Celts/Heat Dame 7

[champs99and04]

Chamberlain still has the highest average (when rounded he and Jordan are tied for #1) yet over the last six years of his career Wilt was not used as a scorer (and for the record did lead the league in assists one season and averaged double digit assists a few other seasons). If scoring this is the yardstick, MJ can't hold a candle to Wilt.

If championships is the yardstick, Russell has is all over MJ as even if you were to assume titles in '93-'94 & '94-'95 (when MJ decided to play baseball) he would only have tied Bill's longest streak and would have fallen shy on the titles Bill won before and after the eight year run.

In order to attempt to compare MJ with Baylor or Oscar, you would need to somehow determine how the two players from the 1960's would have fared in a watered down league (three times as many teams in the 90's) where one player (due to marketing philosophy and officiating) is allowed to dominate an entire game (with an assist from the officials). You can also throw in a three point line that MJ was able to benefit from that none of the others (or Jerry West from that era) had.

MJ was a great player, don't misinterpret that but he also was the beneficiary of Nike, ESPN and the NBA all going out of their way to promote him to a level well beyond anything he really did accomplish. Give me a starting lineup of Wilt, Russell, Baylor, Oscar and West, players like Jerry Lucas, Walt Bellamy, Nate Thurmond, Lenny Wilkens, John Havlicek and Hal Greer on the bench (all players who played at least eight seasons in the 1960's) and I'll put that against any all star lineup from any era, including the 1992 dream team.

Alright, first of all, comparing raw statistics from different eras can be extremely misguiding. Wilt was obviously the best player of all-time statisticly, but you have to keep in mind games were a lot higher scoring back then, with consistent scores of 150-140. Chamberlain put up 35-40 field goals per game when he was in his prime, and also, shooting percentages were a lot lower, which obviously enabled Chamberlain to grab more rebounds. Then you also have to consider the fact that there were no defensive or offensive three second violations, and that the league was a lot less integrated and prone to slow footed white guys who were a good four inches shorter than him. Think Dwight Howard in the WNBA and that's what you have in Chamberlain back in the day. All those built in advantages, jaw-dropping statistics, and he still only won two championships and was considered a mediocre teammate at best by his peers (I.E. selfish).

Russell won eleven championships and is one of the best leaders/winners in the history of team sport, however, there were what, half as many teams back then? And obviously there was a lot less parity, and it was easier to keep teams together without salary caps, etc.

I'm not discounting either of these two among the greatest the game has seen, but MJ is IMO, undeniably the the greatest player ever. Nike, ESPN, etc. only helped him from a visibility standpoint, they didn't make him the GOAT. And as 21Huskies has said, the athletes of today's game are FAR superior to the athletes of the 50's and 60's. That's just the way society rolls - as time advances, things get bigger, stronger, faster, and better. When I'm a 70 year old man watching the NBA 50 years from now I'll probably be saying the same thing.

 

[21Huskies]

Yeah, I don't get how Kobe is overrated? I thought he was the beneficiary of Shaq when he won his first three titles, but he won championships with Gasol, Artest, Bynum, and of course, Phil Jackson ( who, according to some posters here, is only a good coach because of MJ, Pippen, Shaq, and Kobe). Kobe is a fierce competitor, and is the closest thing to MJ that we have seen. He will be an all-time great (5-15) when his career is over. 5 championships. Don't know how any of this is overrated.

Because you can play incredibly bad and your team can still win and you can play incredibly well and your team can still lose. Winning games is a team accomplishment therefore judging who the best player is based on who has the most rings is a flawed argument.

The best player is the guy who puts his team in a position to win on a night in and night out basis by putting up the most efficient numbers regardless of winning and losing (don't confuse this with putting up raw numbers, they have to be done so efficiently). A player can only be held accountable for what he is responsible for.
Kobe throughout his career has never been the best player in the league for any one season (if you disagree, find one). Kobe is a great player because he's been a very high end player for a long period of time, but he's never been the best and because of that when people say 'he's the closest to MJ' he becomes overrated. He's the guy who was media/shoe company inflated above any other to create him from a great player to the legend many think he is.

