Why Russell would be a star today

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today : Duke,   Think of it this way Duke. A great young Dodger propect at one of there double "A" clubs. Hits for average, with power, outstanding speed,all accomplished against Class double "A" pitching. Does that mean that in the Majors he will duplicate those numbers?  Since you are comparing Russ with Rodman I will post the years of 1960-61 and 1992-93. This will be a comparison of rebounding data.   http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=per_minute&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=1961&year_max=1961&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=63&height_max=91&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=&qual=&c1stat=&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=trb seems
    Posted by SeemsToMe[/QUOTE]
    Duke,
    At times my computer acts up. Right now I'm unable to pull up the link that I  posted. Can you get it?
    seems
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Laker-Nation32. Show Laker-Nation32's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today:
    [QUOTE]Thanks DFURY! ..........you DMAN!!  ......there are so many terrific highlights of Russ on youtube.....when was the last time anyone saw Wilt pull down a rebound and then start the fast break by dribbling the ball half way down the court, make a pass, and receive the pass back for a dunk without ever losing stride....?  .....Russ was something else!
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b866hh4apUI

    Russell would not be able to compete today. Imagine this happening if Russell was standing in the way. He'd end up in hospital. BTW, the Lakers had Shaq...boston got Snaquille O'Meal!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    no Seems, I can't....but I think I get your drift......there is a reason that no players average over 20 rebounds a game these days....but Rodman came close with 18+

    ......forget about the decade or the competition.....just focus on this...

    would Sandy Koufax be a star today....?   I am convinced he would be...

    also, would "Willie, Mickey, and the Duke" have starred as well....I believe they would also.....

    would Jimmy Brown (6-2 232) still be a great running back....? of course

    taken in the same context....would Russell and all the talent and skill set carry over to today's league...I say yes....BUT....today he would have the weight room and he would automatically put on  some muscle & bulk....

    why did George McGinnis (6-8 235) and Karl Malone (6-9 250) have different body types...?

       answer: today's conditioning i.e. weight training and supplements
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Gasthoerer. Show Gasthoerer's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today:
    [QUOTE] The Russell of the 50's-60's would find the present talent level far superior to what he faced during his playing days. seems 
    Posted by SeemsToMe[/QUOTE]

    Really? I think the C position is close to an all time low in NBA history. When a guy like Howard is by far the best center in the league, a guy like Bynum is called his heir, a guy called Perkins is paid like a franchise player and one team that makes the finals plays with an undersized power forward without any (offensive) skills but hustle as starting center there is nothing to fear for a 6-10 Russell.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from lakersavenger. Show lakersavenger's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    You answered it yourself Duke, Russell would excel today at about the same level as Ben Wallace, but Rodman was a different story. Rodman did one thing and did it better than anyone else, he rebounded, and he also played terrific defense, and so he devoted all his energies to just those things. He wasn't expected to score beyond his 8-10 points. He didn't have to play the other guys biggest most ferocious players like a Shaq, Kareem or Hakeem. Who would Russell defend? If he had to go up against the other guys biggest big, forget it. Russell would be on the level of Ben Wallace if he did. If he only had to contend with what Rodman had to contend with and didn't have to do much else, he would have been a slight notch below Rodman. Also, you can't assume anything about whether Russ would gain 20 lbs and be just as big as other 6'10"s. You continue to seek every variable to manipulate to put your beloved Celtics of the very, very distant past on a par with today's super-players. I quess you'd argue that Jack Demsey could knockout Ali or Frazier. I'm  sure you'd come up with some outrageous stat to justify it. Who would Russ have guarded on this years Mavericks? Would he play the center positon and allow Dirk to roam? Or would he play forward to take Dirk? Bill certainly would excel today but at a much, much lower level than in the '60's. Unless he was accompanied by the likes of an MJ or Kobe, he's be hardpressed to win a single title today, just as Ben Wallace was. BTW, Russell today wouldn't have Red to kiss his 'ss and let him have his own set of rules that applied only to him. Can you imagine a player today being able to skip any practice he wants and be allowed to sit up in the stands and sip tea while his teammates worked their butt off in practice? Or be allowed to disappear for days during practices without having to account to anyone? Russell himself said he wouldn't have won anything without Red because every coach he ever played for wanted him to play according to what the team needed as opposed to play his own game. It was a completely different era then. Bottom line, Russ was in the stratosphere of greatness then because of the times, an impact player, but he would be only good today, and certainly not a franchise type player like a Kareem, Hakeem or Shaq.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today:
    [QUOTE]no Seems, I can't....but I think I get your drift......there is a reason that no players average over 20 rebounds a game these days....but Rodman came close with 18+ ......forget about the decade or the competition.....just focus on this... would Sandy Koufax be a star today....?   I am convinced he would be... also, would "Willie, Mickey, and the Duke" have starred as well....I believe they would also..... would Jimmy Brown (6-2 232) stoill be a great running back....? of course taken in the same context....would Russell and all the talent and skill set carry over to today's league...I say yes....BUT....today he would have the weight room and he would automatically put on  some muscle & bulk.... why did George McGinnis (6-8 235) and Karl Malone (6-9 250) have different body types...?    answer: today's conditioning i.e. weight training and supplements
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]
     Duke
    On Baseball.-I agree because baseball is not as dependent on speed,quickness,
     agility,weight and height as basketball and Football are.
    Jim Brown.-Oh what a differance 40 years would have made.

