#2 Highest Peak of All Time (Shaq '00 wins)

[Dipper 13]

Los Angeles Times - Dec 23, 1966

CHAMBERLAIN ALTERS PLAY

Big Wilt Taking Fewer Shots, but More Effective Than Ever

Many people claim there is a "new" Wilt Chamberlain leading the Philadelphia 76ers to a record-breaking start, but the big man himself and his coach, Alex Hannum, say it isn't so.

The 30-year-old giant seems to have changed his philosophy. Until this season it appeared Wilt's idea was to go for the basket first and look for other shooters second. But now the former Kansas All-America who once averaged 50.4 points per game over an 80-game season, is the ultimate in a team player. His scoring average has slipped to 24 points, but the other things he is doing have made the 76ers a tremendous club.

"Wilt hasn't changed, nor is he playing any harder," said Hannum. "He's always done what his coach wanted. When Frank McGuire was the boss he felt the best results would be obtained by having him try to score as many points as possible. At San Francisco we tried to divide it up between shooting and other things and we won a division title. I think it is safe to say that Wilt now has the best talent around him he's ever had. I don't want to take anything away from Guy Rodgers, Al Attles, or Gary Phillips, but they just don't compare as outside shooters with Hal Greer and the other guards we have. Also we are stronger at forward. With all this ability we can play the big guy differently. He's the happiest guy on the club, too."

Red Auerbach (former coach and now general manager of the Boston Celtics tried to stir up some trouble earlier. He said that when Chamberlain saw the statistics and noted that Rick Barry was far ahead in the scoring race, Wilt would start shooting again. "But statistics don't mean a thing and Wilt doesn't care if he doesn't score a point."

While Chamberlain's rebound and assist totals are a matter of record, two other departments in which he excels are not to be found on any statistic sheet. A prime rule of basketball is the setting of a "pick" or "screen" to enable a teammate to get off a shot free of his defensive man. Some teams use two or three players to set up a screen. But the 76ers can play big screen basketball with just Chamberlain, who weighs 275 pounds and, with arms extended out from the sides, measures 100 inches from fingertip to fingertip. The only way to get through a Chamberlain screen is to go between his widespread legs. Another department in which he has been brilliant is in blocking shots or forcing opponents to take hurried or off-balance shots.

He was overzealous Wednesday night as he led the 76ers to their 30th win in 33 starts, getting four goal-tending calls, but he was still a big factor in bothering the Laker shooters. Of all the game's super stars, Chamberlain has been maligned more than he has been praised. The big man is still bitter about it.

There's a little smile of satisfaction on his face, though when he tells the reporter after a game: "I don't do anything any more. I can't even jump or run. I'm all washed up. That's what some of you guys are saying." The truth is Chamberlain is more effective than ever. In his peak scoring year (1961-62) he took almost 40 shots per game while connecting on 50% of them. This season while taking 13 per contest he Is sinking 70%. In addition, with some fine passing to go with his screening ability, he is keeping his teammates happy by seeing to it they get a number of easy shots. For once, the 76ers. are just one big, happy family.

[C-izMe]

When speaking of the best peaks, I would think we would be comparing the best offensive & defensive peaks, along with the best 2-way peaks. MJ had a great offensive peak in 91', along with great defensive play. 87' Magic vs 64' Russell, how does that shake down? 64' Wilt vs 00' Shaq vs 94' Hakeem. 86' Bird vs 12' Lebron. What about 03' Duncan or 04' KG? Or great 2-way peaks like 06' Kobe & 94' DRob. I'm surprised at how few heated debates there have been.

Did you just say 06 Kobe was a great two way peak and Shaq in 00 wasn't?
I'm pretty sure 99% of the people here can agree that Shaq was a top 5 defender that year. It seems only a few don't realize that Shaq was an amazing defender (and the best offensive player) that year. That's why there isn't much heated debate: MOST PEOPLE ALREADY AGREE ON THESE YEARS AND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM ARE MINIMAL.

[SilkStream]

I saw every Laker game that year, try again. And while Shaq did provide a big presence in the paint, he wasn't Mark Eaton, or even Dwight. He was good, not great.

Shaq was a Top Tier defensive anchor that year.
It doesn't get much better then that.
Definitly a Top Tier defensive Peak even if a few players have had better ones.

