O_6 wrote:Just based in watching personally, Russell did not commit nearly as many goaltending blocks because his Hakeem-like jump had him blocking it earlier than Wilts "Highest reach ever probably" slower jump.
This is something contemporary observers have talked about in the differences between them.
Gene Shue, who played 10 seasons in the NBA from 1954-55 to 1963-64 and coached 22 seasons from 1966-67 to 1988-89 wrote:Bill Russell used to be able to block shots out of a player’s hand—to get the ball on the way up. Wilt Chamberlain of the Los Angeles Lakers and Kareem Jabbar of Milwaukee block shots in the air, which is sometimes questionable goal tending.
I remember your posts from the RPOY project, you consistently brought it. Please continue to do so, sir. This board needs guys like you to counteract ... worthless posters
Retirement isn’t the end of the road, but just a turn in the road. – Unknown
Doctor MJ wrote: Re: if he were a braggart would't we know? Well that's the always the argument presented by those suffering from cognitive dissonance. I make it a point to deal with my potential biases more proactively than that.
Okay then.....
I don't know the context of the quote. I don't know if his intention was to brag, to exaggerate, if he was told at the time that's what he did and never stopped to think about if it was truly possible, if he misspoke, whatever.
It's hard for me personally to take one quote absent context and decide that should have more impact on how I view Russell's trustworthiness than the more than 60 years of evidence suggesting he has a great deal of credibility. Maybe that makes me naive or suffer from cognitive dissonance. But so be it.
And even were I to reach the conclusion that his purpose for telling that story in his book, was to create some sort of false legend to make himself look better I also refuse to judge people by one isolated incident. I think to myself have I ever exaggerated something? OR even stated a total falsehood?
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
Short answer is I feel like his in-era impact was the highest we've ever seen and he maintained for a length of time leaving no doubt that it reflects his legit level of play. No flukes.
Add to that he's imo the greatest defensive player of all-time and he advanced basketball defensively more than any other player/coach/executive has advanced the game in any fashion before or since. For all the talk of eras, his defensive strategies and style of play still hold up despite significant rule changes and emphasis.
He had elite intangibles, was a much better offensive player than given credit for, and a world-class rebounder.
2nd place: Tim Duncan.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
An Unbiased Fan wrote:Duncan has always seemed to benefit from 2003, much like Hakeem benefited from 1994(far too much so for both players).
Hakeem is interesting to me. I'll put this in spoilers though, because this isn't my main point.
Spoiler:
As everyone knows (or should) by now, I record things as they happen, at the time they happen. I was posting things in this year's NBA Finals thread and the LeBron thread that I came across as I was recording the Finals that other people might be interested in. I've said this before, but this is what was being said at the time:
ORLANDO — It’s easier to explain rocket science this morning than how the Houston Rockets will win back-to-back NBA titles.
Less messy, too.
But after Houston’s 117-106 win against Orlando Friday put the Rockets up 2-0 in the NBA Finals, the curtain began rising and debate began starting on why the Rockets are again the team no one could beat.
Most theories center on Team Chemistry. That’s usually the case when there’s little Team Biology.
Based on talent alone, Houston doesn’t even rank among the top five teams in the league. There’s Phoenix. Seattle. Chicago (when Michael Jordan returned). San Antonio (when Dennis Rodman played). Orlando is in this elite group, of course, and then way down there, somewhere among the Utahs and Indianas, sits Houston.
The Rockets have no power forward. They have no point guard to speak of unless the subject is Anfernee Hardaway’s highlight film. Houston starts Kenny Smith and Mario Elie because the rules say they must start five.
I mean, who else is there? Look at the bench. Sam Cassell aside, it’s strictly practice fodder, guys who carry shovels behind the elephants.
The Rockets’ big trade got nationally lampooned this season, their lineup wasn’t set until three games ago – yes, Game 5 of the San Antonio series – and their coach still remains known more for having his face punched out by Kermit Washington.
Oh, one more thing:
Houston has Hakeem Olajuwon and no one else does.
When was this?
This was 1995. It was written after the Rockets took a 2-0 lead over the Magic.
Hakeem was my favorite big man in the league back then, and—as I've said before—people were talking about him in a historical sense during the '95 playoffs. But years after the fact, people talk about '94 as the "carry job" because they went to Basketball-Reference and saw Clyde Drexler played for the Rockets the second year. Oh yeah, he also won MVP and DPOY in '94, so since people are big on awards and accolades, that gives people another retroactive reason to say '94 was the carry job even though people were actually talking that way in '95. (And if the Knicks won in '94 because Hakeem didn't get to Starks' shot, people would be talking about Ewing now) I have other articles saved from then, but this isn't my main point.
I saw someone say on another basketball forum I post on (under a different name) that in 20 years, no one remembers the details. That's absolutely correct, because I keep track of the details, and 20 years later, people don't actually accurately said what happened. They go to Basketball-Reference and call it a wrap. Maybe they'll do a quick Google search to pull up something, but it isn't the same as recording everything at the time it happened.
Yep, 1994 is an interesting year on many levels. Hakeem's 1995 run was more impressive to me too, but there's a tendency to weigh perceived supporting cast strength vs result.
Wilt and Shaq had glaring flaws. Ones that don't have anything to do with things they didn't have control over. That's actually a bigger gripe of mine, how many people simply don't want to be accountable for things they're in control of, or take responsibility for their actions/decisions. But that's an entirely different discussion.
I would say every player in history has had glaring flaws though. Likability really seems to affect how much scrutiny these flaws get. Russell and Duncan are nice non-controversial guys, so they really don't get dissected much. In general, from rank to rank, I notice that posters really tend to focus on the strengths of who they prefer, while not really touching on the flaws. For other players the focus is on the flaws, and the strengths aren't really touched upon. I'm sure we'll hear of the many strong points of Wilt/Shaq/Magic/Kobe/Bird and so on going forward, but for the most part shouldn't the strong points of the major choices dominate discussion. In a peak projects it would be a must due to the purpose of that project. When finding the greatest players of all-time, people really need to widen their scope quite a bit to compare the greats. Can't say I've even heard much of Magic's name at this point, or heard comparative reasons why TD is over him for example. TD vs Shaq, TD vs Kobe, TD vs Bird. These are all interesting debates to have, but not really seeing much depth given.
This comment isn't directed at you Regul8r, you always give detailed thoughts on multiple players. Just musing outloud because the Top 10 should have way more analysis going on, and far more players discussed.
