Official NBA thread

[Spudboy]

Lol.

 

Bill Russell won more championships than both of those guys combined.

[moonslav59]

If Brady is the all time best because of all the rings, then Bill Russell is the best major team sport, pro athlete of all time.

 

1955 NCAA championship

1956 NCAA championship (55 straight wins)

20.7 points per game/20.3 rebounds per game college career

1956 Olympic Gold Medal (USA won by 53/5 pts/gm)

56-57 NBA championship

57-58 Lost championship

58-59 NBA championship

59-60 NBA championship

60-61 NBA championship

61-62 NBA championship

62-63 NBA championship

63-64 NBA championship

64-65 NBA championship

65-66 NBA championship

66-67 Lost in East Div Finals

67-68 NBA championship

68-69 NBA championship

 

That's 14 championships or Gold Medals in 15 years!

 

Holy s***!!!!!!!!

[moonslav59]

Back to Brady and his 5 rings.

 

Not many people know that Bart Starr has 5 NFL championships.

 

1960 Lost championship game (his first full season as starting QB)

1961 Championship

1962 Championship

1963 11-2-1 no championship

1964 8-5-1 no championship

1965 Championship

1966 Championship (Super Bowl)

1967 Championship (Super Bowl)

 

5 championships in 7 years with one loss in the championship game before these 7 years.

 

[moonslav59]

Oscar Robertson just won the NBA Lifetime Achievement Award.

 

Many remember that he averaged a triple double his 2nd year and revolutionized the "positionless" basketball player.

 

More amazingly, he averaged a triple double over his first 6 seasons combined! He nearly did it for his first 7 seasons.

 

Here's a look at his numbers:

 

Pts Reb Ast Led league in bold

30.5 10.1 9.7

30.8 12.5 11.4

28.3 10.4 9.5

31.4 9.9 11.0

30.4 9.0 11.5

31.3 7.7 11.1

30.5 6.2 10.7

29.2 6.0 9.7

24.7 6.4 9.8

25.3 6.1 8.1

19.4 5.7 8.2

17.4 5.0 7.7 NBA championship

(2 more years)

 

First 3 years: 29.8/ 11.0/ 10.2

 

First 4 years: 30.2/ 10.7/ 10.4

 

First 5 years: 30.3/ 10.4/ 10.6

 

First 6 years: 30.5/ 10.0/ 10.7

 

First 7 years: 29.7/ 9.4/ 10.7

[Jasonbay44]

Russell also played in an era where there was only what? 10 teams? Plus he was on a dynasty Celtics team that had 8 hall of famers. The league had weird s*** going on back then. There was a guy averaging 50 PPG and 25+ RPG in seasons... I don't even know how you can legit argue Russell over Lebron and Jordan. I know its different eras, but lets be real now.

[Jasonbay44]

I give Jordan decisive bonus points for playing in an era when hand-checkng was still allowed. That’s the deciding factor for me. To me Lebron is a cross-between Karl Malone and Scottie Pippen playing in a league with no hand-checking. There are other factors to my opinion, but they’re less important. It’s not a great comparison either, position wise. To me, I considered Jordan 1, 2, and/or 3, while Lebron’s mainly a 3 and/or 4 (who doesn’t post-up nearly enough imo). That’s not to say Jordan NEVER posted-up or that Lebron NEVER ran offenseive plays acting as a guard. I’m just speaking in general. Predominantly. Other things I consider are: 1) I think the competion was overall greater when the Bulls were rattling off championships. 2) The Bulls were well coached, but they were never considered an exogenous group of superstars. Meaning, Jordan never had to “take his talents to S. Beach” as it were, to win a championship. 3) Who wears who’s number? ... yeah, I thought so.

 

Anyways, Lebron is great. The greatest of his generation I would say.

I mean I don't disagree with some of the points, and don't really get caught up in the Jordan/Lebron debates, they're both great players, and are 1 and 2 all time for me, but I don't think the competition was better during Jordan's time. He made the playoffs one year going 30-52, and Lebron in the finals is playing one of the greatest dynasties of all time, a team that is so stacked that it has arguably the two greatest shooters of all time, a multi time scoring champ/MVP in Kevin Durant, arguably the best defensive player in the league Draymond, and this isn't even accounting for their incredibly stacked bench. Andre Iguodala is their 6th man and he is a multi time all star and won a finals MVP for this team. Plus this era has had the Lakers dynasty with Kobe, Duncan/Pop Spurs, big three Celtics, etc.

