NBA Chatter Thread

Top 10:

Wilt
Jordan
Magic
Russell
Kareem
Bird
LeBron
Robertson
Shaq
Hakeem


No Kobe

I'll only go with the guys I've seen plus Wilt.

I didn't see him, but I didn't have to to know he was arguably the GOAT before Jordan. Still is for some people.

Anyway....

MJ
Wilt
Magic
Kobe
Lebron
Bird
Olajuwon
Shaq
Duncan
Barkley

Genghis Khan said:

Top 10:

Wilt
Jordan
Magic
Russell
Kareem
Bird
LeBron
Robertson
Shaq
Hakeem


No Kobe

Click to expand...

I'd play with the order some, but I agree with the list. Kobe isn't on it.

Russell was a big part of that Celtics dynasty. Just a great defensive player, but it is often overlooked that he shot 44% for his career and 43% in the playoffs.

Carp said:

Russell was a big part of that Celtics dynasty. Just a great defensive player, but it is often overlooked that he shot 44% for his career and 43% in the playoffs.

Click to expand...

He's nowhere near the top of my list of greatest of all time. Very good player but I certainly wouldn't place him in the top 10.

People just look at the total number of championships and give him the nod. Never mind the fact that, as you mentioned, he was a pretty limited offensive player. He was basically a combination of Ben Wallace and Draymond Green. And oh by the way, let's not forget that there were only about 10 teams back then and the Celtics were heavily stacked with multiple Hall of Famers.

Golden State leads 60-33 at halftime.

Rockets fans probably would rather be in the NBA lottery right about now.

1bigfan13 said:

Golden State leads 60-33 at halftime.

Rockets fans probably would rather be in the NBA lottery right about now.

Click to expand...

I would have liked that weeks ago.

My top 10 (not in order)

Jordan
Bird
Magic
Duncan
Lebron
Kobe
Kareem
Wilt
Olajuwon
Shaq

Halfway into the 1st quarter and we're already down 15-4.

We have no business being in the playoffs.

Texas Ace said:

Halfway into the 1st quarter and we're already down 15-4.

We have no business being in the playoffs.

Click to expand...

OKC is up 21 but I'm still nervous as hell because they have a bad habit of letting leads slip away.

1bigfan13 said:

OKC is up 21 but I'm still nervous as hell because they have a bad habit of letting leads slip away.

Click to expand...

Maybe they do, but we aren't good enough to take advantage of any flaw you guys might have.

As an aside, that alternate Dallas uniform is sweet. We should make it permanent.

Texas Ace said:

Maybe they do, but we aren't good enough to take advantage of any flaw you guys might have.

As an aside, that alternate Dallas uniform is sweet. We should make it permanent.

Click to expand...

Agreed on the uniform.

I'm actually surprised to see both teams wearing alternate unis. I'm not a fan of OKC's, though. I'm an anti-sleeve guy.

I love Dirk but man I wish he'd retire.

I know he put up solid numbers this year but he looks so hesitant operating in the paint tonight. Young Dirk would be making the Thunder pay for their defensive miscues.

1bigfan13 said:

I love Dirk but man I wish he'd retire.

I know he put up solid numbers this year but he looks so hesitant operating in the paint tonight. Young Dirk would be making the Thunder pay for their defensive miscues.

Click to expand...

I was surprised at how productive he was this year, but he should be a guy who gives you great bench depth now.

Maybe not quite a 6th man, but close. On any given night, he can give you 20 points or even 30 if things are going really good. But as you pointed out, his age has brought him to the point that he can't be a focal point of an offense or even a top 3 piece of a contender.

He said he'd be willing to go to the bench if the Mavs could attract Aldridge this past offseason, so he's willing to step back, but the Mavs don't exactly have superstar players on their team that they can put before him.

1bigfan13 said:

He's nowhere near the top of my list of greatest of all time. Very good player but I certainly wouldn't place him in the top 10.

People just look at the total number of championships and give him the nod. Never mind the fact that, as you mentioned, he was a pretty limited offensive player. He was basically a combination of Ben Wallace and Draymond Green. And oh by the way, let's not forget that there were only about 10 teams back then and the Celtics were heavily stacked with multiple Hall of Famers.

Click to expand...

