Moderators: trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ
falcolombardi wrote::wink:Amares wrote:Agree about Jordan here, by casuals and most society he is treated as a God who would beat everyone, win everything and whenever he wanted. And people believe that, even tought his team had losing seasons most of his career.
the last part is not true tho, not that it changes your point but bulls were always a winning record when jordan played (not in 86 but jordan missed 60 games)
Jaivl wrote:countryboy667 wrote:McBubbles wrote:
About 90% of the stats I see posted about Wilt are straight up falsehoods. He didn't have a 48 inch vertical, he didn't have half the high school / college records people said he did, he didn't fight a mountain lion.
BUT, he's still one of the best athletes of all time and 4th all time imo. Just wish people could praise him without making **** up.
Proof, please that those things you cited (except maybe the mountain lion) are falsehoods. And there aren't any three you can name better than Wilt. If you have proof, please provide it.
If he truly had a 48" vert, then he has by far the worst ratio ever in terms of true athleticism vs on court athleticism, because he looks 36-38" at best (which is still *massive* for a big man). 48 inch is "upper chest on rim" kind of vert for a +2.15 m man.
José Calderón has a 40 inch vert. Prove me wrong!
70sFan wrote:DQuinn1575 wrote:70sFan wrote:There was no three point line in the 1970s. Three point line wasn't used at all in the 1980s. I see no reason to think that Russell would lose significant portion of his value in these eras.
1990s started to utilize three point shot more, so there is a case that Russell wouldn't be as impactful, but then again - 1997-04 era was horrible on offense and strong defensive players arguably had higher impact than offensive stars.
Russell would have the impact, but wouldn't have the luxury of the team. He joined the best team in the league, and then benefitted as Oscar & the combo Baylor of West went to the worst teams. Then in a six year span between 1962-1968 the best player to join the league was Havlicek. The whole question is how much do you credit his team and the situation.
1. Celtics team wasn't the best in the league in 1956.
2. Rick Barry, Willis Reed and Nate Thurmond were all arguably better than Havlicek among those who joined the league in 1962-68 period.
70sFan wrote:DCasey91 wrote:All things being equal from players to coaches to gameplan I think a Wilt led team would kill a Russell led team.
Why didn't he kill Russell in 1966, 1968 and 1968?
DQuinn1575 wrote:70sFan wrote:DQuinn1575 wrote:
Russell would have the impact, but wouldn't have the luxury of the team. He joined the best team in the league, and then benefitted as Oscar & the combo Baylor of West went to the worst teams. Then in a six year span between 1962-1968 the best player to join the league was Havlicek. The whole question is how much do you credit his team and the situation.
1. Celtics team wasn't the best in the league in 1956.
2. Rick Barry, Willis Reed and Nate Thurmond were all arguably better than Havlicek among those who joined the league in 1962-68 period.
1. Russell joined a team that added Tommy Heinsohn to the 1956 team and had the best record in the league when he joined in 1957.
2. Going by win shares and by the REalGM Top 75 ranking both go to Havlicek. He and Barry are really close in my book.
DCasey91 wrote:You have to read my posts they had extra 20 ppg scorers.
Wilt put up 46/33 in game 5 1966 ffs
They had by far and away the best team if you account for the 12 years!
The analysis has already been done between Wilts teammates and Russell’s throughout the duration and it’s not close
The analysis has already been done through their heads up matches it’s it not close either.
Out of the top ten Wilt faced the best defenses and not only passed he destroyed. What is going on lol
If Wilt put up 9.3 points on 31.6% FG in the Finals and still win the championship 4-0 as a 24 year old wouldn’t that dampen his GOAT case? That would be impossible though because then the team he was on would lose. Wouldn’t that bring into question how conquering the overall team was?
Never understood the Bill vs Wilt argument it’s as clear as day who was better.
70sFan wrote:*snip*
70sFan wrote:DCasey91 wrote:You have to read my posts they had extra 20 ppg scorers.
What extra 20 ppg scorers Russell had in 1966? Sam Jones was legit, but Havlicek in 1966 was way before his peak, wasn't a 20 ppg scorer in RS and shot absolutely horribly against the Sixers. I don't see any reason to believe that Jones/Havlicek duo was much better than Greer/Walker duo in 1966.Wilt put up 46/33 in game 5 1966 ffs
It's true, but thoughout th first 4 games he averaged 23.5 ppg on 49.5 TS%. He really underperformed in the series, like the whole Sixers team did.They had by far and away the best team if you account for the 12 years!