 

[JaYnYcE]

You can have your efficiency, he's a shooting guard, thats what he does. Kobe is a 5 time champion, 2 time finals MVP, 2 time scoring champion and a 1 time NBA MVP. He's also 5th overall on the All Time NBA Scoring list behind Kareem, Malone, Jordan and Wilt. He's a bonafide first ballot hall of famer and is regarded as one of the best shooting guards in the history of the league. I trust my eyes and for years Kobe has taken over games and demoralized defenses. There was a stat on ESPN during the regular season that said Kobe had the most game winning (or game tying) shots since 2003 with Carmelo being right behind him and Dirk behind Melo I believe. The man can ball and has been the best player in the league with the total package of talent, will and being able to close at the end of the game for years now.

I (as well as many other normal people) take championships more seriously. I asked a while back to name me a team besides the 2004 Detroit Pistons that has won a title without a perinnial all star and no one has yet to name one. Even that team had Ben Wallace who was an All-Star that year and Rasheed Wallace who was an All-Star in years before he got to Detroit. It's hard to win a championship without a star player, and win or lose- more often than not, everything falls on that player.

 

[21Huskies]

You can have your efficiency

you realize efficiency isn't some opinion or something i'm making up. its just what ACTUALLY happens on the court. so 'you can have your efficiency' doesn't actually make sense. basically, you're saying... you can have the truth. i'll take my opinion

he's a shooting guard, thats what he does

what does this mean? thats what he does? if you played and took 50 shots per game, even you may score 8-10 points per NBA game by luck. it doesn't mean you are a better player than a guy who scores 4 points per game and shoots twice per game. it just means your opportunities (usage) are different. Just because someone is a shooting guard doesn't give them the free pass to be inefficient. Kobe is a high usage/high volume shooter who is not always efficient an often hurts his teams chances of winning as much as helps.

Kobe is a 5 time champion, 2 time finals MVP, 2 time scoring champion and a 1 time NBA MVP.

he's an amazing player, i never said he wasn't. i said he's overrated. its possible to be really good and still be overrated. there are alot of players who were as good as Kobe in our generation. Duncan i'd put ahead of him (although hard to compare across positions), Garnett is at least as good and Wade and Paul are right there as well with a few more years of top level production.

He's also 5th overall on the All Time NBA Scoring list behind Kareem, Malone, Jordan and Wilt.

if you shoot enough and play long enough and you're a really good player then you're going to score a lot of points.

He's a bonafide first ballot hall of famer and is regarded as one of the best shooting guards in the history of the league.

yes he is and i agree, he is one of the best shooting guards of all time.

I trust my eyes and for years Kobe has taken over games and demoralized defenses.

you shouldn't ever make judgements based on your eyes... thats just ego talking(believing you know more than the data) your eyes told you Lebron 'couldn't finish' last week, now he's in the finals and everyone is apologizing and saying they were wrong, next week he might lose again and your opinion will change again... your eyes are too decieving and the brain is too fickle. you are effected by bias and perceptions the same way I am and any other human. its human nature. trust the facts first.

There was a stat on ESPN during the regular season that said Kobe had the most game winning (or game tying) shots since 2003 with Carmelo being right behind him and Dirk behind Melo I believe. The man can ball and has been the best player in the league with the total package of talent, will and being able to close at the end of the game for years now.

Stats can be very decieving which is why despite me being a numbers freak its important to know how to analyze the numbers properly. Kobe's efficiency in those situations isn't good. he's missed a ton of those shots. if you don't believe me go to 82games.com or hoopdata.com and scroll thru and educate yourself.

I (as well as many other normal people) take championships more seriously. I asked a while back to name me a team besides the 2004 Detroit Pistons that has won a title without a perinnial all star and no one has yet to name one. Even that team had Ben Wallace who was an All-Star that year and Rasheed Wallace who was an All-Star in years before he got to Detroit. It's hard to win a championship without a star player, and win or lose- more often than not, everything falls on that player

i take championships extremely seriously, just not when judging individual talent... i'm a basketball fan first. As for the teams all having stars. Of course they do... the best players give their teams the best chances of winning, that should be obvious. Its not a coincidence Lebron is in the finals facing Kevin Durant. They are two of the 5 best players in the league with very good teams around them. In the playoffs, when the game slows down it becomes much more isolated on the top talent, which is why a team like OKC with a better star (Durant) will beat a better team (San Antonio) who doesn't have as elite of a player, but you need to have excellent talent around you to pick up the slack in the games that the top player has an off night.

 

[JaYnYcE]

He's a shooting gaurd and your calling him overrated because he shoots too much.

I respectfully disagree with your argument, and I'll leave it at that.

 

[21Huskies]

He's a shooting gaurd and your calling him overrated because he shoots too much.