To me, this is what everyone should be doing win or lose. I've voiced on numerous occasions my opposition to hypotheticals where players are handwaved titles without any discussion of how they actually played. And I remember at least one poster who was arguing that perception would be different, and didn't change the player in question's performance at all. He was simply handwaved a ring without having to better his subpar performance in actuality, which contributed to the team's loss.
But, back to the subject, I've followed and chronicled Duncan's entire career, the record of which exceeds 1,200 pages. I know with 100% certainty that no one else on any basketball forum has done that, because no one does that for something they watch for entertainment (and I've either been a registered member or lurked on the others). And if someone didn't do it, it's too late now, because it took years to compile, and a lot of stuff isn't even accessible at those links anymore so it's literally impossible to re-find now. I have no need to look anything up or go on Basketball-Reference because I wrote everything down when it happened. So...
2001: After the first two games, the Spurs were down 0-2, and Duncan averaged 34 points on 55.6 percent shooting from the floor, 85 percent shooting from the line and 63.2 percent true shooting, 14.5 rebounds, 4.5 assists and 4.5 blocks. He was volume scoring, efficient, making free throws, rebounding, passing, blocking shots, if that wasn't enough to help his team win a single game, what more could he have done? Since I have the articles from the time, they're both talking about Duncan's lack of help.
Now, Duncan didn't play well when the series went to LA. But as I said, if the way he played in the first two games in San Antonio wasn't enough for a single win, what else was he supposed to do? So it's split, in a four-game series, he played excellently the first two games at home, didn't play well on the road, and the Lakers steamrolled through everyone that postseason.
I too have been following TD since he was a rook, back in the ESPN board days, and forums like Spurstalk that was fun to troll back in the day.
I bring up seasons like 2001 because it speaks to TD's place within his own era. I have him 2nd in his era, so seeing him at #4 is curious. For all of TD's individual defensive impact, he didn't even guard Shaq much this series(DRob did), and he couldn't translate it to stop Kobe's individual volume scoring. For all his greatness, he has no answer to prevent the losses at home without the ability to guard Kobe or answer on the offense end.
Game 1: The twin towers allowed Kobe to not just dominate from the perimeter, but also the inside for 45. For two all-time great defensive anchors this is unacceptable, and really put them into a hole for the series. With TD I'm always more critical of his defense since that's where his impact is usually focussed.
Game 2: Spurs at home allow LA to go on a 13-5 runs the final 6:11 mins after Phil got ejected. After this game in particular TD got major heat even from Spur fans. He was a no show at the end of the game. Hard to fault him when he scores 40 points, but they had a 14 point lead in the 1st half, and 25 of those points came in the 1st. Down 0-1, that a game where TD has to secure the win over the last 6 mins at home.
Game 3: Must win game for SA......TD scores only 9 points on 3-14, and plays bad defense as LA blows the Spurs out. Both Kobe/Shaq drop 35+.
Game 4: Down 0-3, TD scores only 15 points, and SA is blown out again.
Notes: TD really only had one good game, and in it he was a no-show at the end as LA stole game 2. After going down 0-2, TD average only 12 ppg, and offered no signs of a great defensive anchor on defense. On a indivudal basis Kobe was the clear best player on the floor that series, and Shaq outperformed TD.
2002: I've posted this before: Duncan both scored at a higher volume (29 ppg) than either Kobe (26.2) or Shaq (21.4), and was also more efficient than either: 51.7% TS to 48.6% for Kobe and 48.7% for Shaq. And people like scoring numbers. And had 17.2 rebounds, 4.6 assists and 3.2 blocked shots to boot. From the time:
....
Apart from Duncan, the the Spurs shot 39.0 percent and had a true shooting percentage of 47.4 percent. The Lakers outside of Kobe and Shaq shot 42.6 percent and a true shooting percentage of 52.6 percent. Duncan's efficiency was above the rest of the team's, while both Kobe and Shaq's were below the rest of their team. But Kobe and Shaq had each other, while the accounts from the time comment on the assistance Duncan wasn't getting.
*Lee Corso voice* Not so fast my friend.
Game 1: You're right, TD did go high volume...but how did that turn out? Duncan had 26 points and 21 rebounds in game 1. great right? Well, no. TD shot 9-30. Neither team shot well, it was a nice defensive battle, but SA shot 31% as a team and TD taking 40% of those shots. Yet another game within reach(was 73-71 late) that TD couldn't close, and was outdone the last 4 mins. Had he not shot 30 times, or so poorly, SA would have stolen G1.
Game 2: TD played like we've come to expect. 27/17(trip/doub if you count 10 tos), and owned Shaq who was a non-factor for the most part. They did blow a 21 point lead and it was 85-84 at one point at the end....but still this was a nice steal in Staples and took the series back to SA 1-1.
Game 3: TD goes for a miserable 9-26, and Kobe scores 11 of his 31 in the 4th to take back the series 2-1. TP added 24 points for SA, but high volume Duncan really killed SA for the 2nd time this series.
Game 4: TD scores 30 on only 15 shots and bullies his way to the FT ine 16 times. Good game, but....yet again Kobe scores 12 in the 4th and LA take the game in SA to go up 3-1.
Game 5: TD puts up a monster 35/24, left it all on the floor so major respect to how he closed the series. But even here, Kobe has 10 4th quarter points and LA closes SA out.
Notes: TD really cost SA two games this series with the 9-30 and 9-26 performances. Again, despite his defensive impact, he could do nothing to stop Kobe's offense in the 4th, which goes to my individual offense > individual defense point. With a hobbled Shaq, SA should have won this series in 6. When we talk about the greatest players, I have a big issue with TD getting outshined so much impact-wise. Yes the Spurs had a great record and Prime TD won MVP, but he wasn't the best player on the floor for the 2nd meeting with LA in a row.
2004: Looking through the record, played well first two games as Spurs take 2-0 lead. Didn't play well Game 3, had 19 points (5-13 FG, 9-12 FT), 10 rebounds and eight assists in Game 4. Game 5 had 21 points and game highs of 21 rebounds and four blocks and hit a clutch shot over Shaq to put the Spurs up one with 0.4 seconds left, then Derek Fisher happened. Fisher's shot doesn't negate Duncan's performance or shot. It did negate it as far as the game-winner, but since I have the full record, I can see he wasn't the reason they lost. Was the leading scorer for the Spurs in Game 6, but didn't shoot well. So he can be legitimately criticized for his performance after the first two games, with the exception of Game 5, when he played well and seemingly hit the game-winner.