This is a strange comment, because you're basically admitting that Shaq wasn't an elite defender like a Hakeem or DRob. Prime DRob was 7'1 240, and could guard 4 or 5's, while giving elite help. hmmmm.....

Are you slow? I am saying huge C's like Wilt, Kareem and Shaq will not be asked to guard speedy PF's.
It doesn't mean they don't play excellent help defense, post defense and m2m defense.

I already pointed out in the first thread that LA only faced a team with a SRS above 0, a grand total of 3 times while Kobe was out. That Laker squad was filled with quality defenders, with Rice being the only bad one.

Always an excuse to push your agenda.
The fact is LA's defense got better with Kobe out and the team had very few quality defenders.
Outside of Kobe the only other quality defender was Fox and he did not play a large amount of minutes.

Well actually, the fact that there were no impact centers on offense, and that Shaq didn't guard PFs, means Shaq's defensive impact was a bit muted. Clearly he provided a solid presence in the paint, but the brunt of the action defensively rested on the other 4 players.

The defense was good primarily because Shaq locked down the paint and shut down his man.
This forced opposing teams to either shoot jumpers or rely on difficult shots in the paint many which Shaq would block or alter.
The bulk of the impact a defensive anchor at Center provides comes from post defense which Shaq excelled at and his help defense was also excellent.
You are simply not giving Shaq credit for his dominant post defense and excellent help defense/man defense because it does not serve your agenda. (sorry but I call it how I see it)

If you want to make an argument for 2001 Shaq, then fine. But I thought we were discussing 2000 Shaq.
Yet...Shaq's numbers were all down against Portland - 25.9 ppg. 12.4 rpg, 53.7% FG. And please stop including Pippen when he was guarding Kobe in that series.

Pippen often left Kobe to help on Shaq and didn't guard Kobe exclusively.
There is a reason why he shot so well in the last two games (a ton of wide open shots and wide open lanes).

LA should have finished off Portland in G5 but thanks to Kobe and the rest of the cast sucking a collective d*** they lost that game.
Shaq through 5 games was averaging 30 / 13.5 / 4apg / 2.5bpg on 56% shooting despite facing the Sabonis/Sheed/Pippen defense.

When speaking of the best peaks, I would think we would be comparing the best offensive & defensive peaks, along with the best 2-way peaks. MJ had a great offensive peak in 91', along with great defensive play. 87' Magic vs 64' Russell, how does that shake down? 64' Wilt vs 00' Shaq vs 94' Hakeem. 86' Bird vs 12' Lebron. What about 03' Duncan or 04' KG? Or great 2-way peaks like 06' Kobe & 94' DRob. I'm surprised at how few heated debates there have been.

Shaq in 00 had one of the best offensive and defensive peaks ever and had one of the best playoff runs and overall years ever. It's a combination of that + his unique intangibles that make his value and impact greater then almost any other player ever.
While some may disagree I think it was the greatest peak ever and no player had the overall court impact that he had.
It will be quite sad if he doesn't make the Top #2 (I can accept Jordan taking the top spot).

Also I laughed at your mention of Kobe.
His Peak isn't even Top 10 and his defensive impact in 06 wasn't even 1/50th of the impact 00 Shaq had on the defensive end but I am sure you feel the exact opposite way in your fantasy world.

-Congrats btw, you are very good at what you do.

[colts18]

What about 03' Duncan or 04' KG? Or great 2-way peaks like 06' Kobe & 94' DRob. I'm surprised at how few heated debates there have been.

Saying that 06 Kobe was a good 2 way player is ridiculous. He wasn't playing much defense in that era. 00 Shaq was a much better defender than 06 Kobe

[drza]

I mentioned it in the last thread, but seriously...why isn't Russell even getting mentioned here? Starting from the overly simplistic accolades checklists and ending with the stat heads, it seems like Russell's peak should be tickling most of the "dominance" checkboxes on here:

1) In 1965 he won both the MVP and the ring. Had the awards existed that year, there's about a 99.9% chance he'd have also won both the DPoY and the Finals MVP as well. That mix of accolades and the ring has to be incredibly attractive to some of the voters in this project, who routinely use reasoning like that.

2) Russell's impact was quantifiable, as ElGee and the other stats folks in the RPoY project pointed out. The 1965 Celtics were the #1 defense in the NBA by more than 10 points per 100 possessions, and almost EIGHT points ahead of second place. That is domination by one unit on n order that is video game-like, and that defensive impact is clearly centered on Russell.

