Why Russell would be a star today

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

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    If Russell is a star today, Wilt would be considered a MEGA-SUPERSTAR!

    head-to-head numbers:
    Wilt and Russell played against each other 142 times in 10 years. Russell's team won 88, Wilt's teams won 74. (14 game difference)

    In those games Wilt averaged 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg, Russell averaged 14.5 ppg and 23.7 rpg - This like comparing Kobe's stats to Paula Pierce's

    Wilt's high game vs. Russell was 62, (LMAO) and he had six other 50+ point games against Russell . Russell's high game against Wilt was 37, and he had only two other 30+ point games against Wilt.

    Wilt's record 55 rebound game was against Russell, (Again LMAO) and he had six other 40+ rebound games vs. the star, Bill. Russell only had one 40+ rebound night against Wilt.

    NUMBERS don't LIE!  Thanks for playing.
     
  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:
    If Russell is a star today, Wilt would be considered a MEGA-SUPERSTAR! head-to-head numbers: Wilt and Russell played against each other 142 times in 10 years. Russell's team won 88, Wilt's teams won 74. (14 game difference) In those games Wilt averaged 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg, Russell averaged 14.5 ppg and 23.7 rpg - This like comparing Kobe's stats to Paula Pierce's Wilt's high game vs. Russell was 62 , (LMAO)  and he had six other 50+ point games against Russell . Russell's high game against Wilt was 37, and he had only two other 30+ point games against Wilt. Wilt's record 55 rebound game was against Russell , (Again LMAO)  and he had six other 40+ rebound games vs. the star, Bill. Russell only had one 40+ rebound night against Wilt. NUMBERS don't LIE!  Thanks for playing.

    Great post. Haven't seen some of those numbers but wow, if there was any doubt Wilt was a beast!
    Posted by koberulz
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from DoctorCO. Show DoctorCO's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    LAkernation 32,

    Give russell todays weights...He would be a stronger better rodman....Hed be rodman who can cover centers...

    Russell would be a pf...But a very good pf..His instinct would still be there..

    PLUS you post one writers thoughts on russell..

    THE NBA FINALS TROPHY is named aFTER RUSSELL AND NOT A LAKER
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    I'm a little surprised but, by that last statement, I have to put Koberulz in the same age group as the little nation guy....unless they are one and the same....kids...out of the mouth of babes as the saying goes...!!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tayshawn. Show Tayshawn's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    Wow, those numbers and stats that koberulz just pointed out proves the myth of Russell's supposed greatness. Wilt is the TRUE Great One.

    BTW, I dont remember any player ever scoring 62 points or grabbing 55 rebounds against Rodman.

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

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    Duke, if you don't like the factual numbers, I can understand. I mean when has any Laker EVER given up 62 points or better yet 55 rebounds to an opposing player? That is just embarassing. These numbers alone show why at best, Russell would be mediocre in today's league. Again, thank you for playing.
     
  7. 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:
    In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today :  I already told you that  the days of the back to the basket centers has greatly diminished... Check out the charts that will follow on a comparison of big men from 1960-61 vs 2010-11. Seems 
    Posted by SeemsToMe


    Your post are really interesting but they don't answer my questions. Where are the great centers in todays league? And since when have the days of the back to the basket centers been diminished and is this a result of todays (improved) game or just the lack of talent in the league? Would a guy like Shaq,Hakeem,Robinson/Ewing/Kareeem/Malone/Wilt stille be a force or would "todays game" (how you call it) make these guys superfluous?


     
  8. 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:
    In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today : Your post are really interesting but they don't answer my questions. Where are the great centers in todays league? And since when have the days of the back to the basket centers been diminished and is this a result of todays (improved) game or just the lack of talent in the league? Would a guy like Shaq,Hakeem,Robinson/Ewing/Kareeem/Malone/Wilt stille be a force or would "todays game" (how you call it) make these guys superfluous?
    Posted by Gasthoerer

    Hi again Gasthoerer,
    After I explain what these charts are about I'm sure you will have a better understanding of what I'm saying.Here is what the 1st chart is about.
        In 1960-61 there were only 9 players that were 6'8" or taller, that played in 60 games or more, while averaging 10 points or more for the season.

      Now in chart #2, thats for the year 2010-11, there were 72 players that were 6'8" or taller that played in 60 games or more while scoring at least 10 points per game.

