GSoM GoAT: C
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 20, 2009 3:16 PM PDT
142 comments
via membres.lycos.fr
Hmmm .... does no one post diaries on this site anymore?
What, are people worried that if they post a diary about basketball, some semi-literate freakshow will hijack it with an inflammatory political comment, bait people into replying, and proceed to post 50-100 hysterical, barely coherent rants a day on subjects he knows next to nothing about, fueling his own prodigious ego while misrepresenting, ridiculing and disrespecting opposing views, alienating one regular poster after another ... and enlightening precisely no one?
I mean, why would anyone worry about that? ;-P
Anyway, even if there’s no real Warrior news to discuss other than a few paltry table scraps about Marco and Quiet Storm, I think GSoM can do a bit better. I thought we might use this little offseason lull to create a collective Greatest of All-Time -- "GoAT" -- list.
I want to get this diary up quickly (and ideally, the so-called "Keith Smart" diary off the front page) so I’m going to make my justifications and explanations brief. I’m casting my vote for Hakeem Olajuwon. I’m pretty sure the numbers say that Shaq has been marginally more dominant; and the 11 rings + my Boston blood make me want to vote Russell. But I haven’t seen Russell except in clips (yes, amazingly, he’s before my time); and as much as I’ve always been in awe of Shaq, I’ve always thought him a bore to watch. Hoops is, after all, entertainment; from the fan’s perspective there are considerations beyond putting the ball in the hoop, and preventing same. Not only was Hakeem fab at putting the ball in the hoop, and extra-fab at preventing same, but he was also a total joy to watch. There are very few big men I'd say that about. The soccer-trained footwork, the dreamshaking and dreambaking and dreamshotblocking ... yeah, maybe not quite as lovely to watch as MJ or Magic or Bird, but that category, imo. Shaq ... ugh. Brutally effective, but far too predictable ("use gluteus maximus to knock defenders into front row, drop ball thru rim") to be beautiful. Same for Kareem ... I suspect he was a pretty dynamic player in his youth, but by the time I started watching him in the ‘80s he was basically a one -trick skyhook pony who loafed up and down court. Plus, both Shaq and Kareem played for the team that shall not be mentioned.
Wilt, as a sometime Warrior and statistical freakshow, should probably be higher, but I have it on good authority from an older dude who witnessed many of his duels with the Celtics that he absolutely, er, wilted, in the presence of Bill Russell. "Gentle Giant" is the term my friend used to describe him. Sorry, Mr. Chamberlain: if you allow yourself to be dominated and intimidated by a guy 6 inches shorter and 50 lbs. lighter than you, you don’t get to be considered the GoAT in my book. I posted the classic Wilt/Russell pic above just ‘cos I love it so. So much of the beauty of basketball, distilled into one simple frame.
Back to Hakeem, briefly: I was surprised and annoyed recently to see Kobe ahead of Hakeem in a recent SLAM survey of the greatest players of all-time. People have short memories, alas. Does Kobe even come close to leading that motley crew of scrappers (Maxwell, Cassell, Big Shot Bob, Scott Bullard, Kenny the Jet, Otis "Denzel Washington" Thorpe et al.) to two consecutive championships? I think not.
Without further ado, my top 5:
1. Hakeem Olajuwon
2. Bill Russell
3. Shaquille O’Neal
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Feel free to post your your Top Five in the comments, with explanations, or just vote in the poll. If this does well as a topic, I’ll move on to the other four positions, and maybe do a li’l GSoM tally at the end (the PG and SG topics probably won’t spur much debate, but "second-best PGoAT" and "second-best SGoAT" could be pretty interesting). And naturally: if you want to keep this discussion going and/or you want to bump the "ranting thread" into oblivion ... please rec this fanpost.
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
10 recs |
142 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I had to go with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. He’s a 19-time All-Star, a 10-time All-NBA First Team selection and the only six-time regular season MVP award winner.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Aug 20, 2009 3:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
thats true but...
Wilt scored 100 in a game. Thats never going to be broken
by the bay area on Aug 22, 2009 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Adonal Foyle...
its a no brainer
"IT'S GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!"
by Curry on Aug 20, 2009 3:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Bill Russell. 11 Rings, humble guy. He’d make my basket-ball Mount-Rushmore.
"It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." - Mark Twain
by Ed (dfjmed) on Aug 20, 2009 3:41 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Chris Washburn...........
I am going on potential.
by nuttinbutnet on Aug 20, 2009 3:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm …. does no one post diaries on this site anymore?
It’s been a very quiet summer, and in August, the Warriors are on hiatus, so nothing new to write about. Actually, I contemplated making a list of things to look forward to next season and asking readers to add their own, but I’m worried I don’t have enough basketball background knowledge to make a good fanpost.
by IQofaWarrior on Aug 20, 2009 4:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
but I’m worried I don’t have enough basketball background knowledge to make a good fanpost.
are you serious? Have you seen most of the fanposts?
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 20, 2009 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha, good point
Well anyway, I huess I have high standards for myself.
by IQofaWarrior on Aug 20, 2009 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not only that, but that’s a really good Idea as long as you state something like “besides the two Anthony’s blowing up, what else is there”, otherwise it will just be another Anthony thread.
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on Aug 21, 2009 7:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Agree mostly...
Hakeem
Chamberlain
Shaq
Russell
Kareem
Hakeem won the finals and carried a weak team, without much of a second option. He was dominant on both sides of the ball throughout his career. Would he be at the top of this list if MJ hadn’t retired the 1st time? Dunno.