[moonslav59]

Russell also played in an era where there was only what? 10 teams? Plus he was on a dynasty Celtics team that had 8 hall of famers. The league had weird s*** going on back then. There was a guy averaging 50 PPG and 25+ RPG in seasons... I don't even know how you can legit argue Russell over Lebron and Jordan. I know its different eras, but lets be real now.

 

His college championships in the context of all the crap he and other black players had to go through should not be minimized by the "era" argument.

 

Plus, the Celtics had not won any championships before Russell got there. He was the ultimate "team player" and made everyone around him better. The Celtice didn't even make the playoffs the first two years after Russell retired. Russell went out a winner. His last two champiosnhip seasons were his last two in the league. AND, he was also THE COACH!!!!!!

 

I'm not so sure there's be so many Celtic HOF'ers had Bill never been traded to the Celtics.

 

(BTW, I'm not a Celtic fan, but BR has to be mentioned in the conversation of the best of all time.

 

Jordon, James, Russell, Johnson, Chamberlain, Robertson & Jabbar.

 

That's my big 7.

 

(Bird, Erving, Mikan, Olajuwan real, real close)

Edited June 26, 2018 by moonslav59

[Jasonbay44]

I was only talking about his NBA career, not his college career. He's definitely in the top 10, but there is no way I even have him near the conversation as top 2 with Jordan/Lebron. There is more to the game than rings especially in the difference of eras. Obviously all these lists are just opinions.

 

Also I wasn't trying to minimize the off the court ******** he had to deal with at the time, that wasn't my point about his era.

[Emp9]

I mean I don't disagree with some of the points, and don't really get caught up in the Jordan/Lebron debates, they're both great players, and are 1 and 2 all time for me, but I don't think the competition was better during Jordan's time. He made the playoffs one year going 30-52, and Lebron in the finals is playing one of the greatest dynasties of all time, a team that is so stacked that it has arguably the two greatest shooters of all time, a multi time scoring champ/MVP in Kevin Durant, arguably the best defensive player in the league Draymond, and this isn't even accounting for their incredibly stacked bench. Andre Iguodala is their 6th man and he is a multi time all star and won a finals MVP for this team. Plus this era has had the Lakers dynasty with Kobe, Duncan/Pop Spurs, big three Celtics, etc.

 

I wasn’t talking about better competition in just the playoffs or championship games. I think, and it could very well be just my opinion, but even regular season... league-wide, better competition.

[mvp 78]

Really hard to compare vastly different eras though.

 

Jordan is best all time and as much as it pains me to say it, Lebron is probably second.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Russell didn't have an offensive game. He got his points on rebounds and breakaway dunks, but he could not create his own opportunities on that end of the foor. Too incomplete to be the best ever. He may well be the best defensive player of all time, though.

 

Jordan is the absolute best. Six rings, two threepeats, insane scoring averages, and for a good six years (87-93) he was the best offensive and the best defensive player in the game. Not merely the best overall, but the actual best in the business on both sides of the ball. I've never seen a LeBron-over-Jordan argument that wasn't just a barrage of excuses or petty qualifiers that begin with the phrase "you have to understand", or some soliloquy about what a great guy* LeBron is and what a pooface Jordan is (because that totally matters).

 

Jordan is #1, LeBron is #2, Tim Duncan is #3 and LeBron is a lot closer to Duncan than he is to Jordan. Actually the more I think about it the more I wonder if Duncan should be #2.

 

*He's actually a flighty, two-faced s*** who owes his entire empire to the PR team that created and maintains this winsome public image for him.

[Jasonbay44]

I personally have Kareem and Shaq over Duncan (I just think they were more dominant players in their primes), but I can see the argument for Duncan and he gets severely underrated as an all time great most the time in these "GOAT" discussions.

[moonslav59]

I was only talking about his NBA career, not his college career. He's definitely in the top 10, but there is no way I even have him near the conversation as top 2 with Jordan/Lebron. There is more to the game than rings especially in the difference of eras. Obviously all these lists are just opinions.

 

Also I wasn't trying to minimize the off the court ******** he had to deal with at the time, that wasn't my point about his era.

 

Yes, there's more to the game....like 20+ rebounds and maybe the best defense ever played by any human ever born.

 

Plus, I brought up Russell in the context of everyone calling Brady the best as a result of him having 5 rings.

 

Many feel Jordon is better than LeBron due to the rings.

 

I'm getting mixed messages on what the criteria is for judging who is the best or who at least belongs in the conversation.

