Virtually everyone who ever made a topic to bring down any of the following players..

[edrick]

This forum would be boring without the haters and stans battling it out over pointless shit like a basketball game. "We know drama."

[Teanett]

well i sure look good with my threads about mike woodson.

[jlip]

Picking out some Random Game? Dude also scored under double digit in plenty g7's/elimination games/closeout games...

OK. Let's not pick out a random game. Let's choose entire playoff series and runs.

Russell had at least six playoff series off the top of my head where he avg. at least 20ppg... '61 EDF, '62 EDF and Finals, '63 EDF and Finals, and '66 Finals.
He led the Celtics in scoring during the '62 (22.9ppg) and the '66 Finals (23.6ppg). He led the team in scoring for the entire '62 playoff run.

Rodman scored 34 Points once, so what?

Rodman played in over 20 playoff series covering 169 games. He never scored 30 pts in a playoff game, let alone came remotely close to actually leading his team in scoring for a series as Russell did several times. There were only a couple of playoff series where Rodman even reached double figure pts. In no way does he remotely compare to Russell in terms of scoring.

Basketball-Reference tells me Russell had 1 Playoff 30+ Point Game in his Career. 1966 Finals vs Lakers: 32 on 13-23.

Of course they only date back since 1964. Next best was 28, same series. Next ones would be 5 25 point games. So 7 25+ Point Games.

By the start of the 1964 season, Russell had already played seven seasons of basketball, won 4 MVPs, led the league in rebounding multiple times, and won six titles of which he was clearly the best player on at least five of them. A little over half of his career was over by then.

You know how many he had from 1975-1963? (30+)

Russell had five playoff games of at least 30pts in his career. Two of those were championship clinching games decided by single digits. He had 21 playoff games of at least 25pts.

No one in their right mind would claim that Russell was a dominant scorer, but no one who actually is familiar with his game would claim that he couldn't score or was an offensive liability. Despite not being a dominant scorer, the coaches, teammates, opponents, and fans who actually watched him play almost unanimously consider him to be one of the most dominant players ever. It's fans 40 years later who look at only scoring numbers in box scores that don't appreciate him. The logical question which follows should be, What did those who actually faced him and coached against him see in his game that those of us 40+ years after he

[32MJ32]

Pau Gasol hasn't been good for 3 years. Above average? Yeah, at some things. Good? Nah. Not overall. If I want to win basketball games, I'm not paying Pau $20 million per year.

I'm not sure how anyone can simultaneously hold the opinions of:

"Kevin Love is just empty numbers" and "You can't rip on Pau - look at his numbers."

Yet, it happens. Often. Either numbers don't tell the whole story and we need to look further or they tell the whole story. If numbers tell the whole story, Love is a megastar and Pau is a good or even great player - even now. If they don't - which, of course, they don't - both of those statements are worth challenging.

Pau's giving you 20, 10 and 3 on 47% shooting with 3 turnovers on a team that guarantees him 17 shots per night, because it stinks, and doesn't play defense at all. He plays one end (Lakers D is 2nd worst in the league), gets his 15-20 shots, makes less than half, turns the ball over as many times as a lot of PG's who get hated on for turning the ballover too much, and gobbles rebounds - of which there are a lot because of the break neck pace the Lakers play at.

You take any above average or better big and put them in the same situation - Nene, Gortat, Boozer, KG, Duncan, Lee, Lopez, Z-Bo, Monroe, Vucevic - with the same conditions and you're getting Pau's output. If you somehow convinced Noah to stop caring about D and just focus on offense on this year's Bulls, you're getting Pau's #'s.

There are probably 50 starting bigs in the league, given some teams start "stretch 4's" who don't really qualify. Current day Pau plots somewhere in the end of the middle of the 50. No way he's top 10 anymore. And I'd argue he's barely top 20-25.

Criticizing his whole career? Different story. He's a Hall of Famer. And he deserves all the plaudits in the world for his play from 08-10 - especially in the playoffs. Since then? Eh. Crapped the bed in the 11 and 12 playoffs and played the same way he has this year in 12-13.

None of the above factors in any of the advanced metrics, which hate him, either. I'll spare you those because you also hate them.

He's just.. not a max money player anymore. Hasn't been for 3 seasons. Good? Depending on your definition of good, he could be. Above average? Yeah. But he's not worthy of the praise he gets from a lot of places anymore.

Stick him on the Warriors or Thunder and he's a very useful rotation guy as a 3rd-4th banana. As a Laker or Sixer or Celtic or someone as the feature guy? Not getting it done to a level which warrants any celebrating. I can say that because the Lakers are 19-36 and he's the feature guy

[SHAQisGOAT]

and you can say that won't even cover half of the ignorance going around

[SHAQisGOAT]

What grinds my gears the most is people who say Kareem, Bird, Wilt, Magic, West, and Russell wouldn't dominate the NBA today.

There are great players who bridge every generation gap that prove those all-time greats would be every ounce as special.

[AintNoSunshine]

How is trying to bring down Lebron any less of an idiotic thing to do than trying to bring down Hakeem???

[Mr Feeny]

If he had 6-7 years of over 15 he also had 6-7 years of under 15.... you can't just add 5 points.

Neither did he really "stepped up in scoring in the playoffs"

From 15 ppg on 44% to 16 ppg on 43% ? Not much stepping up there.

And then picking out one arbitraty G7 of his? Why not talk about his Finals Game 7 in which he scored 6 Points in? Quite the scorer huh. I can pick out random games like this too, in fact more G7's of under his average than over.

So yes, he was an inept scorer. Inept offensive player? His passing was hardly better than Wilt's. 4 APG that would likely be 3 with Adjusted Pace. Meh, doesn't change much for me on Bill offensively.


Concentrate on my Scoring points though.