3) It can't be era, because Wilt of 2 years later was getting considerable attention for #1 all-time.

4) Russell led the RPoY project in total shares, and was voted 2nd overall in the top-100 project, despite the fact that his career was relatively short compared to the top guys at 13 years. So if he's not up there for longevity, almost by definition he had to have a GOAT peak, right? I mean, he won three RPoY votes unanimously, second only to Jordan (who's already voted in) in that project. So clearly it's not that folks on this board don't recognize his virtues.

I don't get it. Shaq was ridiculously dominant in 2000, and deserves his support. Same with Wilt, I suppose. Or any of the others that have been getting mentions so far. But I can't imagine why Russell shouldn't be on that same tier.

[Dipper 13]

^Indeed, Russell's peak is anywhere from 1-3 IMO.

[C-izMe]

I have no doubt Russell will end up top 5 (where he belongs). It's just that people value two way players more (I know I do).

[lorak]

vote: Shaq 2000

[Dipper 13]

two way players

Minus shooting he did everything at a high level.



Sports Illustrated - November 18, 1963

"In my modest opinion," says Russell, who is not a particularly good shooter, "shooting is of relatively little importance in a player's overall game. Almost all of us in the NBA are All-Americas. We became All-Americas by averaging 20 points or more a game, so by the layman's standards all of us can shoot. It's the other phases of the game that make the difference. If you're going to score 15 and let your man score 20 you're a deficit. If your value to the team is strictly as a shooter, you are of very little value. Offense is the first thing you learn as a kid in any sport: catch a pass, dribble, bat, shoot. You learn the offensive aspects of a game long before you learn there even are defensive aspects. These are the skills you come by naturally. Defense is hard work because it's unnatural.

"Defense is a science," Russell says, "not a helter-skelter thing you just luck into. Every move has six or seven years of work behind it. In basketball your body gets to do things it couldn't do in normal circumstances. You take abnormal steps, you have to run backward almost as fast as you can run forward. On defense you must never cross your legs while running, and that's the most natural thing to do when changing direction. Instead, you try to glide like a crab. You have to fight the natural tendencies and do things naturally that aren't natural.

"In rebounding, position is the key. No two objects can occupy the same place at the same time. Seventy-five percent of the rebounds are taken below the height of the rim, so timing is important, because almost everyone in the league can reach the top of the rim. A really important part of rebounding is being able to jump up more than once. You have to keep trying for that ball. Sometimes you jump four or five times before you can get your hands on it. I used to practice jumping over and over again. When I was 6 feet 2, I could jump to the top of the rim 35 times, over and over.

"You have to have strong hands. Most of the time three guys will have their hands on the ball at the same time, and you have to be able to grab it away. I guess I just naturally have strong hands, but if I didn't I would exercise until they were strong. But getting the ball is only half the job. Then you have to do something with it."

[Lightning25]

How is '65 Russell better than '62 Russell?

[ardee]

How is '65 Russell better than '62 Russell?

The Celtics had a defense of almost a point better in '65. Plus, remember that Cousy retired by then, and Russell moved to the high post to act as the team's primary playmaker. By '65 he did practically EVERYTHING for them except for scoring.

However, the numbers on the '62 playoff run are extremely, extremely eye-popping.

[ardee]

Vote: 1967 Wilt Chamberlain

For reasons already outlined.

For what it's worth, here is the argument I posted in the #1 thread.

The Sixers went 68-13, the third best win percentage in NBA history. The season started 46-4, which translated .920 over the first 50 games!

Also, Chamberlain's statistical dominance needs to be properly understood.

In the regular season, he was fifth in points per game, first in rebounds per game, and third in assists per game, and first in FG% (by 16.2% over the second place Walt Bellamy!). That means he was the best scorer in the league, the best rebounder, and one of the three best playmakers! Wrap your head around someone else managing this EVER.

There's more. The Sixers also had a Defensive Rating of 94.6 (according to ElGee's blog). That was only a shade worse than Thurmond's Warriors (by 0.4 points), and a couple of points behind Russell's Celtics. So he was having the GOAT offensive season, and at the same time was having a MASSIVE defensive impact.

The Playoffs get even more ridiculous.

This seals the deal for me.