I respectfully disagree with your argument, and I'll leave it at that.

no, i'm calling him overrated because he misses too much.

 

[JaYnYcE]

no, i'm calling him overrated because he misses too much.

LOL

 

[Frank Ivy]

I still can't believe anybody gives LBJ crap about leaving Cleveland.
Crap about giving up in one series? Yes. Give him crap about that.
Crap about televising the choice? Yes. Crap him about that.
Crap about not telling Cleveland? Yes. Crap.
But leaving Cleveland?
And so what if he chose the team he was going to? He fulfilled his contract with the CCs, and he got to pick where he was going next. What's wrong with that? You quit your job at Burger King nobody is telling you not to work at Jack in the Box.


Cleveland won zip without LBJ. It's a basketball black hole. They didn't win the East before he got there, and they haven't since he's been gone. The odds of the C Cavs winning diddly before the team bolts town is slim to none.

To anybody who has ever criticized the dude for leaving Cleveland, I only ask - have you ever been to Cleveland?

 

[JaYnYcE]

Criticizing LeBron for anything is fun.

 

[babysheep]

Criticizing LeBron for anything is fun.

No, hobbies are fun. What you claim to find "fun" is just sad.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

The trade hinged on their approval. If either would have refused it would not have gone down. Those words are from Ainge

J...not comparing Jordan to Rodman. Comparing his help to the help LeBron had. You saw that cuz. If we are going to debate, at least be real about the point you are arguing against. Fact is LBJ has not had any supporting cast until last year. Jordan didn't win a damn thing until he got a cast. This is a team sport. No one man can carry a team all the way to a title. Not Wolf, not Jordan, not LeBron.

 

[JaYnYcE]

How is that possible? Unless there is something that I'm missing, teams can trade a player without them even knowing it, Deron Williams for example.

And I understand the help issue and yes Jordan had a better supporting cast then Lebron ever had, including Miami. With that being said, both stars had the best team in the league at certain points in their career and yet one of them was able to win and the other has yet to. It's unbelievable how much slack this guy gets with some people. I'm not saying that you are, but if you do then that's your prerogative.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FfldCntyFan]

If the 1960s all stars you mentioned played the dream team or any all star team of today, they'd lose 85 of 100 games and that's being generous.

I'm not some fair weather nba fan either, I have studied the game and seen tapes from all eras. The game simply isn't comparable. As I said earlier Bill Russell was the same size as Paul George. If Shaq in his prime was going up against him, he'd put up video game numbers. He'd have 100 pounds and at least 3 inches on him. No matter how great,smart,savvy Russell was, he simply wouldnt have physically been able to guard him.

Watch a game tape of a 60's game. It's no fault of those players (they were obviously great at the time) but the game has progressed so far that it's a pointless effort to debate between era's like that. We have a much larger base of players to pick from, better training, better technology to study, better understanding of statistical analysis, guys actually play defense now,etc etc etc. the game is just different

MJ lives up to all the hype... I actually think his numbers were underrated, if that's even possible. Like an earlier poster said, some of his least efficient seasons were more efficient than Kobe's best seasons

Your youth is showing. It is unfortunate that you weren’t able to see some of these players when they were at the tops of their games. If you had, you would not have responded with such an ill-informed post.
If you read my post, Shaq wouldn’t have been guarded by Russell (who FWIW did guard players as large and more skilled than Shaq). He would have gone against Wilt and Shaq would have fouled out in about eight minutes of game time as he wouldn’t have been able to compete with Wilt. Wilt was as tall, stronger and a considerably better athlete than Shaq an d Wilt actually did have skills beyond having a big body when there was no longer anyone willing to play the low post. There is also a frame of reference on this comparison as Shaq played against Olajuwon, Robinson and Ewing who all played against Jabbar who played against Wilt. If the mismatch was close to what you claim, a mid 20’s Jabbar should have been able to dominate a ten year older Chamberlain (he did not) and then, he should have been dominated by fifteen plus years younger Hakeem, Patrick and later David (they did not) who all should have been dominated by Shaquille (Patrick was after his knees gave out but until then, he had the athleticism to hang with Shaquille while Hakeem and Robinson had the athleticism to make Shaq look silly, before he got too fat to be a real basketball player, except in the early part of this millennium where he was able to pull it off). In all candor, Shaq is a slightly taller, much fatter version of Bob Lanier with fewer post moves and no post defense.