    Check this Duke. In 1957 the Lions beat the Browns For the championship.Here are some numbers on the defensive line and linebackers for the Lions. The line weighed in at 250,263,242,243 pounds. The line backers at 227,220,216 pounds.That means that Brown at 232 pounds was on average 11 pounds heavier than the linebackers and only an average 17 pounds lighter than the defensive line. Now for the Patriots of 2007. Defensive line average-314,linebackers-257. Super star in the present generation. I think not.

    And how about track and field Duke. I'm sure that you are aware of the dominance of blacks in the sprint events. The 10 second barrior has been broken over 200 times by Blacks and it wasn't until a few months ago that a a non Black ran the 100 meters under 10 seconds. And guess what. Its this  very special talent that has turned the nba from a league once 85-90% white American to a league that is less than 10% american white. Speed now rules the game. The same applies to the nfl where the speed positions of running back, wide receiver and defensive backs is now 85 % black.  And its not only that blacks are faster than whites but the fact that the blacks of the present decade are much faster than those in the 60's In1972 the USA Olympic team won gold with a 38.19 in the 4 x 100  meter race. In the 2008 Olympics the winning time for this race was 37.10. Thats a victory margin of 37.34 feet for the 2008 runners. But what I don't really understand is your constant stating of the fact that Russ would be in need of modern weight training etc. to be competitive in the present generation. Sort of indicates to me that perhaps you realize that the Russell of  the 60's just might not be as successfull in the present. 
    Seems
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Laker-Nation32. Show Laker-Nation32's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/441840-bill-russell-an-overrated-nba-legend

    Thanks for playing!
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    Seems. I always felt the same way about Brown being bigger than most linebackers, etc....I hated the Cleveland Browns and I hated Jimmy Brown....all I am saying is that he was 6-2 232.....a mass of muscle who reportedly had a 32 inch waist....and he had sprinter's speed....forget his name...wouldn't any rookie running back who had his size, sprinter's speed, and breakaway running style be a star today...go back and think....Eric Dickerson....as I said....I was never a fan of Brown...but in any era that guy would excel in my opinion...
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today:
    [QUOTE]Seems. I always felt the same way about Brown being bigger than most linebackers, etc....I hated the Cleveland Browns and I hated Jimmy Brown....all I am saying is that he was 6-2 232.....a mass of muscle who reportedly had a 32 inch waist....and he had sprinter's speed....forget his name...wouldn't any rookie running back who had his size, sprinter's speed, and breakaway running style be a star today...go back and think....Eric Dickerson....as I said....I was never a fan of Brown...but in any era that guy would excel in my opinion...
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]
    Duke
     I don't know about Brown's sprinter speed Duke. What was sprinter speed in the late 50's, could be 10 feet slower over a 100 yards, in comparison to 2011 times. But you know duke, its not only Football, track and basketball that have changed  as a result of genetics, coaching, scouting,nutritional and many other factors, but other sports like figure skating and springboard and platform diving as well. Heck,now they routinely do things that were not even part of the thought process back in 50's or were considered to be to dangerous to be a part of any routine. In any event Duke, generational differences are the very backbone of my opinions on this subject.
    Seems
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    well Seems, just remember......the greatest receiver in the history of the NFL is Jerry Rice...a Division Two college player who was not one of the fastest guys in the league when he played.....Bullet Bob Hayes would've beat him in any race....and Hayes was a star back in the '60's............but Rice is generally considered the greatest....as a Ram fan I hated him (only because he played for the 'Niners)....the biggest, fastest, or strongest does not equate to the best.....