They had by far the best team in 1957-62 period. In 1963 Lakers started to catch them up, then in 1964 they weren't clearly more talented than Royals or Lakers. In 1966 Philly started to catch them up. In 1967-68 period, Sixers were clearly more talented. In 1969, Knicks had the most talented team in the league, Lakers were also quite strong.
quote]The analysis has already been done between Wilts teammates and Russell’s throughout the duration and it’s not close
The analysis has already been done through their heads up matches it’s it not close either.
Out of the top ten Wilt faced the best defenses and not only passed he destroyed. What is going on lol
If Wilt put up 9.3 points on 31.6% FG in the Finals and still win the championship 4-0 as a 24 year old wouldn’t that dampen his GOAT case? That would be impossible though because then the team he was on would lose. Wouldn’t that bring into question how conquering the overall team was?
Never understood the Bill vs Wilt argument it’s as clear as day who was better.
countryboy667 wrote:Jordan. He played in one of the weakest periods in modern NBA history, after the Bird Celtics and Showtime Lakers were done and when the Bad Boys were not at their peak. There was no real competition at that time for a totally stacked Bulls team. While great, Jordan gets too much credit for their success because he had an incredible supporting cast that would have been a damned good team, probably a title team, even with a lesser player in his place.
Hakeem is a close second. Hideously overrated on this board. Would have loved to see him against a prime Wilt, a prime Russell, or a prime Nate. He would get badly exposed IMO.
OTH, Magic is underrated a bit here--here was a guy who was skilled enough he could legitimately plasy well at all five positions. And anyone who thinks Bird is overrated I think just never saw him at his best. He was magical. And no-one in the history of the NBA was a shark like him--absolutely savage killer instinct and incredible BBIQ.
70sFan wrote:DQuinn1575 wrote:70sFan wrote:1. Celtics team wasn't the best in the league in 1956.
2. Rick Barry, Willis Reed and Nate Thurmond were all arguably better than Havlicek among those who joined the league in 1962-68 period.
1. Russell joined a team that added Tommy Heinsohn to the 1956 team and had the best record in the league when he joined in 1957.
2. Going by win shares and by the REalGM Top 75 ranking both go to Havlicek. He and Barry are really close in my book.
1. It's true, but the sample of size is 24 games. I don't think it's enough to say that Celtics were clearly the best team in the league. It's true that he was lucky when he went to the Celtics. He wasn't nearly as lucky in mid-60s though.
2. Havlicek is ranked high mostly because of his post-Russell work. He stepped up in 1968 and went to another level in 1971. Nobody ranks Havlicek higher than Barry because of 1963-66 years, Hondo wasn't in his prime yet then.
ceiling raiser wrote:Bird for me. Wilt is really hard to get a read on, but I don't think he's more overrated than Bird unless someone has him as clear-cut GOAT.
Heej wrote:I appreciate the videos and all and they were nice to watch but I'm not sure you fully see what it is I'm getting at. Even in those videos you can see Wilt is straight up stiff in the hips and nowhere near as fluid an athlete as Bill Russell was. I have stated multiple times that he had exceptional power and explosiveness.
In regards to Shaq, you're linking videos of Shaq when he's a solid 50-100 lbs heavier than the videos of Wilt. Wilt wouldn't be able to move anywhere near as much as Shaq could if he weighed that much, and vice versa I found Orlando Shaq to be a more fluid and coordinated athlete when he played at a similar weight.
I'm sorry but this clip is just a whole other level of fluidity compared to anything you showed me from Wilt. From the way Shaq hops on his feet and stays on balance vs lurching the way Wilt does to how in control he was in all of his movements and able to rapidly decelerate (which is another major contributing factor to your coordination, and to me Wilt lacked great talent in deceleration), he moves like a much smaller man. Almost like a forward If not the movement patterns of a big guard.
Now watch some of the fast break clips of Shaq. Does he run like a big man? Somewhat, yes but moreso like a big forward. The lackluster ballhandling works against him in this case but you can clearly see his balance is just naturally better and his hips are naturally more fluid. In short he's just a more fluid athlete, and at similar playing weights their explosiveness is highly comparable though I'm perfectly fine with giving Wilt the edge in raw power.
There's levels to this s*** as far as fluidity goes. And Wilt is good for his size but certainly not the GOAT as far as coordination goes for a man of his size. And thus to me he's the most overrated athlete and I would take Shaq over him as a pure athletic marvel any day of the week. And I would also urge RealGMers to consider the importance of fluidity when evaluating a player's build. For me personally, that trait is only second to size now when I look at a player's physicals.