 

If I had to narrow it to 4, it would be....

 

Russell

 

Chamberlain

 

Jordon

 

James

 

I'd probably put the Big O 5th, but maybe I'm biased.

Edited June 27, 2018 by moonslav59

[Jasonbay44]

Yes, there's more to the game....like 20+ rebounds and maybe the best defense ever played by any human ever born.

There's also offense, the most important part of the game. He was bigger and more athletic than most players back then, and still only shot 44% from the field for his career.

[StephenCurry30]

basketball was weird back then. Russell was an elite defensive player, who lacked offensive talent, but for some reason was still given the ball a lot back then. it would be similar to giving ben Wallace or dennis rodman a lot of touches. Russell is in the 8-10 range all time imo. rings aren't everything, especially when the Celtics ere ridiculously stacked back then. Draymond green already has as many rings as LeBron and if they keep the core in tack, could very well pass them, wheres we gonna rank him? Robert horry has 7. is he near goat?

[moonslav59]

There's also offense, the most important part of the game. He was bigger and more athletic than most players back then, and still only shot 44% from the field for his career.

 

You say offense is the most important, because nobody plays D anymore. One could argue "era" here, too.

 

Did LeBron and Jordon blow away the next best offensive players by all that much? If it's all about offense, then why not Wilt? (He got over 18 rebounds/gm every season he ever played.) Wilt's career line: 30.1 pts/gm/ 22.9 reb/ 4.4 Ast. BTW, he led the NBA in FG% nine time. How often have Jordan & James led the league--combined?

 

What's the criteria?

 

Sure, one can argue Russell & Chamberlain were men playing among boys, but that just proves how dominating they both were.

 

Yes, the game has changed, but dominating is dominating, and to me the best should be based on who dominated the most.

 

Rings and numbers matter. Getting the most out of your teammates matter. Intelligence, savvy and instincts matter. Yes, the 15 points per game hurts Russell's case, buy I think he could have scored more had they needed him to. I'm pretty sure 22-23 rebounds led to a lot of added points by someone.

[StephenCurry30]

I don't think its the fact no one plays defense anymore, I think its the fact the players are just so much more athletic, stronger and faster. imagine a guy like Russell westbrook or john wall playing back then. they are missles of speed and strength, they really aren't guardable man to man. and everyone in the nba now is so damn good at shooting that if they beat one man, and another tries to help, you can guarantee the teammate is banging the open three.

[StephenCurry30]

bill Russell at 6'9 was considered a man among boys as a center. LeBron is 6'8 and plays point guard. the league has changed, the talent is WAY better. if you put deandre Jordan, andre Drummond or Dwight howard on those 60's Celtics teams, they have 11 rings.

[Jasonbay44]

You say offense is the most important, because nobody plays D anymore. One could argue "era" here, too.

 

Did LeBron and Jordon blow away the next best offensive players by all that much? If it's all about offense, then why not Wilt? (He got over 18 rebounds/gm every season he ever played.) Wilt's career line: 30.1 pts/gm/ 22.9 reb/ 4.4 Ast. BTW, he led the NBA in FG% nine time. How often have Jordan & James led the league--combined?

 

What's the criteria?

 

Sure, one can argue Russell & Chamberlain were men playing among boys, but that just proves how dominating they both were.

 

Yes, the game has changed, but dominating is dominating, and to me the best should be based on who dominated the most.

 

Rings and numbers matter. Getting the most out of your teammates matter. Intelligence, savvy and instincts matter. Yes, the 15 points per game hurts Russell's case, buy I think he could have scored more had they needed him to. I'm pretty sure 22-23 rebounds led to a lot of added points by someone.

 

Nobody plays defense anymore? More like the rules make it harder to play defense, and there is just way more talent in the league than ever before. Big men alone in today's league have so much talent and different skill set that is ridiculous. Andre Drummond, Clint Capela, Dwight Howard, Rudy Gobert, Nikola Jokic, Demarcus Cousins, LMA, Anthony Davis, KAT, Blake Griffin, Deandre Jordan, Marc Gasol, Kevin Love, Joel Embiid, Steven Adams, Porzingis, Horford, Whiteside, Kanter, etc.