Notes: I won't beat a dead horse, but TD again failed to be the most impactful player on the floor in this series. A tad over 20 ppg for the series, and outside of that great shot in game 5, really underperformed. SA was up 2-0 in that series, and proceeded to lose 4 straight. In game 6 Kobe again had 12 in the 4th to close it out. Save a shot here and there, TD's inability to be a consitent closer really was exposed.
And this is Prime TD we're talking about. I watch the Spurs nearly as uch as the Lakers back then, but dominance was something TD always lacked. He's the Big Fundamental, and very consistenly good, but didn't really have that extra gear to matchup up when facing LA.
2006: This is bizarre. 32.3 points on 55.6 percent shooting and 61.5 percent true shooting, 11.7 rebounds, 3.7 assists and 2.57 blocks.
....
Duncan tied an NBA playoff record by hitting his first 12 shots, a bit of trivia I'm fairly certain no one on this board knows unless I posted this before. (Oddly enough, no one at the time actually said whose record he tied. I looked, because I was curious, but everyone only said he tied a record, including ESPN.com. And since no one said it then, it's too late to find out now.)
In the deciding Game 7, Duncan had 41/15/6/3. Fouled out two guys trying to defend him. Only Elgin Baylor and Charles Barkley had 41 and 15 in a deciding Game 7 of an NBA playoff series.
Again though, TD's impact comes largely on the defensive side of the court. Yes, he played great offense, but defensively SA had a 114.7 DRtg.
As you can tell, I'm not a fan of volume scoring TD. He seems to either shoot badly, or neglect the defensive side when he does it. And for SA that's bad news. Keep in mind that SA' DRtg for the season was 99.6, to put in perspective just how bad they were playing. Had this been Wilt putting up high volume numbers with bad defense, he would be called out.
Dirk in particular was 27/13, and unlike Kobe, that was a matchup TD could have actually impacted, but failed to. Keep in mind Drik did his number on 25.5 USG%, while TD was a whopping 34.6 USG%
As for Game 7: TD did have 41/15, absolutely beastly numbers. But....Dirk had 37/15 too, so where was the all-time great defensive anchor yet again. Where's the defensive impact? High volume TD me no likey, lol. And in OT TD blew 3 shots which sealed the deal.
2008: I remember this was the series Manu Ginóbili averaged 12.6 points on 35.8 percent shooting, 3.2 rebounds and 3.2 assists after averaging 21.3 points on 43.5 percent shooting from the floor and 38.6 percent shooting from beyond the arc, 4.1 rebounds and 6 assists in the Western Conference Semifinals against New Orleans. I specifically noted that in the file. The lone win of the series Ginóbili had 30 points on 9-for-15 shooting from the floor, 5-for-7 from beyond the arc, and 7 of 7 from the line, and Duncan had 22 points, 21 rebounds and five assists.
Ok, but for the #4 all-time, I need to see dominance. Surely TD wouldn't be outplayed yet again by Kobe in a series, right? Yet that's what happened. When comparing Russell vs Wilt, these types of playoff battles are talked about a lot, but TD getting bested in multiple series by other players in his prime years is problematic for me.
Notes: Kobe dominated the series, but more than that, TD shot a 46.5 TS% and really could do hardly anything on court to prevent losing in 5. This is 2008 TD, so I would assume Prime TD, and if not, what does it say for his impact post 08 and how impactful Pop's system was.
In 01/02/04/08 Kobe and 06 Dirk outplayed Prime TD. His prime goes from maybe 99-08? So in 5 of his prime years he wasn't the best player on the floor in playoff series. Yes SA won 60-wins often, but fizzled in the playoffs quite a bit too. yes TD was a great defensive anchor, but that couldn't stop great offensive anchors 5 different times in a 10-season span.
I'm being very critical mainly because I feel TD isn't getting much scrutiny. #4 is too high based on where I put him, and especially since his ranking amongst his peers is in question. But also to balance out things for Wilt/Shaq who get hyper-analyzed.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016 Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
GOAT = (Peak x 20%) + (Prime x 35%) + (Longevity x 10%) + (Award x 35%).
1. MJ 2. Kareem 3. Lebron 4. Russell.
It appears the consistency stick so far, so I'm going with Russell as my #4. I will argue for Russell due to the fact he is the most successful, most accomplished NBA player in history. His winning pedigree is unmatched by anyone, including Jordan. He won 5 MVPS in a time when Wilt/Oscar/Elgin/West was putting up godly stat. He was top 5 in MVP votes share throughout his 12 years NBA career so he was clearly an elite player every years.
Without counting his Final MVP (it's safe to say if they reward back in the day he would have a lot more of those), he was the run away #2 accumulating the most accolades result. Some highlight from Russell.
-11 titles -5 MVPs -12x all-stars -known as the GOAT defender -leader of men, not just on the court.
Alternate candidate:
My 2nd pick is Tim Duncan who has a very similar winning pedigree to Bill Russell. 5x champs and consistency throughout his career.
Doctor MJ wrote: Re: if he were a braggart would't we know? Well that's the always the argument presented by those suffering from cognitive dissonance. I make it a point to deal with my potential biases more proactively than that.
Okay then.....
I don't know the context of the quote. I don't know if his intention was to brag, to exaggerate, if he was told at the time that's what he did and never stopped to think about if it was truly possible, if he misspoke, whatever.
It's hard for me personally to take one quote absent context and decide that should have more impact on how I view Russell's trustworthiness than the more than 60 years of evidence suggesting he has a great deal of credibility. Maybe that makes me naive or suffer from cognitive dissonance. But so be it.
And even were I to reach the conclusion that his purpose for telling that story in his book, was to create some sort of false legend to make himself look better I also refuse to judge people by one isolated incident. I think to myself have I ever exaggerated something? OR even stated a total falsehood?
Chuck I have a lot of respect for you. Do know that I'm not trying to take a shot at you. But when you commit a fallacy, I'ma call ya on it.
I should be clear that I've perhaps overemphasized how much direct impact this quote has on my assessment of Russell. Let me generalize here and say we're constantly in battle nowadays trying to figure out how much credibility a source should get. No one has my absolute trust, but that should not imply that I don't listen and factor in.
Probably the most destructive trait humans have in this social media world is the inability to "undo" connections in their brain, and what I'm talking about here is how I try to compensate for that. When I hear someone has made an incredible claim, if I have the time, I want to go back to previous things I've learned from and about them and look for anything else that fits the same mold. If there is I need to try to reconstruct the schema I built without relying on their objectivity.