    consider Rocky Marciano......certainly not the biggest heavyweight of all time......but man, could he fight.....then Ali.....after the beating Foreman gave Frasier who would've ever thought Ali would knock him out.....or Liston for that matter....I believe Ali would dominate the heavyweight division today...of course, that's not saying much with the state of boxing...

    track and field records continue to be broken because they are predicated on pure speed.....consider Bolt...

    team sports is another matter....and again....why did McGinnis and Malone have different physiques...?   ....the weight room man.....once again....not one single poster has given me a reason why Russ would not take advantage of today's training and would not have bulked up like everyone else.....I'm still waiting for an answer
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    Here is another example of comparing players throughout the decades......going on pure talent, skills, and resumes....

    Dave Cowens 6-9 230
    Bill Walton 6-11 210
    Robert Parish 7-0 230
    Hakeem Olajuwon 7-0 255
    Patrick Ewing 7-0 240
    Kareem Abdul Jabbar 7-2 225

    these are their listed weights according to Basketball Reverence,com...

    Obviously all of these players (excepting probably Cowens) hit the weight room and were probably heavier and stronger as the years went on...

    so Russ at 6-10 220 wouldn't have done the same.....? hence the 240 lb theory

    also another comparison...........everyone has seen footage of Bob Cousy....6-1 175....he was a magician on the court...he couldn't play in the '90's yet John Stockton (6-1 170) became a Hall of fame talent.....?

    What am I missing fellas.....?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today:
    [QUOTE]well Seems, just remember......the greatest receiver in the history of the NFL is Jerry Rice...a Division Two college player who was not one of the fastest guys in the league when he played.....Bullet Bob Hayes would've beat him in any race....and Hayes was a star back in the '60's............but Rice is generally considered the greatest....as a Ram fan I hated him (only because he played for the 'Niners)....the biggest, fastest, or strongest does not equate to the best..... consider Rocky Marciano......certainly not the biggest heavyweight of all time......but man, could he fight.....then Ali.....after the beating Foreman gave Frasier who would've ever thought Ali would knock him out.....or Liston for that matter....I believe Ali would dominate the heavyweight division today...of course, that's not saying much with the state of boxing... track and field records continue to be broken because they are predicated on pure speed.....consider Bolt... team sports is another matter....and again....why did McGinnis and Malone have different physiques...?   ....the weight room man.....once again....not one single poster has given me a reason why Russ would not take advantage of today's training and would not have bulked up like everyone else.....I'm still waiting for an answer
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]
    Duke,
     Your the one that brought up sprinter speed for Brown.
     Rocky Marciano. Got to meet Rocky.Only lived 15 mile away. I would guess that I saw all his fights. Great champ. He would have to move up in class to meet the big boys now.
     I thought I answered this Question on a couple of occasions. Obviously you don't think that the Russ of the 60's would be good enough to handle the modern players because if you did you would'nt be demanding a make over.Why can't the Russell of the 60's just be judged on who Russell was then.? 
     Either you believe that the Russell of the 60's could compete as a super star now or you don't. The very idea that Russell would have to be changed to fit into the present I guess answers the question. I asked you to tell me about the players of the early 60's so I could fine out how much knowledge you had about the late 50's and 60's. You declined. Suddenly the dawn. You don't have any adult memories of those Russell years, so how could you possibly bare witness to what play was like then.
    Seems
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today : Really? I think the C position is close to an all time low in NBA history. When a guy like Howard is by far the best center in the league, a guy like Bynum is called his heir, a guy called Perkins is paid like a franchise player and one team that makes the finals plays with an undersized power forward without any (offensive) skills but hustle as starting center there is nothing to fear for a 6-10 Russell.
    Posted by Gasthoerer[/QUOTE]
    The game has changed significantly in the past 15-20 years. The number of  back to the basket centers, as the center piece of a offense, is greatly reduced now as a new breed of big men are now making there mark. Great shooters with great range' with ball handling skills and speed to get them to just about any place they want to go. While they may not be centers in the sense of 1959-60 centers  these modern "BIGS" possess skills that the 60 bigs could only dream about. If you want I will post a list of these players that played in2010-11
    seems
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    Seems.......as always you make great points.....you mentioned that I didn't answer you question about players from the late '50's.....frankly, this discussion is beginning to drag on....you also declined to discuss my question on the difference in the physiques of McGinnis and Malone.....no problem.....this is simply a sharing of opinions....to answer your question no, I don't think the Russell of 1959 would be as dominant...and that was never my point...I was talking about a player of the same size and skill set being born around 1965.....the knock on Russ by some posters is that he would be too small in today's game.....and the '59 version would be! .....my point is that he had the basketball skills to excel in any era.....had he been born later on he would do what most players do today....hit the weight room and get bigger...