70sFan wrote:Heej wrote:I appreciate the videos and all and they were nice to watch but I'm not sure you fully see what it is I'm getting at. Even in those videos you can see Wilt is straight up stiff in the hips and nowhere near as fluid an athlete as Bill Russell was. I have stated multiple times that he had exceptional power and explosiveness.
I don't see any stiffness in Wilt's movement to be honest. If you want to compare him to Russell, then of course he looks stiffer - he was 3 inches taller and 60 lbs heavier than him. Shaq also looks stiff next to Russell.In regards to Shaq, you're linking videos of Shaq when he's a solid 50-100 lbs heavier than the videos of Wilt. Wilt wouldn't be able to move anywhere near as much as Shaq could if he weighed that much, and vice versa I found Orlando Shaq to be a more fluid and coordinated athlete when he played at a similar weight.
I showed Shaq clips from 1999/00 season, when he was 340 lbs. That's not 50-100 lbs heavier than Wilt in the videos I provided, Wilt weighed 300 lbs in those clips. It is a big difference, but 40 lbs is not 100 lbs.
Besides, the difference in mass should explain why Wilt isn't as nimble as Russell... Shaq isn't as nimble as Russell either, not even close.
Do you want me to find Orlando Shaq being stiff and lumbering? It's not hard to find, especially his defensive movement wasn't any better.I'm sorry but this clip is just a whole other level of fluidity compared to anything you showed me from Wilt. From the way Shaq hops on his feet and stays on balance vs lurching the way Wilt does to how in control he was in all of his movements and able to rapidly decelerate (which is another major contributing factor to your coordination, and to me Wilt lacked great talent in deceleration), he moves like a much smaller man. Almost like a forward If not the movement patterns of a big guard.
So you show a practise video where Shaq tries to look like a guard to prove your point? We don't have such clips from Wilt unfortunately, but I don't find it convincing.Now watch some of the fast break clips of Shaq. Does he run like a big man? Somewhat, yes but moreso like a big forward. The lackluster ballhandling works against him in this case but you can clearly see his balance is just naturally better and his hips are naturally more fluid. In short he's just a more fluid athlete, and at similar playing weights their explosiveness is highly comparable though I'm perfectly fine with giving Wilt the edge in raw power.
Maybe we look at different things, because Shaq definitely looks like a bigman during the run. He's not even close to someone like David Robinson or Bill Russell in terms of fluidity. I haven't seen him doing any quick turns or nice examples of deceleration in the whole video (and we have a lot more material to choose from Shaq than from Wilt).There's levels to this s*** as far as fluidity goes. And Wilt is good for his size but certainly not the GOAT as far as coordination goes for a man of his size. And thus to me he's the most overrated athlete and I would take Shaq over him as a pure athletic marvel any day of the week. And I would also urge RealGMers to consider the importance of fluidity when evaluating a player's build. For me personally, that trait is only second to size now when I look at a player's physicals.
If anything, I think that Shaq's higher availablility of footage makes him overrated. We have a lot of highlight reels from Shaq and people watch his coast to coast plays, his dunks, powerulf finishes and nimble footwork and then they start to believe that this is how Shaq looked like for the majority of the game. That's not true, Shaq was lumbering on defense in a way even 1973 Wilt wasn't. He was slow, very methodical on offense as well.
I hope that once I get more 1962-68 Wilt footage, this would be clearer.
The Explorer wrote:LeBron James
He only got to top 10 level after he GMed his way to titles. No other goat candidate had the advantage of picking and choosing his teammates and coaches. They worked with what they had and succeeded. James never did that.
DCasey91 wrote:70sFan wrote:So basically the whole criticism on Russell is that he didn't score well enough? That basically proves that he's not overrated at all...
Russell is overrated by definition being that he’s by far the worst offensive player not just scoring alone but offense in general by some distance on this list.
It’s suspect the more you pour into the numbers/players/era/depth etc etc.
Wallace still needed Billups, Rasheed etc. Gobert would still need X player.
For me Celtics were overloaded for that whole decade plus. It helps getting positionally ranked players from 1-5, the best depth, Hondo literally in the middle of it.
I don’t buy what Bill is selling but that’s my personal belief.
There’s zero markers for this being that far down the pecking order on a regular winning championship team so there’s zero basis to go off from.
All things being equal from players to coaches to gameplan I think a Wilt led team would kill a Russell led team.
You’d have to rewrite everything then and say well if that player was here today was sub average offensively in totality and his PER markers weren’t close but was streets ahead defensively we’d win multiple championships as the guy that’s not how it works.
I can’t really build a good case for Russell so I stopped ages ago. I’m betting the house there was an undercurrent that people here remiss.