Shaq Retires

[LawrenceMD]

Originally Posted by tj100

Hard to say. He was, without a doubt, the greatest winner in basketball history. Nobody has his resume - nobody has half his resume
Rings don't lie... plus he even player coached championship year.

smartness is vastly underrated. he was smart enough to do what it took to win with the guys around him. that means utilizing his HOF starting 5 to its fullest potential by playing his role to the best possible results. Bill simmons may be a boston homer but he did mention Wilt's telling statistic: Wilt chamberlain never fouled out of an NBA game.... ever... as in even in the regular season and playoffs...so that means that Wilt had games where he didn't play up to his defensive potential as well as offensive potential (avoiding both defensive AND offensive fouls) during crucial parts of the game (i.e. 4th quarter). Think of all the games where wilt pulled a "lebron" or a "pouting kobe" and just kinda shrunk and avoided the ball/contact just to prove a point. That should be strikes for/against you when it comes to rating your overall career... how did you utilize your potential along with playing your role in helping your team win (it works attitude wise as well as numbers wise). As we cans see now Kareem just was probably as bad as not being able to get his teammates to work together as wilt. Kareem just didn't have the proper attitude (where he wanted things his way). Even now with kareem expecting a statue and being offended one hasn't been erected in his honor is telling. That said if you're going to start a center in an all time team? I'll take a "in his prime" shaq.

 

[gladhands]

Originally Posted by LawrenceMD

Rings don't lie... plus he even player coached championship year.

smartness is vastly underrated. he was smart enough to do what it took to win with the guys around him. that means utilizing his HOF starting 5 to its fullest potential by playing his role to the best possible results.

This is the stupidest arguement in all of sports. Rings don't lie because they don't say anything. Robert Horry and Steve Kerr hve a bunch of rings too, but no one would dream of saying that they're better than Barkley and Stockton.

 

[tj100]

Originally Posted by gladhands

The man had NO. OFFENSIVE. GAME.

Bill Russell averaged 15.1 points per game for his career, and never averaged 20 in any season. He was a career .440 shooter, never breaking 47% from the center position. It''s widely acknowledged that there was a dearth of athletic big men, and that Russell was the only guy from that era who played any defense, so who was stopping him from scoring? Not to mention the fact that he played with a much narrower three-second lane, meaning he basically just got to camp out five feet from the basket.

I think it's an interesting question. His FG% was low by modern standards, but was Top 5 in the league four times (1957, 1958, 1959, 1960).

The Celtics' team philosophy was obviously not Russell-centric on offense. He played, at times, with four other Hall of Famers. When your team is that good, do you have to carry them in every category? To a Russell fan, the question is whether the goal is to win or put up numbers. If winning is the ultimate goal, nobody was better at it than Russell. Nobody. He clearly did whatever it took to win - and what else could you ask for in a player?

 

[gladhands]

Originally Posted by tj100

His FG% was low by modern standards, but was Top 5 in the league four times (1957, 1958, 1959, 1960).

Being in the top-five four times in a 13 year career is a lot less impressive when you consider the fact that there were only 7 other starting centers in the league.

 

[tj100]

Originally Posted by gladhands

This is the stupidest arguement in all of sports. Rings don't lie because they don't say anything. Robert Horry and Steve Kerr hve a bunch of rings too, but no one would dream of saying that they're better than Barkley and Stockton.

I think one ring, two rings, maybe even three rings, can be 'lucked' into. But 11 rings in 13 seasons? Plus Olympic gold, plus 2 NCAA titles? On teams where you're the undisputed leader (including two where you're the coach)?

Again, on a skill basis, Russell is clearly an elite defender and somewhat less on the offensive side. As a winner, he has no equal.

And as a fan, I want banners, not scoring titles.

 

[gladhands]

Originally Posted by tj100

I think one ring, two rings, maybe even three rings, can be 'lucked' into. But 11 rings in 13 seasons? Plus Olympic gold, plus 2 NCAA titles? On teams where you're the undisputed leader (including two where you're the coach)?

Again, on a skill basis, Russell is clearly an elite defender and somewhat less on the offensive side. As a winner, he has no equal.

And as a fan, I want banners, not scoring titles.

This is fair. Make no mistake, Bill Russell is great for his era. He was also fortunate enough to play with 6 Hall of Famers. It's difficult to compare players across eras, but frankly only a handfull of pre-merger players would have hacked it in today's league.

Knowing what we do about Russel's game, size and the era in which he played, it's a stretch to project him as an elite player in the modern NBA. That means a lot when discussing all-time greats. Versatility also means a lot, and Russell was a one dimensional player.



FWIW, I'm really enjoying your contribution to this threak, tj100.

 

[LawrenceMD]

Originally Posted by gladhands

This is the stupidest arguement in all of sports. Rings don't lie because they don't say anything. Robert Horry and Steve Kerr hve a bunch of rings too, but no one would dream of saying that they're better than Barkley and Stockton.

again if we are talking about all time greats then Horry and Kerr are actually all time great role players. So good in fact that they were integral parts in so many championship teams.

it works without championships as well like the case someone like reggie miller is also an all time great who did his job/role to that great of a capacity.

 

[tj100]

Originally Posted by gladhands

This is fair. Make no mistake, Bill Russell is great for his era. He was also fortunate enough to play with 6 Hall of Famers. It's difficult to compare players across eras, but frankly only a handfull of pre-merger players would have hacked it in today's league.

Knowing what we do about Russel's game, size and the era in which he played, it's a stretch to project him as an elite player in the modern NBA. That means a lot when discussing all-time greats. Versatility also means a lot, and Russell was a one dimensional player.

It's hugely difficult to compare across eras, but fun to hypothesize. I fundamentally agree that if you pluck Bill Russell out of 1963, and make him the center for your 2011 Celtics, he doesn't make the team. No question. But I think it's an interesting question about what makes a player dominent. If you cloned Bill Russell in 1984, does he become a great NBA player? He's definitely not going to make it as a center, but would his skills have developed differently (i.e. made him a forward) if that's what it took to make it?

There is no question that he dominated the NBA for more than 10 years. He played a game that enabled an unprecedented championship streak. The question is whether the game is inherent in the individual, or if the individual tailored his game to dominate the situation? Would 1984-born Bill Russell develop his game differently and be dominant nonetheless?

Barry Bonds is an interesting example of this. Early in his career, he basically could have evolved into a slick hitting base-stealing machine, but the league valued the long ball, so he tailored his game (and his body) to suit.

So I agree, as a modern Center, Bill Russell is not much in the modern NBA, but I ask - how do we know what he would be in the modern NBA?