Doctor MJ wrote:Okay so here's what we would expect in an ideal setting:
The more the alpha shoots, the easier it is for his teammates to shoot. Thus, while the alpha's efficiency goes down, the teammates' efficiency goes up. And were the alpha to shoot less, we'd expect his teammate's efficiency to go down.
If that was what happened in '67, it wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal. What we found instead was:
When the alpha shot less, his teammates's efficiency went up. WAY up. The NON-Wilt '67 76ers shot a higher FG% than the '66 76ers did including Wilt.
And so that's what's important here along with considering why Hannum made the change he did.
This feeling you have that individual production essentially can't lie is misguided. This is not baseball. In basketball the best player on the court can make his team worse if he gets in the way of their flow.
Wilt's teammate efficiency went up because he went from up 5.2 to 7.8 apg though in 67'. He had to carry the 1st option role, and playmaker duties that season. Why penalize him for adapting his game to improve his team? He had to take more shots in 66' because Cunningham was a rookie, and Jackson/Jones were both in their 2nd year. In 1967 the young guys took more of the scoring load and Wilt had more help so he played more of a facilitator role.
Conversely, Russell never was leading Boston's offense, and had his teammates carrying the offense throughout his career. If Wilt had guys like Cousy, Sam Jones, or Hondo most of his career, then he wouldn't have needed to score nearly as much. Once he finally got some scoring help he did adjust his game.
To me, this is just Global vs. Individual impact -- something so important that it's the cornerstone of my book. It has nothing to do with Wilt really, he's just the most illustrative example.
Thinking Basketball wrote:“In 1967, Chamberlain shot the ball eleven fewer times per game. This precipitous decline came after several record-setting seasons in which he shot at least 25 times per game. Of the ten regulars in the Philadelphia lineup that season, Wilt was eighth in scoring attempts per minute. The result was the league’s best offense by a landslide and the highest rated offense to that point in NBA history.”
They went from a league average offense to the GOAT offense at the time with nearly perfect roster continuity. Simply crediting this to three young players aging a year defies all evidence and probability, especially since (a) Hannum talked to Wilt about the Global game and (b) Wilt clearly changed, then the results happened. And what was Wilt's new role? Leveraging his ability to improve the efficiency of his teammates. You're describing the game as if it's a bunch of at-bats, and Wilt just let some of the young guys have more attempts when they were finally ready.
Conversely, guys like LeBron are so good not because they dominate the ball, but because they are constantly stressing the defense by either calling their own number or a teammates', depending on which has a higher percentage play based on response of the defense. This is also why Doc criticizes Wilt (rightfully) even after 67, because he didn't simply find a court balance that turned him into a big-man version of Magic or Nash, but instead went back to being individual-centric at times, or became overly infatuated with assists or FG% so he could claim those titles. This suggests that Wilt could never intuit (or cared to intuit) an optimal balance, and that instead 67 was so effective because how novel it was to opponents.
Ardee wrote:I am voting Russell here but I still do not understand this thing that people put forward about Wilt's earlier years, as if we're supposed to ignore that:
1962: They came within a game 7 buzzer beater of beating Boston 1964: They made the Finals 1965: Havlicek stole the ball.
It's not as if his style of play made it impossible for them to win. Acting as if Wilt's teams those years were so definitively inferior to the Celtics is acting like the 2013 Spurs were definitively inferior to the 2013 Heat.
If Ray Allen misses that shot, you still give LeBron the same credit right? So because Jones made that shot or Hondo made that lucky steal, why are those singular plays taking Wilt's credit?
Can't speak for others, but for me the teams weren't very good outside of 64. Weaker teams will upset better team all the time just due to normal variance in the sport. In 62 they were -6 vs. Boston. In 64 only -3. In 65 -8! This is a 1-seed vs. an 8-seed. If you were to credit teams for how they performed in a single game or a single series, you'd have to start doing backflips to explain how the 08 Lakers were worse than the 08 Hawks, and thus Kobe and Gasol really weren't as good as Josh Smith and Joe Johnson.
I definitely think Hannum took the team in a different direction. But that still wouldn't have been possible with Wilt's previous rosters. He was still averaging 5.2 apg before Hannum took over, so its not like he hadn't been a playmaker before. And sorry, but yes Wilt's teams were inferior to Russell's. The 1960's Celtics were the first super team.
Looks like we have some disagreements here Elgee, because I definitely can't agree with Lebron "constantly stressing the defense by either calling their own number or a teammates', depending on which has a higher percentage play based on response of the defense". This has been perhaps my biggest Lebron critique for nearly 9 years here. He's a great passer and very unselfish, but a subpar facilitator. He doesn't set pieces much at all, which is why players tend to do worse playing next to him. I called the 2009 upset over this very thing despite Dwight having a weaker cast and no Jameer. Great defenses can stifle Lebron, and his under-utilization of teammates really leaves them out of luck grasping for spot up shots once Lebron dribble-dribbles and kicks.
Not sure where you're going with the Celtics teams weren't all that good outside of 64', that's just silly. Weaker teams rarely upset the better team, and the reason the 08 Hawks took the 08 Celtics to more games than the Lakers was because Boston overlooked them. The intensity of games changes from series to series, nevermind the 2-3-2 Finals format that was a bit dubious.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016 Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
Doctor MJ wrote:But when you commit a fallacy, I'ma call ya on it.
I count on it. Goodness knows I have more than my share.
I guess I'm confused where in my original post I committed said fallacy. I never claimed to believe his claim--in fact I went and researched it trying to find information and the best thing I could source had him falling way short of that and I posted it.
I did say I wasn't going to label him a ridiculous braggart based on one statement absent context. I guess I strongly disagree that's an illogical position. Especially when I didn't just say Russell has a great track record, I'm just going to accept him at face value but tried to independently confirm his statements.
But yeah track record is going to buy guys some leeway for me. When Donald Trump says something my default assumption is that it's either a flat lie or misleading partial truth. Now sometimes obviously he is telling the truth, but he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt at this point. When Tony Dungy says something my default is going to be to believe him until I have reason not to.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
I doubt that Shaq is going to be voted here, but this will be relevant in coming rounds, as well as an assessment of Kobe during the Shaq/Kobe during era.