    as for adult memories of Russ......I started following the Celtics around 1960....I listened to every game I could get on the radio....I studied the stat's and box scores reading TSN......I watched the games on Sunday afternoon....I remember the first evening telecast of an NBA playoff game ('69 Celts/Knicks).....after he retired I continued to watch him as he coached.....I have read most of his books and virtually every book on Celtic history that I could get my hands on....I became friends with Jo Jo White, who's wife worked for me....through Jo Jo I was able to meet and talk basketball with many former Celtic players, including Tommy Heinson, Sam Jones, and Cedric Maxwell......I do have a working knowledge of most things "Celtic"....

    Once again..........you contribute a wealth of knowledge as do many other posters....I agree on most points.....disagree on a few.....but always respect your opinion as well as that of others.....I know I am not always right....and at the end of the day this is simply a sharing of opinions......take care buddy....I guess it's time to move on to another discussion.....thanks for your input!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today:
    [QUOTE]Seems.......as always you make great points.....you mentioned that I didn't answer you question about players from the late '50's.....frankly, this discussion is beginning to drag on....you also declined to discuss my question on the difference in the physiques of McGinnis and Malone.....no problem.....this is simply a sharing of opinions....to answer your question no, I don't think the Russell of 1959 would be as dominant...and that was never my point...I was talking about a player of the same size and skill set being born around 1965.....the knock on Russ by some posters is that he would be too small in today's game.....and the '59 version would be! .....my point is that he had the basketball skills to excel in any era.....had he been born later on he would do what most players do today....hit the weight room and get bigger... as for adult memories of Russ......I started following the Celtics around 1960....I listened to every game I could get on the radio....I studied the stat's and box scores reading TSN......I watched the games on Sunday afternoon....I remember the first evening telecast of an NBA playoff game ('69 Celts/Knicks).....after he retired I continued to watch him as he coached.....I have read most of his books and virtually every book on Celtic history that I could get my hands on....I became friends with Jo Jo White, who's wife worked for me....through Jo Jo I was able to meet and talk basketball with many former Celtic players, including Tommy Heinson, Sam Jones, and Cedric Maxwell......I do have a working knowledge of most things "Celtic".... Once again..........you contribute a wealth of knowledge as do many other posters....I agree on most points.....disagree on a few.....but always respect your opinion as well as that of others.....I know I am not always right....and at the end of the day this is simply a sharing of opinions......take care buddy....I guess it's time to move on to another discussion.....thanks for your input!
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]
    Duke
            " you also declined to discuss my question on the difference in the physiques of McGinnis and Malone"
       Don't want to leave this question unanswered. If you review my posts you will notice that I have not made weight a issue other then when football was brought into the conversation.  McGinnis and Malone and their physiques. I could care less. Its not a factor in how I view players from different generations.
       Hope you will join in when I start a post comparing Russ and Rodman as rebounders.  Its been fun.
     Seems
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    Good stuff pal.....of course I'll join in....always fun sharing opinions!
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today:
    [QUOTE]Here is another example of comparing players throughout the decades......going on pure talent, skills, and resumes.... Dave Cowens 6-9 230 Bill Walton 6-11 210 Robert Parish 7-0 230 Hakeem Olajuwon 7-0 255 Patrick Ewing 7-0 240 Kareem Abdul Jabbar 7-2 225 these are their listed weights according to Basketball Reverence,com... Obviously all of these players (excepting probably Cowens) hit the weight room and were probably heavier and stronger as the years went on... so Russ at 6-10 220 wouldn't have done the same.....? hence the 240 lb theory also another comparison...........everyone has seen footage of Bob Cousy....6-1 175....he was a magician on the court...he couldn't play in the '90's yet John Stockton (6-1 170) became a Hall of fame talent.....? What am I missing fellas.....?
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]
    Duke
         "also another comparison...........everyone has seen footage of Bob Cousy....6-1 175....he was a magician on the court...he couldn't play in the '90's yet John Stockton (6-1 170) became a Hall of fame talent.....?"
        Might have been a lot harder for Cousy in the present day. You see Duke, Stockon could shoot and play defense.  Lifetime .515 shooting percentage(.539 when you take out his 3 pointers which didn't exist in Cousy's day).  All defensive team 5 times.   On the other hand, Cousy shot a misserable .357 percentage. There were no defensive awards in those days, but it does'nt matter since Cousy was never considered a outstanding defensive player. 
    Seems 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Gasthoerer. Show Gasthoerer's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today : The game has changed significantly in the past 15-20 years. The number of  back to the basket centers, as the center piece of a offense, is greatly reduced now as a new breed of big men are now making there mark.Posted by SeemsToMe[/QUOTE]