Alright, first of all, comparing raw statistics from different eras can be extremely misguiding. Wilt was obviously the best player of all-time statisticly, but you have to keep in mind games were a lot higher scoring back then, with consistent scores of 150-140. Chamberlain put up 35-40 field goals per game when he was in his prime, and also, shooting percentages were a lot lower, which obviously enabled Chamberlain to grab more rebounds. Then you also have to consider the fact that there were no defensive or offensive three second violations, and that the league was a lot less integrated and prone to slow footed white guys who were a good four inches shorter than him. Think Dwight Howard in the WNBA and that's what you have in Chamberlain back in the day. All those built in advantages, jaw-dropping statistics, and he still only won two championships and was considered a mediocre teammate at best by his peers (I.E. selfish).

Russell won eleven championships and is one of the best leaders/winners in the history of team sport, however, there were what, half as many teams back then? And obviously there was a lot less parity, and it was easier to keep teams together without salary caps, etc.

I'm not discounting either of these two among the greatest the game has seen, but MJ is IMO, undeniably the the greatest player ever. Nike, ESPN, etc. only helped him from a visibility standpoint, they didn't make him the GOAT. And as 21Huskies has said, the athletes of today's game are FAR superior to the athletes of the 50's and 60's. That's just the way society rolls - as time advances, things get bigger, stronger, faster, and better. When I'm a 70 year old man watching the NBA 50 years from now I'll probably be saying the same thing.

As far as the size of players in Jordan’s era vs Wilt & Russell’s, I vividly remember (at most fifteen years ago) people (supposed NBA experts no less) gushing about Rodman as (I can’t type this without laughing) the best rebounder ever. Rodman is smaller than Russell and couldn’t hold a candle to Russell or Wilt (or about a dozen other players from the 60’s & 70’s) rebounding. If my proposed (assuming all at similar ages) game could be played, there is no way in hell the 92 dream team could come close to rebounding against the likes of Wilt and Russell.
On someone’s comment about West guarding Jordan, West was a better defended than many realize but yes, he would have had quite a bit of trouble if that were the matchup. Jordan (unless the refs gave him ridiculous leeway, which they did quite often) would have had quite a bit of trouble guarding West. That would not be that matchup however as Oscar would have gone against Jordan (and eaten him for lunch). Oscar was almost as tall, faster, much stronger, a better ball handler, passer, shooter from any distance and a better defender. This also would likely be the closest matchup (in favor of the 92 team) on the floor (Magic-West would be an interesting one but he couldn’t score the way West could.

The 92 team was the best team ever put together but that statement absolutely needs qualification as twenty five years earlier there was no need to put the best professionals together for the US to win the gold medal (look up who was considered the best US Olympic men’s hoops team ever prior to the dream team). If there was a team put together in the mid-late 1960’s made up of the best professionals, anyone with an objective opinion who did happen to see all of the above mentioned players at their best would speculate whether the 92 team could win a game or two in a best of seven series against the 1960’s team.

I’m not in my 70’s. I’m a couple of decades away from there but I have seen quite a bit of basketball in my ~ 50 years and similar to knowing that at his best Nolan Ryan had a far better fastball than Roger Clemens at his best, I know that there was little that Jordan could do that Oscar couldn’t do better and there were many things Oscar could do that Jordan couldn’t.
On the number of teams in the league comments, how the hell is that in favor of the players in a 30 team league? The Celts always had a minimum of three (up to six at one point IIRC) future hall of fame players to put around Russell. Players like Robertson, Lucas & Chamberlain didn’t end up with so few titles (one, one & two respectively) because they weren’t good, there was just too damned much competition cramped over too few teams. If you take a shot of vodka and put it in an eight ounce glass of OJ you have a screwdriver. If you put it in a gallon jug you cannot tell that there’s any alcohol in the drink.
I know I won’t convince anyone because it appears clear that none of the arguments I’m debating are coming from anyone who understood the game before ~1985. If anyone did, they wouldn’t hesitate to put Magic ahead of Jordan. I can go on for hours on the (non hoops) athletic achievements of Russell and Wilt but this would fall on deaf ears as well.

 

[Huskies4ever]

you shouldn't ever make judgements based on your eyes... thats just ego talking(believing you know more than the data) your eyes told you Lebron 'couldn't finish' last week, now he's in the finals and everyone is apologizing and saying they were wrong, next week he might lose again and your opinion will change again... your eyes are too decieving and the brain is too fickle. you are effected by bias and perceptions the same way I am and any other human. its human nature. trust the facts first.