Shaq all in all was a player who through out his career undermined or threatened to undermine his teams, to the point of willing to blow up his teams, to rectify perceived slights to ego. I think this is important in assessment of his scalability, his leadership and hypothetical scenarios in which he'd be teamed up with other ATGs, who unlike Penny Hardaway, would not bow down to Shaq's antics. It's a knock against him v dudes like TD and Bill.
Shaq in 00-01 for example, waged a war against Kobe, as he blamed the team's chemistry (read defense: the offense was fantastic and was best in the league during their bickering) on Kobe's selfishness/ball dominance. Shaq threatened to not play defense if Kobe didn't pass him the ball more, and there were strong rumblings he was trying to get Kobe dealt.
Of course, All of Shaq's claims were either highly exaggerated or downright false. The team still scored a bucket load, and the assist rate remained the same. Shaq was still getting his shots- he just was shooting sub 45% from the FT line for a 44 game stretch with Kobe to start the season, despite attempting 13 FTA. Kobe hilariously had a higher TS%, despite Kobe's 3 ball game at this stage being non-existent.
Also, over 8 games in the 01 RS, when he was out, Kobe was able to anchor an 8th ranked defense with Greg Foster/Madsen/Horry front court, and Isaiah Rider getting substantial minutes. Truly awful. The team preformed better (relative to the ORTGs of the teams they were facing) minus Shaq. They didn't miss a beat on D w/o Shaq, which is not surprising because anyone who watched Shaq that season, knew his threats of not playing D were not idle- in fact he was not playing D all RS, and was only able to slightly recover his DRAPM (barely above 0 by the end), during the stretches where Kobe was out, and he played elite D because the entire team revolved around him again. This alone strongly indicates he tanked the team's D for most of the RS. Shaq also knew very well (and in fact he successfully did it) that he and his band of followers could easily shift all the lakers losses on Kobes head, thereby putting pressure on Kobe to cave.
If not for Kobe's injury in late 01, the Lakers perhaps get blown up, and majorly majorly because Shaq was inventing lies and exaggerating things from the get-go. IMO this an indictment on him, as it shows you the type of dude he was. Shaq had no problem with folks doing well around him... so long as when doing it, they sought validation and permission from him, and if this was not done, he'd set the house on fire. A truly dominant player, but it took him going to Miami in his early 30s to figure out how f'd his mentality was for most of his career.
Kareem's on TNT right now talking about Russell. "Combining a point guard's speed with a big man's body". I guess this is part of a tribute to him. Interesting facts on display (Russell was first to win HS, college & NBA championship), obviously first African American NBA coach...ah, it's the lifetime achievement award
Doctor MJ wrote:I appreciate how you put that first sentence. I'm aware that I sometimes come across as presumptuous in my words. You started us off here magnanimously.
To answer: If Wilt had gone to a new team for the first time, changed his role, and had great success, it would have have been coherent to argue that the real difference was simply teammates, and that Wilt responded with amazing versatility.
But Wilt went to the new team, gave it his best shot as a score-first player, and then the new coach threw that player effectively in the bin never to return again, and Wilt's teams were better for it.
Because of this we have to ask ourselves whether Wilt was having vastly greater impact all those years on the Warriors than he was in his score-first start on the 76ers. And given that those Warriors never had an impressive offense, and Wilt showed in '65 he was fully capable of getting his stats while having no impact whatsoever, there's very little tying his huge scoring to actual impact, and ample evidence to suggest that Wilt's impact came elsewhere on the court.
Note that I'm not saying that Wilt never had a positive impact due to his scoring ability. The issue has to do with defenses' ability to chip away at the value added by Wilt-scoring attempts using strategy, and the fact that teams can better specialize strategy in the face of predictable opponent strategy along the tunnel vision that often comes with guys looking to score.
These are fair points. Your argument is that while Wilt's scoring did impact his early teams positively, it didn't match up with Russell's defensive impact for the Celtics. I think that's tough to argue against. In that era, Russell was able to enact more impact in the early 60's. Full disclosure, I put Wilt & Russell a notch above Mikan, and really struggle with equating their era to later ones. I just tend to feel Wilt gets dumped on a healthy amount in these discussions.
Re: What are we to think of Kareem. Well you're talking to a guy who basically made clear he thought Kareem is being considerably overrated by the voters here. He was however a far more effective scorer than Wilt along with a more consistent defender (though Wilt at peak focus was a considerably stronger defender).
Fair enough.
Re: punished for adapting. Well that's what we're talking about. Again, I'm not punishing him for adapting, I suppose though you could say I'm punishing him for the need to adapt in the first place.
If Phil Jackson had made the Bulls win titles by having Jordan score 20 PPG, I'd think less of Jordan's seasons scoring 30+. Simple as that.
To be clear though, it's the combination of the need to change how Wilt played with the fact that Wilt took to it inconsistently from that point on that's so problematic. Had Wilt enthusiastically played the '67 way in Philly until '75 and had the results been spectacular, it wouldn't make sense to me to knock Wilt. The knock on his prior impact could be chalked up only to primitive coaching strategy.
I would agree with you here. Consistently was Wilt's biggest issue. Its why he tends to fall toward the bottom of my Top 10 list. Argh, you're making it hard to play devil's advocate.
But in '68 Wilt decided he wanted to leave Philly to play in LA. In '69 Wilt destroyed the best offensive scheme in the league in LA, the place he had pushed to come.
Wilt started making progress again in '70 eventually leading to that beautiful run in '72, by then he'd been in the league more than a decade playing most those years highly sub-optimally and earning a reputation as a flighty prima donna. None of this makes him something other than a legend and an all-time great, but competition is tough this high up on the GOAT list, and he's competing with a bunch of players who maxed out basically everything they could (and Shaq).
Can't argue with this. Great points
Oh he played "Red's way"? Please point to the previous player Red worked with who played like Russell. Please point to the roots of the defensive scheme the Russell Celtics used in the years before Russell arrived.
AUF you've been around here a while. You surely have read the interviews and anecdotes about the sheer unorthodoxy of Russell's play. It was considered the wrong way to play. Russell just kept right on doing it. He brought it with him to college, and then to the pros. He got away with it to some degree just because he was lucky. He couldn't have known that he'd so rarely get burned even in the NBA that his seemingly risk-heavy defensive approach would transform the game, he was just playing the way it came naturally to him.
This is not to say that I think Red had no influence over Russell, but it's frankly in my mind a really high compliment of Red to say that he adapted his team strategy to Russell rather than forcing Russell to play like other big men.
