Top 50 All-Time List - Shot Clock Era = #1

[iamgine]

has this become a wilt thread

[coastalmarker99]

Alright, let's look at the voting so far.


L.Kizzle myself and Thenameless voted for Wilt.


That's 3 votes in Wilt's favour.








SouBeachTalents Bankaii Overdrive RRR3 nayte dankok8 voted for Jordan


That's 6 votes in Jordan's favour.



Dbrog voted for Russell.


That's one vote in Russell's favour.



8ball voted for Lebron.


That's one vote in Lebron's favour.



Zero people, so far I think have voted for Kareem.

[dankok8]

Compare Bill Russell's offensive numbers in the playoffs to someone like Kevin Garnett...

Russell's best stretch was 1960-1966 so let's compare that to KG's best 7 postseasons:

1960-1966 Russell: 18.7 rpg, 26.2 rpg (? o), 4.8 apg on 49.8 %TS (+1.9 rTS)

1999-2008 Garnett: 22.3 ppg, 12.7 rpg (2.7 o), 4.5 apg on 52.3 %TS (-0.2 rTS)

Garnett scored 3.6 ppg more but Russell surely had a higher offensive rebound rate when correcting for pace and had better efficiency relative to league average. Plus this doesn't account for the fact that Russell elevated his production in the finals and other key games. Russell wasn't nearly as bad on offense as people make it sound sometimes.

[RogueBorg]

Beginning with Russell's rookie season of 1956-'57 there were 8 teams in the league and teams only had to win 1 round to reach the NBA Finals. Compare that to this years champion Milwaukee Bucks where there are 30 teams and they had to go through 3 rounds before making the Finals. It is much harder to win a championship in todays game. Going back to the 60's, the league expanded to 9 teams in '62-'63, and 10 teams in '66-'67. Beginning with the 1966 playoffs, Boston had to win 2 rounds before making the Finals.

In 1967-'68 the league expanded to 12 teams.

And in Russell's final season the league expanded to 14 teams.

So when considering Russell's rings, he never played in a league with more than 14 teams with only 1 or 2 rounds to reach the Finals.

That is a much easier road to travel than what teams have to do today.

[Dbrog]

Beginning with Russell's rookie season of 1956-'57 there were 8 teams in the league and teams only had to win 1 round to reach the NBA Finals. Compare that to this years champion Milwaukee Bucks where there are 30 teams and they had to go through 3 rounds before making the Finals. It is much harder to win a championship in todays game. Going back to the 60's, the league expanded to 9 teams in '62-'63, and 10 teams in '66-'67. Beginning with the 1966 playoffs, Boston had to win 2 rounds before making the Finals.

In 1967-'68 the league expanded to 12 teams.

And in Russell's final season the league expanded to 14 teams.

So when considering Russell's rings, he never played in a league with more than 14 teams with only 1 or 2 rounds to reach the Finals.

That is a much easier road to travel than what teams have to do today.

Then why do all the sports who have 1 and done setups have much more parity than the NBA? It's clearly harder to win CONSISTENTLY with less games, hence all the "upsets" in those other sports. As far as less teams, that means every team has more great players. Condense current teams to 8 and you have dudes like Devin Booker as as 2nd stringer on them. That literally makes the competition insane which you would think only elevates being able to win in that environment. I don't even know why I see these two arguments when they are dismantled so easily with FACTS.

[RogueBorg]

Then why do all the sports who have 1 and done setups have much more parity than the NBA? It's clearly harder to win CONSISTENTLY with less games, hence all the "upsets" in those other sports. As far as less teams, that means every team has more great players. Condense current teams to 8 and you have dudes like Devin Booker as as 2nd stringer on them. That literally makes the competition insane which you would think only elevates being able to win in that environment. I don't even know why I see these two arguments when they are dismantled so easily with FACTS.

It's not less games that makes it easier, it's fewer rounds to play that make it easier. The more rounds a team go through the more chances for an upset. In 8 of Russell's 11 rings there were only 2 rounds Boston had to win to win the championship. The Bucks by comparison had to go through 4.

As far as your argument about great players, Boston EASILY had the most hall of famers on their team.

[dankok8]

It's not less games that makes it easier, it's fewer rounds to play that make it easier. The more rounds a team go through the more chances for an upset. In 8 of Russell's 11 rings there were only 2 rounds Boston had to win to win the championship. The Bucks by comparison had to go through 4.

As far as your argument about great players, Boston EASILY had the most hall of famers on their team.

Who is your #1?

[SaintzFury13]

Alright, let's look at the voting so far.


L.Kizzle myself and Thenameless voted for Wilt.


That's 3 votes in Wilt's favour.








SouBeachTalents Bankaii Overdrive RRR3 nayte dankok8 voted for Jordan


That's 6 votes in Jordan's favour.



Dbrog voted for Russell.


That's one vote in Russell's favour.



8ball voted for Lebron.


That's one vote in Lebron's favour.



Zero people, so far I think have voted for Kareem.

I voted for Jordan too...

[SaintzFury13]

Compare Bill Russell's offensive numbers in the playoffs to someone like Kevin Garnett...

Russell's best stretch was 1960-1966 so let's compare that to KG's best 7 postseasons:

1960-1966 Russell: 18.7 rpg, 26.2 rpg (? o), 4.8 apg on 49.8 %TS (+1.9 rTS)

1999-2008 Garnett: 22.3 ppg, 12.7 rpg (2.7 o), 4.5 apg on 52.3 %TS (-0.2 rTS)

Garnett scored 3.6 ppg more but Russell surely had a higher offensive rebound rate when correcting for pace and had better efficiency relative to league average. Plus this doesn't account for the fact that Russell elevated his production in the finals and other key games. Russell wasn't nearly as bad on offense as people make it sound sometimes.

No one is calling Russell a bad offensive player. But he was clearly not an elite one either, at least not on the level of the other people in top 10 status.

And it's perfectly fine that he's not. He and Magic are the two top ten all time greats who weren't great on one end of the floor (in Magic's case it was defense). Again, if you want to argue that Russell was a great offensive player, then fine, but he was nowhere near as good as what was needed for him to truly be considered the GOAT. And not to mention, I cannot justify making someone the GOAT when a legitimate argument exists that another guy who played in the same era as him was a better player.

[dankok8]

Official Vote Tally:

Michael Jordan - 7: dankok8, SouBeachTalents, Bankaii, Overdrive, SaintzFury13, RRR3, nayte
Wilt Chamberlain - 3: coastalmarker99, Thenameless, L. Kizzle
Bill Russell - 1: Dbrog
Lebron James - 1: 8ball

All the votes that weren't cast for Jordan are carried over to the #2 thread. It makes sense that everyone who voted Wilt or Russell or Lebron first for would also vote for him second. People can still change their mind and vote for someone else in the next thread of course.

The #2 thread is now open: LINK