Stats can be very decieving which is why despite me being a numbers freak its important to know how to analyze the numbers properly. Kobe's efficiency in those situations isn't good. he's missed a ton of those shots. if you don't believe me go to 82games.com or hoopdata.com and scroll thru and educate yourself.

Your eyes can reveal facts that stats never could. Kobe is a legend. 30 years from now he will be talked about. How can a player with his accolades be overrated? His shooting efficiency isn't as good as some other stars. So what? He's a ball hog and you can call his character into question. So, what? Look at how high a level he has played at for such a long time, look at his accomplishments and explain to me how he is overrated. Sorry, but if your going to call Kobe overrated, you might as well call Shaquille O'Neal small. By the way, I am not a fan of Kobe's by any stretch of the imagination, but I can admire his game, his warrior's mentality, and everything he has done since entering the league as a teenager.

 

[Huskies4ever]

The trade hinged on their approval. If either would have refused it would not have gone down. Those words are from Ainge

J...not comparing Jordan to Rodman. Comparing his help to the help LeBron had. You saw that cuz. If we are going to debate, at least be real about the point you are arguing against. Fact is LBJ has not had any supporting cast until last year. Jordan didn't win a damn thing until he got a cast. This is a team sport. No one man can carry a team all the way to a title. Not Wolf, not Jordan, not LeBron.

Still, Allen, Garnett to Boston vs. James to Miami is apples to oranges.

 

[tzznandrew]

On someone’s comment about West guarding Jordan, West was a better defended than many realize but yes, he would have had quite a bit of trouble if that were the matchup. Jordan (unless the refs gave him ridiculous leeway, which they did quite often) would have had quite a bit of trouble guarding West. That would not be that matchup however as Oscar would have gone against Jordan (and eaten him for lunch). Oscar was almost as tall, faster, much stronger, a better ball handler, passer, shooter from any distance and a better defender. This also would likely be the closest matchup (in favor of the 92 team) on the floor (Magic-West would be an interesting one but he couldn’t score the way West could.

As for Oscar Robertson (who I think was a great player, and one of the best ever), I'd like to challenge some of your points.

On shooting:

Arranging their shooting % from highest to lowest:
53.9% (MJ [1])
53.8% (MJ [2])
53.5% (MJ [3])
52.6% (MJ [4])
51.9% (MJ [5])
51.8% (OR [1])
51.5% (MJ [6])
51.1% (OR [2])
50.0% (OR [3])
49.6% (OR [4])
49.5% (MJ [7])
49.5% (MJ [8])
49.3% (OR [5])
48.6% (MJ [9] and OR [6])

I think that would suffice, as well as career percentages: Robertson - 48.5%, Jordan - 49.7%

I think that your suggestion that he was a better shooter from the field may not be accurate, as some of the Jordan stats are after "Air Jordan."

It's difficult to do much else because a number of stats (TOs, steals, blocks) weren't taken. It's makes it difficult to argue about who was the better ball handler, or defender, or what-have-you. Although, there was an NBA All-Defensive Team started in 68-69 (Robertson averaged 24 ppg, 9.8 apg, 6.4 rpg), and he never made either first or second team even once. Contrast that with Jordan who not only made a ton of them, but won DPOY. You may try to argue that the voters were biased, but he did lead the league in steals that year, and two others.

Do we go Win Shares, then, which takes into account how they played against their own competition?

MJ led the league in that 9 times, and was second twice. Robertson led it once, and was second 4 times.

In order of Win Shares:

21.2 (MJ [1])
20.6 (OR [1])
20.4 (MJ [2])
20.3 (MJ [3])
19.8 (MJ [4])
19.0 (MJ [5])
18.3 (MJ [6])
17.7 (MJ [7])
17.4 (OR [2])
17.2 (MJ [8])
17.0 (OR [3])
16.9 (OR [4] and MJ [9])
16.8 (OR [5])
15.8 (MJ [10])
15.6 (OR [6])

Etc.

Sometimes it's easy to glorify players who played in the past--especially when they are among the greatest ever. But I don't think there's a statistical measure that we can use to put Robertson ahead of Jordan. And it's not like enough game footage exists that would allow us to "use our eyes." I think that the stats suggest that, at his best (the first 5 years or so) Robertson was comparable (but not equal even over that timeframe) to Jordan, but Jordan just played at a higher level much longer.