Re: Mikan already. Mikan, like Wilt, tried to do everything. We can look back now and say Mikan's teams won with defense, but back when MIkan was winning titles while leading the league in scoring people didn't understand this.
Russell thus doesn't represented the spearhead of winning with defense, but the spearhead of understanding that you're winning with defense.
Of course that's not what I really mean when I talk about Russell being a new thing. Mikan was a giant compared to his peers, and his peers were basically brand new to trying to become professional athletes. In the wake of Mikan, people THOUGHT that the league would be dominated by absolute behemoths and there was an article I believe Regul8r has posted showing a bunch of high school big men who were thought to be the future of the league. Of those profiled, only Wilt accomplished anything in the NBA.
What those involved with the NBA soon found is that with some basic strategy and skill improvements, you could avoid much damage from a slow big man.
Along came Russell. Quick as a guard, great motor, extremely long, and an astonishing intuitive feel for how to impact the game. All of that meant that he could dive out to the perimeter, or leap up to contest shots you were supposed to not leave your feet on, without getting his team burned. Once Red saw what he had, he adjusted team strategy to funnel opposing players like a Venus fly trap so that Russell could have his way with them.
By Red's way, I'm talking about playing in a professional system. these were the early days of the NBA, and Red as a coach was on a different level when it came to preparation. Russel was definitely an oddity with his defensive style, much like Mikan was the decade before with his post game. But I do feel Red's coaching helped to foster his mindset towards games, where as Wilt did his own thing.
I'm a big team system guy. Pretty much every successful NBA team has had a solid team system and players who fits it at an elite level. The Celtics were like putting Jim Brown on Lombardi's Packers.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016 Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
rebirthoftheM wrote:I doubt that Shaq is going to be voted here, but this will be relevant in coming rounds, as well as an assessment of Kobe during the Shaq/Kobe during era.
Shaq all in all was a player who through out his career undermined or threatened to undermine his teams, to the point of willing to blow up his teams, to rectify perceived slights to ego. I think this is important in assessment of his scalability, his leadership and hypothetical scenarios in which he'd be teamed up with other ATGs, who unlike Penny Hardaway, would not bow down to Shaq's antics. It's a knock against him v dudes like TD and Bill.
Shaq in 00-01 for example, waged a war against Kobe, as he blamed the team's chemistry (read defense: the offense was fantastic and was best in the league during their bickering) on Kobe's selfishness/ball dominance. Shaq threatened to not play defense if Kobe didn't pass him the ball more, and there were strong rumblings he was trying to get Kobe dealt.
Of course, All of Shaq's claims were either highly exaggerated or downright false. The team still scored a bucket load, and the assist rate remained the same. Shaq was still getting his shots- he just was shooting sub 45% from the FT line for a 44 game stretch with Kobe to start the season, despite attempting 13 FTA. Kobe hilariously had a higher TS%, despite Kobe's 3 ball game at this stage being non-existent.
Also, over 8 games in the 01 RS, when he was out, Kobe was able to anchor an 8th ranked defense with Greg Foster/Madsen/Horry front court, and Isaiah Rider getting substantial minutes. Truly awful. The team preformed better (relative to the ORTGs of the teams they were facing) minus Shaq. They didn't miss a beat on D w/o Shaq, which is not surprising because anyone who watched Shaq that season, knew his threats of not playing D were not idle- in fact he was not playing D all RS, and was only able to slightly recover his DRAPM (barely above 0 by the end), during the stretches where Kobe was out, and he played elite D because the entire team revolved around him again. This alone strongly indicates he tanked the team's D for most of the RS. Shaq also knew very well (and in fact he successfully did it) that he and his band of followers could easily shift all the lakers losses on Kobes head, thereby putting pressure on Kobe to cave.
If not for Kobe's injury in late 01, the Lakers perhaps get blown up, and majorly majorly because Shaq was inventing lies and exaggerating things from the get-go. IMO this an indictment on him, as it shows you the type of dude he was. Shaq had no problem with folks doing well around him... so long as when doing it, they sought validation and permission from him, and if this was not done, he'd set the house on fire. A truly dominant player, but it took him going to Miami in his early 30s to figure out how f'd his mentality was for most of his career.
This is a bit harsh on Shaq. Yes, he did have issues with Penny in Orlando, and tried to trade Kobe away about a million times behind the scenes, but on-court....dude was a monster. I have him behind Kobe, Duncan, Lebron for the post-lockout era, largely due to his injuries, and bad defensive seasons, but still he had a great peak and part of the GOAT NBA duo.
Shaq vs Wilt would and should be a good debate.
7-time RealGM MVPoster 2009-2016 Inducted into RealGM HOF 1st ballot in 2017
I've stated often enough that I'll sound like a broken record, but the rare combination of offensive and defensive peak with the success to show for it is almost unmatched with regards to Dream. Won every major matchup against his contemporaries. Put Dream on the Spurs or Lakers in the 2000s-present and I think he surpasses what Shaq/Duncan achieved. For Russell, I can't put Wilt above him because even if Russell's teams were superior, the fact that Russell dominated the results speaks volumes.
I think Wilt/Magic/Bird/Shaq/Kobe/Duncan are much closer in comparisons than many think, none were "clearly" the best player of their generation, but perhaps that's a testament to the competition they faced with regards to other all-time great talents at this level.
rebirthoftheM wrote:I doubt that Shaq is going to be voted here, but this will be relevant in coming rounds, as well as an assessment of Kobe during the Shaq/Kobe during era.
Shaq all in all was a player who through out his career undermined or threatened to undermine his teams, to the point of willing to blow up his teams, to rectify perceived slights to ego. I think this is important in assessment of his scalability, his leadership and hypothetical scenarios in which he'd be teamed up with other ATGs, who unlike Penny Hardaway, would not bow down to Shaq's antics. It's a knock against him v dudes like TD and Bill.
Shaq in 00-01 for example, waged a war against Kobe, as he blamed the team's chemistry (read defense: the offense was fantastic and was best in the league during their bickering) on Kobe's selfishness/ball dominance. Shaq threatened to not play defense if Kobe didn't pass him the ball more, and there were strong rumblings he was trying to get Kobe dealt.
Of course, All of Shaq's claims were either highly exaggerated or downright false. The team still scored a bucket load, and the assist rate remained the same. Shaq was still getting his shots- he just was shooting sub 45% from the FT line for a 44 game stretch with Kobe to start the season, despite attempting 13 FTA. Kobe hilariously had a higher TS%, despite Kobe's 3 ball game at this stage being non-existent.
