Midge - I don’t agree that Wilt torched Russell all the time.

First off, my statement was the Wilt torched Russell in the playoffs. Secondly, which "TEAM" wins the game does not tell us anything about individual matchups of players who were matched up in that game.

Here are the playoff numbers for Wilt vs. Russell.

Check the stats and tell us who played better in this series, Russell or Chamberlain?

https://www.basketball-reference.com/pl ... ltics.html

Wilt averaged 29.2 points and 27.6 rebounds and shot 52% from the field.

Russell averaged 11.2 points and 25.2 rebounds and shot 39% from the field.

Yet many people somehow see Russell as outplaying Wilt in big games.

The problem for Wilt is the rest of the players on both teams. Wilt scored 146 points and the rest of the Warriors scored 360 points.

The rest of the Celtics besides Russell scored 470 points. Wilt outscored Russell by 90 points, but the rest of the Celtics outscored the rest of the Celtics by 110 points.

The rest of the Celtics shot 41%. The rest of the Warriors shot 35%.

And yet some people think that this makes Russell better than Wilt.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/.. ... a-finals...

Let's look more into Wilt vs. Russell in the playoffs.

They met again in 1965. This time it was the Eastern Conference Finals as Wilt came over to the 76ers in mid-season. The Celtics won game 7 by one point in the "Havlicek Stole The Ball" game.

Wilt averaged 30.1 points and 31.4 rebounds, and shot 56% from the field.

Russell averaged 15.6 points and 25.3 rebounds on 45% FG shooting. To be fair, Russell did average 6.7 assists to just 3.3 for the Dipper.

Wilt shot 58% from the line, Russell shot 47% from the line.

The Celtics scored 784 points in the series, 20 more than the 76ers who scored 764 points.

Wilt scored 102 more points than Russell, but the rest of the Celtics score 122 more points than the rest of the 76ers.

Besides Wilt and Russell the Celtics shot 40% from the field and the 76ers shot 38% from the field.

Besides Wilt and Russell the Celtics shot 79% from the line and the 76ers shot 75% from the line.

Does ANYBODY see this as Russell outplaying Chamberlain in the series?

Chamberlain and Russell met again in the 1966 Eastern Conference Finals. This time the Celtics won in 5 games.

Wilt averaged 28 points and 30.2 rebounds with 3 assists on 51% FG shooting and 41% FT shooting.

Russell averaged 14 points, 26.2 rebounds and 5.6 assists on 42% FG shooting and 57% FT shooting.

Wilt outscored Russell by 70 points, but the rest of the Celtics outscored the rest of the 76ers by 118 points.

The rest of the Celtics shot 41% from the field. The rest of the 76ers shot 35% from the field.

The rest of the Celtics shot 80% from the foul line. The rest of the 76ers shot 77% from the line.

Does ANYBODY see this as Russell outplaying Wilt for the series?

The 1967 Eastern Conference Finals now. The 76ers won this in 5 games.

Wilt averaged a triple double, 21.6 pts, 32 rebs and 10 assists. He shot 56% from the field and 52% from the line.

Russell averaged 11.4 pts, 23.4 rebs and 6 assists. He shot 36% from the field and 68% from the line.

This time Wilt outscored Russell by just 51 points, but the rest of the Celtics only outscored the rest of the 76ers by one point.

The rest of the Celtics shot 41% from the field and the rest of the 76ers shot 43% from the field.

I won't even ask the question here. Wilt severely outplayed Russell in the series.

The fact you have Karl Malone ahead of Tim Duncan proves that you think all basketball is played like a sim. Duncan could have easily pulled a wilt or Westbrook and boosted his stats and won less championships. He also left money on the table year after year so the spurs could build/maintain a better roster around him. Yes Karl Malone was better in the advanced stats but Tim Duncan did what it took to win 5 championships in a small market. That’s hard to do when free agents don’t want to join you because the city you play for. Malone also tried to get his championship bailout in LA in his later years and that didn’t work.

Posted by dakjd901 on 1/4/2023 12:06:00 PM (view original):
The fact you have Karl Malone ahead of Tim Duncan proves that you think all basketball is played like a sim. Duncan could have easily pulled a wilt or Westbrook and boosted his stats and won less championships. He also left money on the table year after year so the spurs could build/maintain a better roster around him. Yes Karl Malone was better in the advanced stats but Tim Duncan did what it took to win 5 championships in a small market. That’s hard to do when free agents don’t want to join you because the city you play for. Malone also tried to get his championship bailout in LA in his later years and that didn’t work.

Totally disagree. Duncan played with several other players who were all time greats. Malone just had two.

Here are my rankings of Duncan's teammates who were great players.

Parker - #15 PG all time
Ginobli - #11 SG all time
Leonard - #19 SF all time
The Admiral - #3 C all time

Here are my rankings of Malone's teammates who were great players.