    So, since when did the game change again? Since Shaq and Duncan are old and Hakeem, Ewing and Robinson retired? You honestly telling, that the game has changed so much that these guys also wouldn't have an impact in todays game?
    IMO these guys would eat the current centers alive and a dominant 5 would still be considered as the key to success like it was when these players were in their prime (with jordans bulls as an exception). Hell, Orlando with a poor mans David Robinson as a Center surrounded with some shooters is still a contender today. The only change I see over the last years is the decrease of talent.

    And by the way, of course you are right: The Russel of the 60s would have no chance today if he wouldn't hit the gym (what I think he would do). His limited offense is a bigger issue in the "all time great" discussion.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today : So, since when did the game change again? Since Shaq and Duncan are old and Hakeem, Ewing and Robinson retired? You honestly telling, that the game has changed so much that these guys also wouldn't have an impact in todays game? IMO these guys would eat the current centers alive and a dominant 5 would still be considered as the key to success like it was when these players were in their prime (with jordans bulls as an exception). Hell, Orlando with a poor mans David Robinson as a Center surrounded with some shooters is still a contender today. The only change I see over the last years is the decrease of talent. And by the way, of course you are right: The Russel of the 60s would have no chance today if he wouldn't hit the gym (what I think he would do). His limited offense is a bigger issue in the "all time great" discussion.
    Posted by Gasthoerer[/QUOTE]
    Gasthoerer
          
       "You honestly telling, that the game has changed so much that these guys also wouldn't have an impact in todays game?"

         Where did I say that?     Seems
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Gasthoerer. Show Gasthoerer's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today:
    [QUOTE] Where did I say that?     Seems
    Posted by SeemsToMe[/QUOTE]

    Well, I you didn't mean that, I still wait for your answer where the great talent at the 5 position is, that the guys of the past like Russel have to fear!
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Laker-Nation32. Show Laker-Nation32's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    Russell is so over rated it's a joke. He would be under sized today and his way of camping under the basket, without the fear of a three point shots etc, he'd have to adapt big time. Oh, and his offensive game......lets say he's not as bad as brick but he would definitely need work.

    True center greats like Wilt, Kareem, Shaq and Hakeem are the stuff you can tag great in any age!
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today : Well, I you didn't mean that, I still wait for your answer where the great talent at the 5 position is, that the guys of the past like Russel have to fear!
    Posted by Gasthoerer[/QUOTE]
     I already told you that  the days of the back to the basket centers has greatly diminished. The big men now are complete players and because of their various skills are free to roam the court as power and small forwards- unlike many of the big clods of the 50's-60's. who were chained to the pivot. But I'll let you be the judge. Check out the charts that will follow on a comparison of big men from 1960-61 vs 2010-11.
    Seems 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today : Well, I you didn't mean that, I still wait for your answer where the great talent at the 5 position is, that the guys of the past like Russel have to fear!
    Posted by Gasthoerer[/QUOTE]
    Here are the charts for 1960-61

      
      http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=per_minute&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=1961&year_max=1961&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=80&height_max=91&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=&qual=&c1stat=g&c1comp=gt&c1val=60&c2stat=pts_per_g&c2comp=gt&c2val=10&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=pts

      Seems
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today : Here are the charts for 1960-61      http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=per_minute&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=1961&year_max=1961&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=80&height_max=91&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=&qual=&c1stat=g&c1comp=gt&c1val=60&c2stat=pts_per_g&c2comp=gt&c2val=10&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=pts   Seems
    Posted by SeemsToMe[/QUOTE]

       and here are the charts for 2010-11

        http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=per_minute&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=2011&year_max=2011&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=80&height_max=91&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=&qual=&c1stat=g&c1comp=gt&c1val=60&c2stat=pts_per_g&c2comp=gt&c2val=8.4&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=pts

      Seems
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from koberulz. Show koberulz's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    Bill Who??  Are you talking about that guy that played back when dinosaurs roamed the Earth? Is it the same guy that hated playing in the city of Boston due to the racism?
     

Share