Also, over 8 games in the 01 RS, when he was out, Kobe was able to anchor an 8th ranked defense with Greg Foster/Madsen/Horry front court, and Isaiah Rider getting substantial minutes. Truly awful. The team preformed better (relative to the ORTGs of the teams they were facing) minus Shaq. They didn't miss a beat on D w/o Shaq, which is not surprising because anyone who watched Shaq that season, knew his threats of not playing D were not idle- in fact he was not playing D all RS, and was only able to slightly recover his DRAPM (barely above 0 by the end), during the stretches where Kobe was out, and he played elite D because the entire team revolved around him again. This alone strongly indicates he tanked the team's D for most of the RS. Shaq also knew very well (and in fact he successfully did it) that he and his band of followers could easily shift all the lakers losses on Kobes head, thereby putting pressure on Kobe to cave.
If not for Kobe's injury in late 01, the Lakers perhaps get blown up, and majorly majorly because Shaq was inventing lies and exaggerating things from the get-go. IMO this an indictment on him, as it shows you the type of dude he was. Shaq had no problem with folks doing well around him... so long as when doing it, they sought validation and permission from him, and if this was not done, he'd set the house on fire. A truly dominant player, but it took him going to Miami in his early 30s to figure out how f'd his mentality was for most of his career.
This is a bit harsh on Shaq. Yes, he did have issues with Penny in Orlando, and tried to trade Kobe away about a million times behind the scenes, but on-court....dude was a monster. I have him behind Kobe, Duncan, Lebron for the post-lockout era, largely due to his injuries, and bad defensive seasons, but still he had a great peak and part of the GOAT NBA duo.
Shaq vs Wilt would and should be a good debate.
He definitely was a monster 2 way player at his peak/prime... when he wanted to be. But I cannot recall an other ATG player like Shaq who was clearly deliberately under-performing on one side of the ball (and yes the teams defensive problems also went beyond him, but he was the anchor and therefore his failures were felt more) and was seeking to blow-up his team to simply get his way. I mean I could understand it if Shaq was doing it to conserve his energy for the playoffs. But this was not remotely the case... as soon as Kobe would sit/miss games, suddenly Shaq turned into a defensive beast.
The Shaq/Wilt comparision would be interesting, as it appears Wilt was another dude who for significant portions of career, played for his stats and was allergic to proper team building. I watched some clippings recently, and apparently Wilt used to run to the stat collectors at half/time to know where he was standing.
Still both of them are beats, and all have strong claims to be in the top 5. But since there's been many conversations about leadership and fostering great team cultures, this commentary is relevant.
This to me should be between Wilt and Russell. Russell imo should have been voted earlier. Russell's dominance in his era was well documented and supported by accolades (MVP's and rings), stats and eye test. The results speak for themselves and you just cant argue with that.
Vote: Bill Russell Alt: Wilt Chamberlain
Frank Dux wrote:
LeChosen One wrote:Doc is right. The Warriors shouldn't get any respect unless they repeat to be honest.
According to your logic, Tim Duncan doesn't deserve any respect.
rebirthoftheM wrote:, which is not surprising because anyone who watched Shaq that season, knew his threats of not playing D were not idle- in fact he was not playing D all RS, and was only able to slightly recover his DRAPM (barely above 0 by the end), during the stretches where Kobe was out, and he played elite D because the entire team revolved around him again. This alone strongly indicates he tanked the team's D for most of the RS. Shaq also knew very well (and in fact he successfully did it) that he and his band of followers could easily shift all the lakers losses on Kobes head, thereby putting pressure on Kobe to cave.
. as soon as Kobe would sit/miss games, suddenly Shaq turned into a defensive beast.
These are major accusations that I assume you have some significant evidence to support then? Could you please provide it in detail? Thanks in advance because I know you don't want this to look like just a pro-Kobe, anti-Shaq created narrative.
For instance, one possible explanation for what you claim above is that Kobe was holding the defense back and thus it looked better when he was out rather than Shaq flipping a switch in an attempt to show Kobe up. So obviously you understand the need to back this up with some evidence, yes?
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
Doctor MJ wrote:But when you commit a fallacy, I'ma call ya on it.
I count on it. Goodness knows I have more than my share.
I guess I'm confused where in my original post I committed said fallacy. I never claimed to believe his claim--in fact I went and researched it trying to find information and the best thing I could source had him falling way short of that and I posted it.
I did say I wasn't going to label him a ridiculous braggart based on one statement absent context. I guess I strongly disagree that's an illogical position. Especially when I didn't just say Russell has a great track record, I'm just going to accept him at face value but tried to independently confirm his statements.
But yeah track record is going to buy guys some leeway for me. When Donald Trump says something my default assumption is that it's either a flat lie or misleading partial truth. Now sometimes obviously he is telling the truth, but he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt at this point. When Tony Dungy says something my default is going to be to believe him until I have reason not to.
The point about if he were an exaggerator, wouldn't we basically already know it? The fact that I apply a judgment-charged label to a man who does not have that label is seen as an affront, and I get why, but if the dude said he could reach 14 feet, the simplest explanation to me is that he's an exaggerator.
Sometimes it doesn't really matter what your existing reputation is. If you stake your credibility on an absurd statement, then you lose your credibility.
I'm not, to be clear, pledging to drop everything and get to the bottom of this situation, and I am not going to abruptly change my opinion of Russell in a fit of pique. But it matters to me stuff like this. I don't dismiss it as moot.
Doctor MJ wrote:But when you commit a fallacy, I'ma call ya on it.
I count on it. Goodness knows I have more than my share.
I guess I'm confused where in my original post I committed said fallacy. I never claimed to believe his claim--in fact I went and researched it trying to find information and the best thing I could source had him falling way short of that and I posted it.
I did say I wasn't going to label him a ridiculous braggart based on one statement absent context. I guess I strongly disagree that's an illogical position. Especially when I didn't just say Russell has a great track record, I'm just going to accept him at face value but tried to independently confirm his statements.
But yeah track record is going to buy guys some leeway for me. When Donald Trump says something my default assumption is that it's either a flat lie or misleading partial truth. Now sometimes obviously he is telling the truth, but he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt at this point. When Tony Dungy says something my default is going to be to believe him until I have reason not to.
