AmazingNba 2012-13
- Thread starter ArmchairCritic
- Start date
- Status
Amazingwrong....it was pretty much the opposite...Wilt owned Russell, but Russell won more because he was on a better team hence the opinion that Russell (while a terrific player in his own right) was some sort of superhuman on the court because of all the rings, but in all likelyhood it was probably the other way around. No one could touch Wilt, no one....I mean I know times were different back then but how does a guy manage to average 50 ppg and 25 rpg in a season? even a weirder question, how does a guy averaging 50 ppg and 25 rpg NOT win the MVP?
Oh and I know it's not this simple but....100 points....that is all
Two rings > One ring. Easy.
Well had Oscar joined forces with Wilt/West in 68 or Havlicek/Russell in his prime he probably would have won more titles. He was traded to Milwaukee towards the end of his career and teamed up with a young Lew Alcindor and won a title his first season there. I imagine had Oscar played for a more marquee club with a bloated roster full of talent (i.e. Celtics, Lakers, Knicks, Warriors, 76ers), he'd be far more rated by many as he'd been part of probable multiple titles. He's kind of the unsung mega-superstar of the league's past.
But no player will ever touch Oscar's biggest impact on the league, and something the likes of LBJ, Bosh, et al owe much to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Robertson_suit
But no player will ever touch Oscar's biggest impact on the league, and something the likes of LBJ, Bosh, et al owe much to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Robertson_suit
Well, I have to say I greatly admire the insight you have considering you probably never watched a single game either man played.
When you got stats as in depth as American sports, don't need to watch. weak comeback imo, OGKush wins.
That's your logic isn't it?
You can't use it when the count goes your way, and disregard it when it doesn't.given the nature of the previous quote I didn't think it deserved an articulate answer...that was as simple as I could make it out...and I may not have watched live footage of them because of my age, but I've read enough and seen enough stats that go against what you're trying to say.
Wilt > Russell simple as that....Russell was great, but he was no Wilt...he did play on the Celtics in their most dominating era as a team/franchise though and thus has won more rings than anyone's ever likely to accomplish (contributing his fare shair to the titles ofcourse)
I was actually showing the flaw in the logic some people follow here, rather than seriously joining the discussion about that specific comparison.
When Lebron was in Cleveland, the "supporting cast" was simply irrelevant. Lebron had to do it all alone.. Yet when he got a better supporting cast (but still not as good as Jordan's though), Lebron's titles suddenly don't count..
What people here don't admit is that their opinions are actually more affected by emotions (like/hate) than actual facts and objective comparisons.. Just like when you still see people here and there talking about the refs handing the trophy to Miami this year, despite the fact that the finals were noticeably called in favor of the Spurs (and even in favor of Indiana in the previous series).
Where did you read that? Nonsense.
It's sad that fans just go more rings= better player because in all hinesty the team you are on makes a big difference to how well you do. Robertson is most probably talent wise in the best 10 players ever ability/production wise but his legacy in comparison does not back that up through no fault of his own. For me Lebron has already surpassed Kobe quite clear in all honesty but people still say 5>2
Read what? It's simple. You DON'T need to have watched live or hell even seen full games of sports anymore if you can utilise the stats effectively for an argument. Stats(especially deeper ones) say so much more than the naked eye can follow.
I'm certainly willing to admit there are facets of basketball where Wilt is considerably better than Russell. My contention is that a full consideration of all the facets of playing basketball, most of which do not show up in the stats columns, goes to Russell. For me, 'intangibles' like making your teammates better, setting good screens, intelligence, will to win, et cetera are crucial, certainly as important as a few points more scored a game.
I certainly understand the argument where Wilt is better, I just don't rate his strengths as highly as others when it comes to winning basketball games.
I couldn't disagree more.
Even if we grant ALL of that, the difference isn't "a few more points scored a game". It's 15 more points. Chamberlain scored twice as many points per game than Russell and he did it shooting 54% while Russell shot 44%.
Totally agree.. I think it all started when some people started to become under the illusion that Michael Jordan (as great as he was) has won 6 rings all by himself.
sorry, but that could very well be the definition of bullshit
I heard you love stats. Fact: Miami have never shot more free throws than San Antonio in any of the 7 games, despite averaging more free throws (by far) than them during the regular season.
Also, it was obvious that the refs have taken a stand against Lebron this year, and they were determined to give him as few fouls as they could, probably because of his attitude (asking for fouls/flopping), when they were quick to blow their whistles in similar situations if it was Parker or Duncan or Leonard.
- Status