Says the master of detailing threads. Ironic to say the least.

[Dr.J4ever]

[QUOTE=jlip]OK. Let's not pick out a random game. Let's choose entire playoff series and runs.

Russell had at least six playoff series off the top of my head where he avg. at least 20ppg... '61 EDF, '62 EDF and Finals, '63 EDF and Finals, and '66 Finals.
He led the Celtics in scoring during the '62 (22.9ppg) and the '66 Finals (23.6ppg). He led the team in scoring for the entire '62 playoff run.


Rodman played in over 20 playoff series covering 169 games. He never scored 30 pts in a playoff game, let alone came remotely close to actually leading his team in scoring for a series as Russell did several times. There were only a couple of playoff series where Rodman even reached double figure pts. In no way does he remotely compare to Russell in terms of scoring.


By the start of the 1964 season, Russell had already played seven seasons of basketball, won 4 MVPs, led the league in rebounding multiple times, and won six titles of which he was clearly the best player on at least five of them. A little over half of his career was over by then.



Russell had five playoff games of at least 30pts in his career. Two of those were championship clinching games decided by single digits. He had 21 playoff games of at least 25pts.

No one in their right mind would claim that Russell was a dominant scorer, but no one who actually is familiar with his game would claim that he couldn't score or was an offensive liability. Despite not being a dominant scorer, the coaches, teammates, opponents, and fans who actually watched him play almost unanimously consider him to be one of the most dominant players ever. It's fans 40 years later who look at only scoring numbers in box scores that don't appreciate him. The logical question which follows should be, What did those who actually faced him and coached against him see in his game that those of us 40+ years after he

[LAZERUSS]

[QUOTE=jlip]OK. Let's not pick out a random game. Let's choose entire playoff series and runs.

Russell had at least six playoff series off the top of my head where he avg. at least 20ppg... '61 EDF, '62 EDF and Finals, '63 EDF and Finals, and '66 Finals.
He led the Celtics in scoring during the '62 (22.9ppg) and the '66 Finals (23.6ppg). He led the team in scoring for the entire '62 playoff run.


Rodman played in over 20 playoff series covering 169 games. He never scored 30 pts in a playoff game, let alone came remotely close to actually leading his team in scoring for a series as Russell did several times. There were only a couple of playoff series where Rodman even reached double figure pts. In no way does he remotely compare to Russell in terms of scoring.


By the start of the 1964 season, Russell had already played seven seasons of basketball, won 4 MVPs, led the league in rebounding multiple times, and won six titles of which he was clearly the best player on at least five of them. A little over half of his career was over by then.



Russell had five playoff games of at least 30pts in his career. Two of those were championship clinching games decided by single digits. He had 21 playoff games of at least 25pts.

No one in their right mind would claim that Russell was a dominant scorer, but no one who actually is familiar with his game would claim that he couldn't score or was an offensive liability. Despite not being a dominant scorer, the coaches, teammates, opponents, and fans who actually watched him play almost unanimously consider him to be one of the most dominant players ever. It's fans 40 years later who look at only scoring numbers in box scores that don't appreciate him. The logical question which follows should be, What did those who actually faced him and coached against him see in his game that those of us 40+ years after he

[Black Mamba's B]

great post op

[K Xerxes]

Justifying Russell's offensive numbers isn't necessary whatsoever. He led his team ti 11 championships in his 13 seasons in the league, and in the 58 finals where they lost, he was injured. Technically, you could argue, he won 9 straight championships when healthy.

The aim of this sport is ultimately to win, not to pad your individual offensive stats so that people 50 years down the line can look at them in awe. His team won with him being a dominant defensive anchor and rebounder. Why change it? Russell exemplified what it meant to be a team player, and he continued to work on defense and rebounding. However, as has already been said, he could be relied on offense when required.

If he didn't keep on winning, I could understand the point that he was 'offensively deficient'. But he clearly wasn't when he didn't hurt his team.

[ArbitraryWater]

Actually KG is one of the clutchest player throughout his career.

Riiiight

Dude was a complete chokejob in Minny. No revisionist history please

[ArbitraryWater]

Says the master of detailing threads. Ironic to say the least.

Ugh, you mean derailing threads? Because this isn't just what you did?

And who are you again?

Reported for not staying on point

[ArbitraryWater]

[QUOTE=jlip]OK. Let's not pick out a random game. Let's choose entire playoff series and runs.

Russell had at least six playoff series off the top of my head where he avg. at least 20ppg... '61 EDF, '62 EDF and Finals, '63 EDF and Finals, and '66 Finals.
He led the Celtics in scoring during the '62 (22.9ppg) and the '66 Finals (23.6ppg). He led the team in scoring for the entire '62 playoff run.


Rodman played in over 20 playoff series covering 169 games. He never scored 30 pts in a playoff game, let alone came remotely close to actually leading his team in scoring for a series as Russell did several times. There were only a couple of playoff series where Rodman even reached double figure pts. In no way does he remotely compare to Russell in terms of scoring.


By the start of the 1964 season, Russell had already played seven seasons of basketball, won 4 MVPs, led the league in rebounding multiple times, and won six titles of which he was clearly the best player on at least five of them. A little over half of his career was over by then.



Russell had five playoff games of at least 30pts in his career. Two of those were championship clinching games decided by single digits. He had 21 playoff games of at least 25pts.

No one in their right mind would claim that Russell was a dominant scorer, but no one who actually is familiar with his game would claim that he couldn't score or was an offensive liability. Despite not being a dominant scorer, the coaches, teammates, opponents, and fans who actually watched him play almost unanimously consider him to be one of the most dominant players ever. It's fans 40 years later who look at only scoring numbers in box scores that don't appreciate him. The logical question which follows should be, What did those who actually faced him and coached against him see in his game that those of us 40+ years after he