1967 EDF vs. Celtics

G1 - 24 points, 32 rebounds, 12 assists, 12 blocks, 69% FG
G2 - 15 points, 29 rebounds, 5 assists, 5 blocks, 45% FG
G3 - 20 points, 41 rebounds, 9 assists, 5 blocks, 57% FG
G4 - 20 points, 22 rebounds, 10 assists, at least 3 blocks, 44% FG
G5 - 29 points, 36 rebounds, 13 assists, 7 blocks, 63% FG

Series Average: 21.6 ppg, 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, 6+ bpg, 56% FG
Bill Russell: 11.4 ppg, 23.4 rpg, 6.0 apg, 36% FG

1967 NBA Finals vs. Warriors

G1 - 16 points, 33 rebounds, 10 assists, 75% FG (including a game-saving block on Nate)
G2 - 10 points, 38 rebounds (26 in 1st half), 10 assists, 10 blocks, 40% FG
G3 - 26 points, 26 rebounds, 5 assists, 52% FG
G4 - 10 points, 27 rebounds, 8 assists, 11 blocks, 50% FG
G5 - 20 points, 24 rebounds, 4 assists, 60% FG
G6 - 24 points, 23 rebounds, 4 assists, 62% FG

Series Average: 17.6 ppg, 28.5 rpg, 6.8 apg, 56% FG
Nate Thurmond: 14.1 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 3.3 apg, 34% FG



Those numbers came against Bill Russell and Nate Thurmond.

Russell and Thurmond.

Triple double for a series against Bill Russell. You know, the guy whom everyone in the RealGM Top 100 agreed was the greatest defensive player ever (and whom Doctor MJ, penbeast and a few others consider the all-around greatest player ever, period?).

With Wilt, he went up against two of the four defensive GOATs (Olajuwon and Robinson being the others, IMO), one after the other, and he absolutely destroyed them both.

It's worth noting that after Chamberlain left the Sixers in '68-'69, they dropped 7 games in the win column and were eliminated in the first round against the Celtics. From then on they weren't relevant until Doc arrived in '77.

So, yeah, I think Wilt's performances considering the level of competition he was facing (GOAT defensive centers) and the Sixers' utter dominance speaks for itself.

[Josephpaul]

How is lebron peak better than KAJ ? SMH .

71 Kareem for me

[ThaRegul8r]

I mentioned it in the last thread, but seriously...why isn't Russell even getting mentioned here?

I've already mentioned this, but Russell's dominance was on the defensive end of the court, which most people don't value as highly as dominance on the offensive end of the court. Secondly, most people aren't even sure when Russell's best season was. Doc MJ, who has Russell as his GOAT said:

Russell's best years are so close, it's hard to tell them apart.

So how is Russell going to be mentioned if—in addition to his kind of dominance not being fitting within the currently accepted paradigm of greatness—people can't even agree when his best season was? In this very thread:

How is '65 Russell better than '62 Russell?

I looked in the preliminary thread for the Top 50 player seasons, and different people were naming different Russell seasons when talking about Russell. There is no clear consensus for his best season. Which is what prompted me to ask the question:

I'm wondering how just many people have the top seasons of GOAT players ranked in order for that player clearly in their minds, which is the starting point before one can than make cross-player comparisons.

People are more clear about other candidates, which is why they're the ones being named. Simple.

[An Unbiased Fan]

When speaking of the best peaks, I would think we would be comparing the best offensive & defensive peaks, along with the best 2-way peaks. MJ had a great offensive peak in 91', along with great defensive play. 87' Magic vs 64' Russell, how does that shake down? 64' Wilt vs 00' Shaq vs 94' Hakeem. 86' Bird vs 12' Lebron. What about 03' Duncan or 04' KG? Or great 2-way peaks like 06' Kobe & 94' DRob. I'm surprised at how few heated debates there have been.

Did you just say 06 Kobe was a great two way peak and Shaq in 00 wasn't?
I'm pretty sure 99% of the people here can agree that Shaq was a top 5 defender that year. It seems only a few don't realize that Shaq was an amazing defender (and the best offensive player) that year. That's why there isn't much heated debate: MOST PEOPLE ALREADY AGREE ON THESE YEARS AND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM ARE MINIMAL.

Where did I say Shaq wasn't a great 2-way player in that post??? I mentioned Kobe along with DRob at the end of listing various debates & directions this discussion could take.