Stockton #3 PG all time
Hornacek - #12 SG all time

AND the Spurs had a much better coach than Malone EVER had.

That's why Duncan's teams won championships and Malone's did not. That, and Dick Bavetta's horrible 24 second call that negated what should have been a good 3 pointer by Eisley at the shot clock buzzer. That's how razor thin winning and ,losing can be.

It had nothing to do at all with Duncan vs. Malone. Duncan just had more great teammates and an all time great coach. Championship or lack thereof DO NOT get assigned to just one player, no matter how often you keep saying that it does.

We are comparing apples to oranges. Bill Russell’s primary job was not to see how many points he could score.

In 1987 Andre Dawson hit 49 home runs and had 137 RBI. His WAR was 3.1.

In 1987 Ozzie Smith hit 0 home runs and had 75 RBI. His WAR was 5.5. Ozzie also happened to be a Gold Glove winning shortstop.

Ozzie’s Cardinals went 95-67 and won the National League. Dawson’s Cubs went 76-85 and finished in last place.

Posted by savoybg on 1/4/2023 11:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Midge on 1/4/2023 3:11:00 AM (view original):
You’re still celebrating the fact that he lost four game sevens. Yeah, sure he lost, but he was really good at losing.

So the best player on the winning team is automatically better than the best player on the losing team?

Wilt didn't lose, his team lost. Russell didn't win, his team won. Take Wilt away and none of those teams ever gets to play the Celtics in the playoffs.

No.

Do you think the Celtics get there without Russell?

You are way too focused on the numbers. You've refereed, correct? It's hard to believe that you cannot see a player beyond the numbers he puts up in a boxscore. Yes, the intangibles the make everyone around him better. You are literally looking at Wilt in isolation in a game environment. The problem for Wilt is that it is a team game. Russell understood that and his skills were honed around the concept of team, not stats. The effectiveness of each player is obvious in the outcome of the games they played against each other.

How much stock are we supposed to put into your personal rankings?

We have to discount Parker because he was French.

We have to discount Ginobili because you misspelled Ginobili.

We have to discount Leonard because in the one season they won the NBA Duncan was well past his prime and Leonard had not yet reached his prime.

We have to discount Robinson because he was way past his prime when they won together.

Posted by Midge on 1/4/2023 12:22:00 PM (view original):
We are comparing apples to oranges. Bill Russell’s primary job was not to see how many points he could score.

In 1987 Andre Dawson hit 49 home runs and had 137 RBI. His WAR was 3.1.

In 1987 Ozzie Smith hit 0 home runs and had 75 RBI. His WAR was 5.5. Ozzie also happened to be a Gold Glove winning shortstop.

Ozzie’s Cardinals went 95-67 and won the National League. Damson’s Cubs went 76-85 and finished in last place.

First off, Ozzie was a great fielding SS playing in a pitcher's park, and Sosa was an okay fielding corner OFer playing in a great hitter's park. That why Ozzie was more valuable. It had nothing to do with whose team was better.

But, if you're gonna use WAR, let's use the basketball equivalent, win shares.

CAREER WIN SHARES
Malone - 234.63 - 4th all time
Duncan - 206.38 - 7th all time

BEST 7 SEASONS WIN SHARES
7. Mailman - 110.4
22. Duncan - 99.4

Malone was better at his peak, and for his career. Malone put up 11.1 win shares at the age of 39. Duncan had 5.2 win shares at that same age. Duncan's last season with 10 or more win shares was when he was 33. Malone LED THE NBA in win shares at the ages of 34 and 35.

Duncan closes the gap some by being a bit better in the playoffs, but Malone is clearly top top PF of all time.

*picks mic back up

Here is some number for ya since we are on a sim basketball sight that is nothing but numbers. The WOWYR stat (courtesy of thinking basketball). A stat that, in a nutshell, gives a rating on how well you team does or doesn't do when you are on/off the floor on a game by game basis because to me that defines if you are good at basketball is how much better is the team when you are on the floor. For example, Magic Johnson has an incredibly high number here while Allen Iverson's number is relatively low.
Bill Russell's career rating is 6.2 while Chamberlain's is a 6.1 so its actually super close for their careers which I think is appropriate

https://thinkingbasketball.net/metrics/wowyr/

BUT big asterisk here I think those numbers are curved by WIlt's later years because if you look at Chamberlain's regular ole WOWY stat from 1960 (his rookie year where he won MVP and rookie of the year) he has a score of -2.

Russell on the other hand in the in 1962, which is his celtics best season according to srs, Russell had a WOWY stat of 5.9

I know those two stats are unfair to compare but it shows the difference between great individual play vs team

Posted by savoybg on 1/4/2023 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Midge on 1/4/2023 12:22:00 PM (view original):
We are comparing apples to oranges. Bill Russell’s primary job was not to see how many points he could score.

In 1987 Andre Dawson hit 49 home runs and had 137 RBI. His WAR was 3.1.