Comparing him to Ben Wallace makes me concerned for your well being. I think you may have hit your head.

Ben Wallace averaged 5pts 9rbs.

Russell averaged 15 and 22.

Come on.

Genghis Khan said:

Comparing him to Ben Wallace makes me concerned for your well being. I think you may have hit your head.

Ben Wallace averaged 5pts 9rbs.

Russell averaged 15 and 22.

Come on.

Click to expand...

I said a combo of Draymond Green and Ben Wallace. But way to leave Draymond Green out of the argument.

I mentioned Wallace because he was an undersized defensive and rebounding stud.

I still wonder how Orlando thought it was a good idea to trade Tobias Harris. He is not a superstar, but slot him in the starting lineup and he puts up good numbers. Bad deal.

Reggie Jackson is an idiot.

1bigfan13 said:

I said a combo of Draymond Green and Ben Wallace. But way to leave Draymond Green out of the argument.

I mentioned Wallace because he was an undersized defensive and rebounding stud.

Click to expand...

It doesn't help your argument. Saying two specialty players mashed together equal one complete player doesn't diminish the complete player. You could do that with any great player.

But throwing Wallace in there is designed to highlight a player who rebounds but has essentially no offense. Russell wasn't*an offensive superstar like Wilt, but he had a decent offensive game and was phenomenal defensively. Russell averaged 3 times as many points as Wallace so they weren't the same type of player even.

As for Green, their games are different and play(ed) different positions so other than averaging a similar amount of points I don't see the comparison. Yet Green and Wallace combined don't average as many rebounds as Russell.

Why not just compare Russell to Duncan, who is a good offensive contributor and great on defense. Duncan averaged about 3.5 more points and 11 less rebounds. They played the same position with similar type games imo.

As for playing with a lot of good players like Russell did, that tends to hurt your numbers. Russell probably would have averaged more points on a lesser team.

Genghis Khan said:

It doesn't help your argument. Saying two specialty players mashed together equal one complete player doesn't diminish the complete player. You could do that with any great player.

But throwing Wallace in there is designed to highlight a player who rebounds but has essentially no offense. Russell wasn't*an offensive superstar like Wilt, but he had a decent offensive game and was phenomenal defensively. Russell averaged 3 times as many points as Wallace so they weren't the same type of player even.

As for Green, their games are different and play(ed) different positions so other than averaging a similar amount of points I don't see the comparison. Yet Green and Wallace combined don't average as many rebounds as Russell.

Why not just compare Russell to Duncan, who is a good offensive contributor and great on defense. Duncan averaged about 3.5 more points and 11 less rebounds. They played the same position with similar type games imo.

As for playing with a lot of good players like Russell did, that tends to hurt your numbers. Russell probably would have averaged more points on a lesser team.

Click to expand...

Obviously you don't know much about the 60s era of the NBA.

I've watched a few documentaries on it and read Bill Simmons' Book of Basketball. Although I wasn't around back in that era, all of the resources share a very similar message. And that message is that it was very easy to have inflated stats during that era. The game was a very up and down, run and gun style of play. In fact they even mentioned recently while assessing the Warriors place history how back in the 1960s teams averaged over 150 possessions per game compared to the 95-100 of today.

That's 50% more possessions which equates to higher scores and higher rebounding numbers. Averaging 20+ rebounds during that era, while very impressive, doesn't carry a ton of weight with me. Plenty of 6'4" players in that era avg'd over 11 per game and a lot of the taller 6'8" types were pulling down around 17 per game. So clearly the style of play influenced the numbers. There are probably at least 5 players playing in the NBA today who would avg close to 20 rpg playing in that era under those playing conditions.

Also, I'll counter your argument about his numbers being hurt by playing with other Hall of Fame teammates by pointing this out. Carp already pointed out how Russell was a limited offensive player. He wasn't an efficient scorer. Which is weird because when you play with great teammates that tends to make things easier on you. It doesn't "hurt your numbers". You get cleaner looks. Fewer double teams. Etc. Yet as a post player he still managed to put up pedestrian offensive numbers. How do you explain that?

I'll give him credit for being a great teammate and obviously one of the best winners ever, but he's still not top 10 overall in my book. On my list I'd rank him at 15.

If you want to put him 10 on your list, fine. It's your list.