I have said multiple times that Shaq was a great defender in 2000. My point though, is that it wasn't ALL-TIME great, and when we're looking at #1 or #2 all-time peaks, then that's a fairly big issue. Especially when you have guys like Wilt, Russell, KAJ, Magic, etc., around.

I'm not even saying for people to not pick Shaq, I just wanted to throw in a more critical analysis of that 2000 season.

What about 03' Duncan or 04' KG? Or great 2-way peaks like 06' Kobe & 94' DRob. I'm surprised at how few heated debates there have been.

Saying that 06 Kobe was a good 2 way player is ridiculous. He wasn't playing much defense in that era. 00 Shaq was a much better defender than 06 Kobe

1) Again, where did I say Shaq wasn't a great 2-way player in 2000? There's a decent number of greats who got it done on both sides of the floor. The question is to what degree, and how do they compare. How does the 2 way peak compare to Russell's defensive peak, or Magic's offensive peak, and so on.

2) Kobe was most assuredly a great 2-way player. 35 PPG on 56% TS and All-D 1st team. He was the main reason that team was #15th in DRtg and not near the bottom. Unless you think Smush, Cook, Mihm were.

[ThaRegul8r]

I'm not even saying for people to not pick Shaq, I just wanted to throw in a more critical analysis of that 2000 season.

And the problem here is when people knee-jerk take offense and posit false dichotomies because they're too emotionally wrapped up with their favorite player and can't simply separate emotion and discuss the point being made.

[thebottomline]

I'm also a bit disappointed Russell hasn't gotten more consideration, especially with Wilt getting early votes.

What's the argument for '67 Wilt over '65 Russell, for example?

Something to consider... The '67 Sixers were +6.7 offensively and +1.0 defensively compared to league average. Let's pretend Wilt's teammates were league average quality (they weren't) and attribute those numbers entirely to Wilt's impact ... still doesn't come close to the Celtics being +10.6 defensively in '64 or +10.1 defensively in '65 almost entirely due to Russell's defensive impact.

Have to agree with ThaRegul8r's point... Unfortunately, I think Russell is at risk of falling lower than he should in this project simply because there is less agreement about what his best season is compared to other players.

[An Unbiased Fan]

I saw every Laker game that year, try again. And while Shaq did provide a big presence in the paint, he wasn't Mark Eaton, or even Dwight. He was good, not great.

Shaq was a Top Tier defensive anchor that year.
It doesn't get much better then that.
Definitly a Top Tier defensive Peak even if a few players have had better ones.

He was a top tier defensive center, yes. But still not better than Zo or Deke. The question is if his 29.7 ppg on 58% TS and great man2man defense in 2000, is enough to overtake guys like KAJ, Russell, Wilt, and so on.

He's not competing for the 2000 POY award, he's competing for the #2 all-time peak.

Are you slow? I am saying huge C's like Wilt, Kareem and Shaq will not be asked to guard speedy PF's.
It doesn't mean they don't play excellent help defense, post defense and m2m defense.

Uh, we were talking about defensive impact, remember? The point was that Shaq was limited to covering centers, and that there really weren't any offensive threats at C in 2000 other than him. Other bigs like Duncan(who is basically a center anyway), weren't guarded by Shaq.

So again...when we talk about ALL-TIME peaks, please explain how "impactful" Shaq's defense was. he was not good on help defense, so I'm not sure why you keep trying to say that. And while he was great man2man with other centers, it loses a bit of luster when he can't translate that onto a Duncan, Webber, or Sheed. I have a hard time thinking of a great defensive player who could only guard one position.

Always an excuse to push your agenda.
The fact is LA's defense got better with Kobe out and the team had very few quality defenders.
Outside of Kobe the only other quality defender was Fox and he did not play a large amount of minutes.

I didn't realize I had an agenda. I purposely decided not to be a voter in this project simply because of comments like that. I'm jsut here for the discussion, and have no dog in this fight.

And when you say only Kobe & Fox were quality defenders on that 2000 squad....it really makes me question if you even saw that team play. Harper was solid as always, AC/Horry did a great job at the 4, Even Fisher was good back then.