        Now for a comparison between between the 2 years.
      Height comparison. 1960-61--9 players 6'8" or taller. 5 of them white americans
                                2010-11--72 players 6'8" or taller.6 of them white americans 

          Most of those 72 players from the year 2010-11 are taller and heavier than their counterparts from the year 1960-61 but most of them have such great shooting range and ball handling skills that they now play away from the basket.The style of play now is spreading the floor and utilizing the blazing speed of the very athletic black players. However, at least 45 0f the 2010 players could play center and have a height and weight advantage over their opponent while totaly dominating all but Wilt and Russ and even they would be severely challenged.
      Seems
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    ..........ok.........not to play "devils advocate" Seems.......but in my comparison of McGinnis and Malone.....didn't you say weight was of no importance in your theory...?

    it might be me...I could be wrong here.....just asking pal....
     
  10. 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:
    In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today : Your post are really interesting but they don't answer my questions. Where are the great centers in todays league? And since when have the days of the back to the basket centers been diminished and is this a result of todays (improved) game or just the lack of talent in the league? Would a guy like Shaq,Hakeem,Robinson/Ewing/Kareeem/Malone/Wilt stille be a force or would "todays game" (how you call it) make these guys superfluous?
    Posted by Gasthoerer


        'Would a guy like Shaq,Hakeem,Robinson/Ewing/Kareeem/Malone/Wilt stille be a force or would "todays game" (how you call it) make these guys superfluous?"

      They would still be big stars.They were all super great players then and all would star now.  No doubt about it.
    Seems  
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from DoctorCO. Show DoctorCO's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    koberulz,

    russell was in clutch times limiting wilt...AND russell at 6 foot 8 and wilt BOTH AVG THE SAME REBOUNDS. WITH WILT BEING 5 INCHES TALLER.. both at 22 boards a game..

      96342.35.913.4.4403.35.8.5610.00.0.0000.00.022.54.30.000.000.02.715.1



     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    In Response to Why Russell would be a star today:
    I got to thinking about this subject....so many fans (most who probably never saw him play) dismiss the notion that Bill Russell would be a star today......he revolutionized the sport with his incredible defense, shot blocking, and rebounding....he was a tremendous athlete who was one of the fastest players in the league....he was a good passer (most of the set plays went through him) and regularly was among the top 10 in assists early in his career....he didn't care much about individual stats and didn't practice his offensive game.....his vertical leap allowed him to be able to grab a quarter off the top of a backboard and he had the wingspan of a seven footer.....and, most importantly, he was one of the smartest and most driven players the game has ever seen..... Russ was 6-10 220........for those who feel that he couldn't excel today I ask the following questions: How is it that Dennis Rodman, at 6-7 210, was able to lead the league in rebounding 7 times and was named Defensive Player of the Year twice...? How is it that Ben Wallace, at 6-9 240, was able to lead the league in rebounding twice, in blocked shots once, and was Defensive Player of the Year 4 times....? Russ was taller than both of them.....playing today he would most certainly hit the weight room like everyone in the league does.....he would probably add 20 lbs of muscle without losing any of his speed and agility.... If Rodman and Wallace (who, by the way had no offensive games to speak of) could thrive.....then why wouldn't Russell...?
    ...
    Given his success against Wilt, and taking into account the success of both Rodman and Wallace.....why would anyone assume that Russell would not match their success....?
    Posted by Duke4


    Wow, Dude, according to you guys, Russell is the GOAT. Now you only compare him to Rodman/Big Ben? You are just arguing AGAINST Russell's greatness.

    To make your argument, you have to say that had Russell played in this era, he must be greater than MJ, or at least as great as MJ.

    See, Russell's offensive game is the weakest among the all-time greats. Would that diminish his greatness? of course, he had the luck of playing alongside some great scorers for many years. Had he played in this era of salary cap and free agency, the Celtics would have no chance to keep 4-5 HOF scorers on the roster for 13 years to let Russell concentrate on his defense/rebounding, and win 11 rings. Would 3-5 all-NBA first team, a couple MVPs, 2-4 rings be able to make him an all-time great? Of course, that's what DR, Shaq and Hakeem achieved.

    Would that make him in the conversation of GOAT? Have anyone ever claimed that DR, Shaq or Hakeem as GOAT? I mean, it's greatest player of all-time, not greatest center of all-time. MJ is GOAT because he's better than all other forwards, centers and PGs. No one would mention MJ as merely greatest SG of all-time.

