Posted by badja on 7/28/2011 11:36:00 PM (view original):
The statement was did he deserve the majority of the credit for those 13 rings. If you ask most anyone of that era, they would likely say yes.
1. People want to play next to, and coach, guys that can win. Russell was that guy.
2. If all these HOFer's didn't play aongside Russell, do they get rings? Do they get to the Hall? Maybe, maybe not.
I can only assume that felonius and ash agree that LBJ has had a better career than Kobe. He has far better numbers than Kobe ever had and has had worse teammates, so ... end of discussion, right?
success<> stats
maybe your analogy re Kobe v Lebron would work if a) the original argument was a player to player comparison (i.e. Russell v Wilt) but b) the difference between Kobe and Lebron's stats are nowhere near the difference between Russell and Wilt's stats
and
since neither pertains in this instance, not so much
now in re your 2 points
1) it was the 60s, 'guys want' had little and nothing to do with where they played - Red (not Russell) had everything to do with who played on that team
2) if they dont play next to Russell does he? maybe, maybe not
7/29/2011 8:37 AM (edited)