding Russell and criteria. Definitely agree that Bill will likely be seen as the Most Valuable Player just about every year. He's got a great argument for best as well. I mean, screw his contributions to Boston and the titles- the dude was just a great basketball player. Great talent, smarts, and athleticism. We'll see what Wilt can do. Maybe Oscar or West, too.