    You should know there is still a gap between DR/Shaq/Hakeem and GOAT.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today:
    LAkernation 32, Give russell todays weights...He would be a stronger better rodman....Hed be rodman who can cover centers... Russell would be a pf...But a very good pf..His instinct would still be there.. PLUS you post one writers thoughts on russell.. THE NBA FINALS TROPHY is named aFTER RUSSELL AND NOT A LAKER
    Posted by DoctorCO


    Rodman had retired 10+ years before he got into the HOF. If you compare Russell to Rodman, it means you are telling us that Russell is NOT a first-ballot HOFer. Even a "very good" pf is not enough. According to some of you, he's the GOAT. Now you relegate an arguably GOAT to merely a "very good" PF?

    If you folks cannot make a case of Russell == MJ or being the key player on his team to win 11 out of 13 championships in the 1990s/2000s, then you should shut up.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today:
    In Response to Why Russell would be a star today : Wow, Dude, according to you guys, Russell is the GOAT. Now you only compare him to Rodman/Big Ben? You are just arguing AGAINST Russell's greatness. To make your argument, you have to say that had Russell played in this era, he must be greater than MJ, or at least as great as MJ. See, Russell's offensive game is the weakest among the all-time greats. Would that diminish his greatness? of course, he had the luck of playing alongside some great scorers for many years. Had he played in this era of salary cap and free agency, the Celtics would have no chance to keep 4-5 HOF scorers on the roster for 13 years to let Russell concentrate on his defense/rebounding, and win 11 rings. Would 3-5 all-NBA first team, a couple MVPs, 2-4 rings be able to make him an all-time great? Of course, that's what DR, Shaq and Hakeem achieved. Would that make him in the conversation of GOAT? Have anyone ever claimed that DR, Shaq or Hakeem as GOAT? I mean, it's greatest player of all-time, not greatest center of all-time. MJ is GOAT because he's better than all other forwards, centers and PGs. No one would mention MJ as merely greatest SG of all-time. You should know there is still a gap between DR/Shaq/Hakeem and GOAT.
    Posted by MajicMVP

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today:
    In Response to Re: Why Russell would be a star today :
    Posted by Duke4


    This is like in what circumstances don't you want to become a millionaire?

    Answer: when you are a billionaire.

    You relegate Russell to Shaq's, Hakeem's, DR's level. That's all we need in this argument...

    Now, if you compare him to Rodman/Big Ben, you are losing more ground...

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    Thank you Majic.....that is my point exactly!!       my beef is guys that say Russ would not have been a star in today's NBA....I believe that he would...of course, he would be hitting the weight room and taking advantage of all the benefits that the players have today

    you are correct in pointing out that the Celtics would not be able to maintain the roster in today's league....no way are they or Russ as successful....

    MJ is probably the GOAT as an all around player......Russ is the GOAT as an overall winner....please don't forget that he did lead his college team to back to back undefeated seasons and the NCAA rings...that team was not loaded....the only other "star" was defensive minded KC Jones.....and he lead the US Basketball squad to the Gold Medal....I can't think of another athlete that won 14 championships over a 15 year period....he was lucky to have played where he did and when he did....but for whatever reason, none of the other "superstars" of the league even came close....
     
  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:
    ..........ok.........not to play "devils advocate" Seems.......but in my comparison of McGinnis and Malone.....didn't you say weight was of no importance in your theory...? it might be me...I could be wrong here.....just asking pal....
    Posted by Duke4

    Your absolutely right Duke. Your one sharp cookie to have noticed this contradiction. In my responce to you I should have taken the time to explain to you my reason for down playing the affect of weight as regards McGinnis and Malone but as a very slow 1 finger typist I kept things short and to the point. So now I will explain in detail my reasoning. As in the case of Russ vs Wilt both had similar results against common foes, and the very same was true about McGinnis and Malone. Weight not a factor in my book. Now in the case of players  from 1960 vs  2010 there is no common ground when comparing records between players. Could weight be a factor in the  comparing of players separated by 50 yrs and a average weight difference of 20-25 lbs per person. In the post that you refer to I was pointing out that the players of 1960 had made their marks against inferior shooters and ball handlers,shorter and lighter players. Now those are the facts. It then becomes a matter as to how each person chooses to apply those facts when comparing generations. To each his own opinion.
    Seems
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Why Russell would be a star today

    OK, that makes sense to me Seems.....thanks!
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share