Bill Russell or Wilt Chamberlain career?

[liamliam1234]

Yet another amazing take from the person who praised Dwight Howard for “trusting” his teammates more.

[WarriorGM]

Yet another amazing take from the person who praised Dwight Howard for “trusting” his teammates more.

But a consistent one. Russell beat Wilt. Dwight beat LeBron. In the aftermath of such losses we keep hearing the same refrain: His teammates! His teammates! I'm amenable to arguments of it not being a fair fight if you can show injuries were at play or something of similar impact but if the match can be construed as basically fair then no. I find the teammates argument increasingly ludicrous when I see how it is being applied. You're now going to apply it to Russell vs. Wilt?

[liamliam1234]

Why do you consistently assume all teammates are equal despite all evidence to the contrary.

[WarriorGM]

Why do you consistently assume all teammates are equal despite all evidence to the contrary.

Why do you so consistently assume players who win a lot only do so because they had superior teammates than the opponents they beat?

What's this "all evidence to the contrary"? Russell joins the Celtics they start winning. Russell gets injured they have a worse record. Russell retires they lose. The evidence is consistent. Indeed given the sample size of winning is as good as there is in NBA history and stretches for over a decade, the evidence may be the most overwhelming available for any player.

[liamliam1234]

Why do you consistently assume all teammates are equal despite all evidence to the contrary.

Why do you so consistently assume players who win a lot only do so because they had superior teammates than the opponents they beat?

What's this "all evidence to the contrary"? Russell joins the Celtics they start winning. Russell gets injured they have a worse record. Russell retires they lose. The evidence is consistent. Indeed given the sample size of winning is as good as there is in NBA history and stretches for over a decade, the evidence may be the most overwhelming available for any player.

Because the idea that basketball is a game of four replacement players and a star is absolute nonsense.

That sample is true of basically ever star player. The list of stars who failed to make the team better or was totally replaceable upon exit is zero.

And besides that, the Celtics had a down year after losing their star centre and coach... and then upon drafting Cowens went 44 -> 56 -> 68! (Havlicek injured in playoffs) -> two titles in three years. Gee, what a terrible infrastructure. Meanwhile, the Cavaliers were in shambles after Lebron left, immediately became a top two (three in 2018) team during his return, and then collapsed entirely upon his absence. But oh, I have seen you try to play that off as him being poisonous to the team. So evidently a dip is good for impact, but too much of a dip is bad. The dishonesty never ends.

[WarriorGM]

Why do you consistently assume all teammates are equal despite all evidence to the contrary.

Why do you so consistently assume players who win a lot only do so because they had superior teammates than the opponents they beat?

What's this "all evidence to the contrary"? Russell joins the Celtics they start winning. Russell gets injured they have a worse record. Russell retires they lose. The evidence is consistent. Indeed given the sample size of winning is as good as there is in NBA history and stretches for over a decade, the evidence may be the most overwhelming available for any player.

Because the idea that basketball is a game of four replacement players and a star is absolute nonsense.

That sample is true of basically ever star player. The list of stars who failed to make the team better or was totally replaceable upon exit is zero.

And besides that, the Celtics had a down year after losing their star centre and coach... and then upon drafting Cowens went 44 -> 56 -> 68! (Havlicek injured in playoffs) -> two titles in three years. Gee, what a terrible infrastructure. Meanwhile, the Cavaliers were in shambles after Lebron left, immediately became a top two (three in 2018) team during his return, and then collapsed entirely upon his absence. But oh, I have seen you try to play that off as him being poisonous to the team. So evidently a dip is good for impact, but too much of a dip is bad. The dishonesty never ends.

LeBron? Why do you feel it necessary to shoehorn LeBron into this discussion? I don't recall Russell compelling his team in a bid to win immediately to trade in all its young assets for veterans who by the end of the short run are old husks of their former selves.

[liamliam1234]

Because it is the same thick-headed issue with 2009 Lebron/Howard. It is not rational, it is not consistent, it is just baseless garbage to push your own player preferences and antipathies.

[freethedevil]

And besides that, the Celtics had a down year after losing their star centre and coach... and then upon drafting Cowens went 44 -> 56 -> 68! (Havlicek injured in playoffs) -> two titles in three years. Gee, what a terrible infrastructure. Meanwhile, the Cavaliers were in shambles after Lebron left, immediately became a top two (three in 2018) team during his return, and then collapsed entirely upon his absence. But oh, I have seen you try to play that off as him being poisonous to the team. So evidently a dip is good for impact, but too much of a dip is bad. The dishonesty never ends.

Celtics also collapsed in russell's absence. Not sure how them succeeding after a rebuild contradicts that.

[liamliam1234]

They did not collapse, they lost fourteen more games after losing their star centre/coach. Obviously Russell had impact, but saying that impact is proof that the rest of the team was nothing special is nonsense when we watched the same team succeed as soon as they replaced Russell with someone who could approximate like fifty percent of his value.

[freethedevil]

They did not collapse, they lost fourteen more games after losing their star centre/coach. Obviously Russell had impact, but saying that impact is proof that the rest of the team was nothing special is nonsense when we watched the same team succeed as soon as they replaced Russell with someone who could approximate like fifty percent of his value.

Their srs dropped by 8 points. That is literally the same drop off the cavs had when lebron left for miami. They went from champions to not even making the playoffs.

[liamliam1234]

Again, I am not saying he had no impact. The Heat is the comparison I hoped would be raised: most would say those teammates were not scrubs, but they still needed a year of adjustment before returning to the playoffs and nearly making the conference finals without their best or second-best player.

1969 is a great accomplishment for Russell, and on paper the Lakers had a fair talent advantage (huge coaching disadvantage, though... which, yes, also speaks to Russell’s brilliance). However, it was far from a one-man effort. After Russell, Boston was still led by a top ten player (and top ten is probably underselling Havlicek).