The defense was good primarily because Shaq locked down the paint and shut down his man.
This forced opposing teams to either shoot jumpers or rely on difficult shots in the paint many which Shaq would block or alter.
The bulk of the impact a defensive anchor at Center provides comes from post defense which Shaq excelled at and his help defense was also excellent.
You are simply not giving Shaq credit for his dominant post defense and excellent help defense/man defense because it does not serve your agenda. (sorry but I call it how I see it)

Bro, Shaq's man usually was around a 10 ppg scoring threat.

LA was well-balanced defensively, and had an All-D 1st teamer on the perimeter, a long Harper at PG, and two bangers at the 4. Then you had Shaq playing great man2man, and putting in solid defensive work in the paint. It was a TEAM effort defensively.

Pippen often left Kobe to help on Shaq and didn't guard Kobe exclusively.
There is a reason why he shot so well in the last two games (a ton of wide open shots and wide open lanes).

LA should have finished off Portland in G5 but thanks to Kobe and the rest of the cast sucking a collective d*** they lost that game.
Shaq through 5 games was averaging 30 / 13.5 / 4apg / 2.5bpg on 56% shooting despite facing the Sabonis/Sheed/Pippen defense.

Oh, I see. So Shaq was great...and everyone else sucked. Got it.

And it rather funny how you say Pippen left Kobe after game 5....yet, later claim Shaq was facing Pippen/Sheed/Sabonis for the first 5 games. Which is it?

You also seem to have given him a pass for his play in game 6 & 7. You know...the game 6 where Shaq put up 17 pts on 40% TS(didn't you say Kobe sucked when he put up 17 on 50% TS the game before?). Then in game 7, he's a no show with 9 points for the first 36 mins, until LA rallies.

Game 6 numbers:
Shaq - 17/11 on 40% TS
Kobe - 33/6 on 62% TS

Game 7:
Shaq - 18/9 on 63 TS%
Kobe - 25/11 on 52% TS

Shaq in 00 had one of the best offensive and defensive peaks ever and had one of the best playoff runs and overall years ever. It's a combination of that + his unique intangibles that make his value and impact greater then almost any other player ever.
While some may disagree I think it was the greatest peak ever and no player had the overall court impact that he had.
It will be quite sad if he doesn't make the Top #2 (I can accept Jordan taking the top spot).

29.7 PPG on 58% TS is not even in my Top 5 ever offensively. Shaq was dominant within 6 feet, but it HAD to be within 6 feet. And despite his domination, his efficiency was not GOAT level.

Defensively, where would you rank Shaq's peak? Because I can of quite a few centers who peaked higher on that end, jsut withing the last decade

So we're back to square one. Are we really going to put 2000 Shaq over Wilt or KAJ's peak at center? What about Russell who had the best defensive peak relative to era?

[C-izMe]

Talking about games 6 & 7 in Portland Shaq clearly helped his team just by being on the floor. I watched all of game 6 yesterday (going to get around to game 7) and Shaq was literately doubled on every play where he didn't make a move within a second of catching the ball. He was triple teamed (this is by my count) 12 times and quadruple teamed 6 times. His teammates benefitted a ton from that (like Kobe who had his best games of the series).

And if you want to talk about relative to the league Shaq was the best offensive player and a serious candidate for the best defensive player in the game that year. Who else can say they've done that?

And Shaq was a great help defender. For some odd reason you don't seem to count rim protection as help defense so I guess in your opinion all big centers aren't good help defenders.

Also 29.7ppg on 58TS is great when league average TS is 52. It's actually one of the best bigman scoring seasons ever and when you add his 3.8apg into that and his super low to% I think he had the best offensive season for any bigman ever.


So let's get this together:
Offensively he's greater than any bigman
Defensively he's greater than any guard
Offensively he's not as good as the best guard
Defensively he's not as good as the best bigman

But who else can you say fits that requirement. Wilt doesn't have a top 5 defensive peak ever. Russell doesn't have a top 50 offensive peak ever. Should I just choose players who were GOAT level on one side of the ball because they were GOAT level at offense/defense and completely disregard people who were right outside GOAT level on both ends?

Wilt's peak he led a worse defense with a better team. Kareem's peak he wasn't as good a defender as Shaq or as good of a offensive player. Russell's peak I keep hearing abou the team's -10 defense but not their -5 offense. None of these guys are perfect and Shaq clearly has the upper hand on a few of them.


Just random thoughts after reading your post UBF.

[PTB Fan]

I'm definitely voting Russell in my top 5. That '65 season was amazing. Remember, he played with an injury which he revealed after the Finals.