In 1987 Ozzie Smith hit 0 home runs and had 75 RBI. His WAR was 5.5. Ozzie also happened to be a Gold Glove winning shortstop.

Ozzie’s Cardinals went 95-67 and won the National League. Damson’s Cubs went 76-85 and finished in last place.

First off, Ozzie was a great fielding SS playing in a pitcher's park, and Sosa was an okay fielding corner OFer playing in a great hitter's park. That why Ozzie was more valuable. It had nothing to do with whose team was better.

But, if you're gonna use WAR, let's use the basketball equivalent, win shares.

CAREER WIN SHARES
Malone - 234.63 - 4th all time
Duncan - 206.38 - 7th all time

BEST 7 SEASONS WIN SHARES
7. Mailman - 110.4
22. Duncan - 99.4

Malone was better at his peak, and for his career. Malone put up 11.1 win shares at the age of 39. Duncan had 5.2 win shares at that same age. Duncan's last season with 10 or more win shares was when he was 33. Malone LED THE NBA in win shares at the ages of 34 and 35.

Duncan closes the gap some by being a bit better in the playoffs, but Malone is clearly top top PF of all time.

The fact that you say he is clearly better than Duncan is baffling to me. But then again I don’t think I’m debating with a rational human being. On another note, will the remaining team evals be done before the season starts? If not, I understand. They take a lot of work

Posted by savoybg on 1/4/2023 12:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dakjd901 on 1/4/2023 12:06:00 PM (view original):
The fact you have Karl Malone ahead of Tim Duncan proves that you think all basketball is played like a sim. Duncan could have easily pulled a wilt or Westbrook and boosted his stats and won less championships. He also left money on the table year after year so the spurs could build/maintain a better roster around him. Yes Karl Malone was better in the advanced stats but Tim Duncan did what it took to win 5 championships in a small market. That’s hard to do when free agents don’t want to join you because the city you play for. Malone also tried to get his championship bailout in LA in his later years and that didn’t work.

Totally disagree. Duncan played with several other players who were all time greats. Malone just had two.

Here are my rankings of Duncan's teammates who were great players.

Parker - #15 PG all time
Ginobli - #11 SG all time
Leonard - #19 SF all time
The Admiral - #3 C all time

Here are my rankings of Malone's teammates who were great players.

Stockton #3 PG all time
Hornacek - #12 SG all time

AND the Spurs had a much better coach than Malone EVER had.

That's why Duncan's teams won championships and Malone's did not. That, and Dick Bavetta's horrible 24 second call that negated what should have been a good 3 pointer by Eisley at the shot clock buzzer. That's how razor thin winning and ,losing can be.

It had nothing to do at all with Duncan vs. Malone. Duncan just had more great teammates and an all time great coach. Championship or lack thereof DO NOT get assigned to just one player, no matter how often you keep saying that it does.

Duncan got 2 good admiral seasons. He got 2 good Leonard seasons. Don’t pretend they were there for the ‘03-07 championships. I mean David Robinson was there averaging 8 points and 8 rebounds in 2003. If you want to defend that as a great season, I dare you to use it in one of these leagues.

For those that will watch it (I don’t expect savoy to because it will have too much “emotion” and disagree with him) this is an interesting video. He does cases for multiple players as well.

https://youtu.be/1sRSpQ78Y3c

Posted by dakjd901 on 1/4/2023 1:02:00 PM (view original):
For those that will watch it (I don’t expect savoy to because it will have too much “emotion” and disagree with him) this is an interesting video. He does cases for multiple players as well.

https://youtu.be/1sRSpQ78Y3c

I LOVE Clayton Crowley!!!! Favorite basketball youtuber!!!!

Here is a few videos you won't watch from my 2nd favorite basketball youtuber (Thinking Basketball, whose stats I reference a lot) talking about the primes of all 4 guys that are being debated right now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCKSvjBnCRQ&ab_channel=ThinkingBasketball
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_5ZhbbDvQg&t=333s&ab_channel=ThinkingBasketball
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhIS4wlLXk8&ab_channel=ThinkingBasketball

Posted by samuelyork93 on 1/4/2023 1:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dakjd901 on 1/4/2023 1:02:00 PM (view original):
For those that will watch it (I don’t expect savoy to because it will have too much “emotion” and disagree with him) this is an interesting video. He does cases for multiple players as well.

https://youtu.be/1sRSpQ78Y3c

I LOVE Clayton Crowley!!!! Favorite basketball youtuber!!!!

Here is a few videos you won't watch from my 2nd favorite basketball youtuber (Thinking Basketball, whose stats I reference a lot) talking about the primes of all 4 guys that are being debated right now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCKSvjBnCRQ&ab_channel=ThinkingBasketball
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_5ZhbbDvQg&t=333s&ab_channel=ThinkingBasketball
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhIS4wlLXk8&ab_channel=ThinkingBasketball

I will definitely give them a watch later when I have a chance!