The point about if he were an exaggerator, wouldn't we basically already know it? The fact that I apply a judgment-charged label to a man who does not have that label is seen as an affront, and I get why, but if the dude said he could reach 14 feet, the simplest explanation to me is that he's an exaggerator.
Sometimes it doesn't really matter what your existing reputation is. If you stake your credibility on an absurd statement, then you lose your credibility.
I'm not, to be clear, pledging to drop everything and get to the bottom of this situation, and I am not going to abruptly change my opinion of Russell in a fit of pique. But it matters to me stuff like this. I don't dismiss it as moot.
I honestly can't believe this particular conversation is going on. I've consciously tried to avoid it, because to me it's so tangential to the point that I feel that it's taking away from the conversation. I wish I'd never posted it, as the point I was trying to make was that Russell was a ridiculous athlete, the likes of which we don't have at center in today's NBA. And, based on the measurables that have come out, that seems a fair thing to say. 6-11 center with a 7-4 wingspan, 9-4 standing reach, 12' 7" standing vertical leap, known Olympic caliber high-jumper (rated #2 in the USA at time he entered the NBA), known high-quality sprinter who his peers routinely describe as having the quickness/speed of a guard. I think that the measurables emphatically tell the story that I wanted to get across...Russell was an absurd athlete, and would be seen as such today.
That said.
Dude...you're speaking AWFULLY confidently about something that you weren't there for. I don't know if the man reached 14 feet. But in our earlier exchange, it seemed that you stipulated that it was reasonable that he may have touched the top of the backboard. Dwight Howard, in present day, has to be able to touch near 13-feet to dunk on a 12-foot rim, and every indication is that Russell could very easily have been the better leaper.
Obviously, you're a grown man. You can believe what you will, I can't stop you. But you REPEATEDLY making these statements that Russell is essentially lying about something that YOU DON'T KNOW is frankly reaking of arrogance and it's increasingly irritating. You say that no current NBA player can touch the top of the backboard...you don't know that either. And there are plenty of reasons to believe that Russell is a better leaper than the current generation of bigs, anyway.
I don't know. I'll probably regret this post, because it's a snap response. But PLEASE stop condescendingly claiming how Russell is a liar that you have to re-evaluate everything he says. If that's what you want to do, do it, but you continually doubling tripling quadrupling down on something that you have absolutely no way to know is (in my opinion) derailing the conversation here in an extremely irritating way.
I count on it. Goodness knows I have more than my share.
I guess I'm confused where in my original post I committed said fallacy. I never claimed to believe his claim--in fact I went and researched it trying to find information and the best thing I could source had him falling way short of that and I posted it.
I did say I wasn't going to label him a ridiculous braggart based on one statement absent context. I guess I strongly disagree that's an illogical position. Especially when I didn't just say Russell has a great track record, I'm just going to accept him at face value but tried to independently confirm his statements.
But yeah track record is going to buy guys some leeway for me. When Donald Trump says something my default assumption is that it's either a flat lie or misleading partial truth. Now sometimes obviously he is telling the truth, but he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt at this point. When Tony Dungy says something my default is going to be to believe him until I have reason not to.
The point about if he were an exaggerator, wouldn't we basically already know it? The fact that I apply a judgment-charged label to a man who does not have that label is seen as an affront, and I get why, but if the dude said he could reach 14 feet, the simplest explanation to me is that he's an exaggerator.
Sometimes it doesn't really matter what your existing reputation is. If you stake your credibility on an absurd statement, then you lose your credibility.
I'm not, to be clear, pledging to drop everything and get to the bottom of this situation, and I am not going to abruptly change my opinion of Russell in a fit of pique. But it matters to me stuff like this. I don't dismiss it as moot.
I honestly can't believe this particular conversation is going on. I've consciously tried to avoid it, because to me it's so tangential to the point that I feel that it's taking away from the conversation. I wish I'd never posted it, as the point I was trying to make was that Russell was a ridiculous athlete, the likes of which we don't have at center in today's NBA. And, based on the measurables that have come out, that seems a fair thing to say. 6-11 center with a 7-4 wingspan, 9-4 standing reach, 12' 7" standing vertical leap, known Olympic caliber high-jumper (rated #2 in the USA at time he entered the NBA), known high-quality sprinter who his peers routinely describe as having the quickness/speed of a guard. I think that the measurables emphatically tell the story that I wanted to get across...Russell was an absurd athlete, and would be seen as such today.
That said.
Dude...you're speaking AWFULLY confidently about something that you weren't there for. I don't know if the man reached 14 feet. But in our earlier exchange, it seemed that you stipulated that it was reasonable that he may have touched the top of the backboard. Dwight Howard, in present day, has to be able to touch near 13-feet to dunk on a 12-foot rim, and every indication is that Russell could very easily have been the better leaper.
Obviously, you're a grown man. You can believe what you will, I can't stop you. But you REPEATEDLY making these statements that Russell is essentially lying about something that YOU DON'T KNOW is frankly reaking of arrogance and it's increasingly irritating. You say that no current NBA player can touch the top of the backboard...you don't know that either. And there are plenty of reasons to believe that Russell is a better leaper than the current generation of bigs, anyway.
I don't know. I'll probably regret this post, because it's a snap response. But PLEASE stop condescendingly claiming how Russell is a liar that you have to re-evaluate everything he says. If that's what you want to do, do it, but you continually doubling tripling quadrupling down on something that you have absolutely no way to know is (in my opinion) derailing the conversation here in an extremely irritating way.
drza I like you a whole lot, and you're clearly upset right now and owning up to it. I get there sometimes. I'm going to drop except to say one thing that I think is too important to let stand:
I never called Russell a liar. I said the most likely explanation was that Russell exaggerated pretty aggressively which would change how I see him, and which could conceivably have dramatic effects. If that distinction isn't meaningful to you so be it, it is to me.
There's no possible way Russell could reach 14 feet.
That's 4.26 m. His standing reach was 9'4" (2.84 m). Considering his legs may very well be around 1 meter long, that means his hips would have to reach (4.26 - 2.84 + 1) = 2.42 m in pike position for him to touch 14 feet. Yeah... no. Impossible. In fact, I'd say it's about as impossible as dunking from the 3-point line.
13 feet is already very dubious (hips at around 2.10 m).
This place is a cesspool of mindless ineptitude, mental decrepitude, and intellectual lassitude. I refuse to be sucked any deeper into this whirlpool of groupthink sewage. My opinions have been expressed. I'm going to go take a shower.
Goodness knows I have more than my share. 