 

Russell is great, and has great stats sure, but you are literally comparing a time with 10 teams in the league, where the Celtics were beyond stacked with hall of famers, to a league where there is 30 teams, with much more talent and a changed game. Bill Russells lack of offensive talent would be taken advantage of in todays game. There is a reason someone like Ben Wallace wasn't a star.Bill

 

This is why comparing these eras is nearly impossible and pretty pointless. You will never convince me that Bill Russell and his mid 40's shooting %'s are the greatest player of all time, and I'm not going to convince you Duncan, Shaq and etc are better.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Jasonbay44

[Spudboy]

Yes, there's more to the game....like 20+ rebounds and maybe the best defense ever played by any human ever born.

 

Plus, I brought up Russell in the context of everyone calling Brady the best as a result of him having 5 rings.

 

Many feel Jordon is better than LeBron due to the rings.

 

I'm getting mixed messages on what the criteria is for judging who is the best or who at least belongs in the conversation.

 

If I had to narrow it to 4, it would be....

 

Russell

 

Chamberlain

 

Jordon

 

James

 

I'd probably put the Big O 5th, but maybe I'm biased.

 

You make sense.

 

But then you saw the man play.

[StephenCurry30]

im being honest. ive watchined numerous documentaries, highlights and etc of Russell, I don't get it.

 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bil+russell+highlights&view=detail&mid=0ECB73785008B267817A0ECB73785008B267817A&FORM=VIRE

hes blocking layups of guys hes way taller than, he literally blocks #25 on 76ers shot without even jumping. a majority of the highlights of him are uncontested dunks and layups. his offensive game is bad, and he took advantage of a weak league. I would love to see him in todays game, but we cant, so he isn't being ranked high by me.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

I personally have Kareem and Shaq over Duncan (I just think they were more dominant players in their primes), but I can see the argument for Duncan and he gets severely underrated as an all time great most the time in these "GOAT" discussions.

 

Shaq didn't start giving a s*** about defense and intangibles until it was too late. He had a good run in 99-00 and 00-01, then he turned 30 and hurt his toe and it was downhill from there.

 

Kareem gets points off for only winning two championships as the best player on his team, and even 1980 might be arguable. His prime was in the 70s - not like there was stiff competition or some incumbent dynasty he had to break through.

 

Duncan was the best player and the leader on five championship teams and was the best defensive player in the game for a good nine years - in the modern era. His scoring numbers aren't quite up there compared to Shaq or Kareem, but unlike Russell he had an offensive game and wasn't just limited to fast breaks and cleanups. There's a reason the Spurs won at least 50 games in 18 of Duncan's 19 seasons (that one outlier season is the '99 lockout, and the team's winning percentage that year is equivalent to that of a 60-win team).

Edited June 27, 2018 by Jacoby_Ellsbury

[cp176]

It is clearly generational and if you never saw these guys really play, you have no idea what they could or could not do. For starters, anyone who thinks that Russell could not play on the offensive end, really could not have seen him play. Russell scored when he needed to which really wasn't that often. As much as it pains me to say, Chamberlain certainly has to be included in the conversation. From a simply athletic standpoint, I really have to say that I haven't seen a player yet comparable to him in any generation even though I did not like him.

[cp176]

Yes, there's more to the game....like 20+ rebounds and maybe the best defense ever played by any human ever born.

 

Plus, I brought up Russell in the context of everyone calling Brady the best as a result of him having 5 rings.

 

Many feel Jordon is better than LeBron due to the rings.

 

I'm getting mixed messages on what the criteria is for judging who is the best or who at least belongs in the conversation.

 

If I had to narrow it to 4, it would be....

 

Russell

 

Chamberlain

 

Jordon

 

James

 

I'd probably put the Big O 5th, but maybe I'm biased.

 

I like your list even though comparing players from different generations really is impossible. Of course I would add John Havlicek to the list.

[Spudboy]

So it seems Danny is going to sign Baynes to a 2/11 contract.

 

Another smart move by Ainge.

[Jasonbay44]

Did the Warriors really just sign Demarcus Cousins too? This is getting f***ing ridiculous.

[moonslav59]

$5.3M/1 yr.

 

The fix is in.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Aside from the shock value of Cousins being a big name, this isn't that big a deal. Cousins is Al Jefferson with a three-point shot. He is not effective without the ball in his hands. He's not going to have the ball in his hands with Curry, Thompson, and Durant on the team. The guy can't defend, can't set good screens, and is hardly ever in the right position on either end of the floor. His role will basically be reduced to a spot-up three point shooting big man.

[Spudboy]

What is Magic up to?

 

He signs Rondo to play with Lebron while the Lakers already have a poor shooting point guard.

 

This Williams kid is off to a bad start in Boston.

[Bellhorn04]

Looks like the Raptors are being idiots. Not a big surprise though.