Wilt played with good players on the lakers, but earlier in his career when he was more dominant, he did not win championchips. When he was paired with Jerry West, he was unstoppable.
Shaq was extremally dominant, like Wilt, but has always needed a good surrounding cast, to compete for a championchip. At his most dominant, he was owned by a older wiser Hakeem in the finals.
Russell was the most dominant on the defensive side, but he was on the talent rich Celtics. If he was on a less talented team one could argue that his ppg would be higher. If he were on a weak team I don’t know if he could put them on his back and carry them to the Finals.
If Chamberlain was on the old Celtics teams maybe they go undeafeated.
Kareem was very dominant, but like Shaq he needed, other stars to help him win a championchip. As far as careers go, Kareem was more dominant throughout than Shaq, because he could shoot. I would take young Shaq over young Kareem (Lou Alcinder)
"Without deviation from the norm their can be no progress"
-Frank Zappa
by Tom Fullery on Aug 20, 2009 4:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
thanks for mentioning the dream. olajuwon is one of my very favorite players ever. i follow basketball because i love watching bodies flying gracefully through the air. no other sport gives us quite the same thing. it’s why dr. j was given an honorary degree in dance from his alma mater.
olajuwon moved so beautifully on the court. it’s so hard to be seven feet tall and elegant. during his championship runs, jordan was asked what would happen if he returned and jordan replied: “hakeem is the greatest basketball player in the world now.”
by whoarethewarriors on Aug 20, 2009 4:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nicely said.
Normally I don’t like to link to YouTube highlight clips (too cut-up, dunk-oriented, and headachy for my tastes) but this is a very nice document for the Olajuwon dossier:
Life is a much better teacher than these blog back and forths. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 20, 2009 5:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice Link!
That footage brightened my day a bit. David Robinson got owned that series. Hakeem had moves other big men could only attempt in their dreams. If I remember correctly, he had to work a lot on his offensive game. His atheltiscim and defensive ability were always there, but he developed into an unstoppable force on offense. I think I’m going to check his career numbers.
"Without deviation from the norm their can be no progress"
-Frank Zappa
by Tom Fullery on Aug 20, 2009 6:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks.
One other thing that struck me about that clip … watch the Admiral’s ultra-gracious reaction to having been throughly abused by Hakeem, and compare that to the petulant, childish way LeBron acted when DHo and the Magic took down the Cavs.
Good sportsmanship is timeless.
Life is a much better teacher than these blog back and forths. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 20, 2009 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
watch the Admiral’s ultra-gracious reaction to having been throughly abused by Hakeem, and compare that to the petulant, childish way LeBron acted when DHo and the Magic took down the Cavs.
+1
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 20, 2009 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the naticus diss
as in the hijacked diary
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
by montadaboss on Aug 20, 2009 5:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Who?
Life is a much better teacher than these blog back and forths. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 20, 2009 5:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you!
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
by montadaboss on Aug 20, 2009 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
MIKE JONES!
We still believe!!
Become a fan on facebook! www.facebook.com/goldenstateofmind
by R Dizzle on Aug 20, 2009 10:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL!
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
by montadaboss on Aug 21, 2009 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know that I’d actually say Hakeem is the greatest center of all time, but he is definitely in the top 3 or 4 and he doesn’t get nearly as much recognition as Russell, Chamberlain, or Shaq. David Robinson probably isn’t in the top 5 centers of all time, but he’s another guy who doesn’t get enough love so I was glad to see him included in the poll. No George Mikan though? Obviously it was almost a completely different game when he played, but he warrants a spot in the poll, no?
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 20, 2009 5:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
George Mikan might as well be Odysseus to me. If anyone here is old enough to have seen him play, I’d love to hear their accounts in this diary. Just looking at the numbers, I’m not that impressed (.401 career FG%), but as you say, totally different game then. (Bob Cousy, another all-time great, shot .375 for his career, probably thanks to all those flat-footed “ground-hooks” he seemed to take from 18-20 feet…)
Life is a much better teacher than these blog back and forths. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 20, 2009 6:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea, the FG% numbers are a little deceiving though. In 1950-51 he was third in the league in FG% at 42.8%. The previous year he was 5th in the league at 40.7%. Obviously NBA’ers have gotten much better at putting the ball in the hoop efficiently. Would Mikan stand a remote chance against an end of the bench big in today’s game, much less one of the other guys in your poll? No chance. I can see why he wasn’t included, I just think that as the first dominant big man he shouldn’t be overlooked. I really don’t think Jim Brown would have had much success if he’d been lining up opposite athletic freaks like Patrick Willis, Casey Hampton, Ed Reed and Shawne Merriman either, but he’s still always included in the “greatest RB of all time debate.”
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 20, 2009 7:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
when you start transplanting the old timers
like Brown into the present, it’s only fair to give them the (imaginary)benefit of the same nutrition, pampering, and training regimen. Don’t underestimate the power of his competitive personality. He’d probably adapt a different style than what you see in the old film clips—and in the modern day offenses it would be much tougher to focus on stopping him without opening serious gaps elsewhere in the defense. Amerikaner football is more systems oriented than hoops, and a modern system might make him more effective, not less.
by the.monk on Aug 20, 2009 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“I really don’t think Jim Brown would have had much success if he’d been lining up opposite athletic freaks like Patrick Willis, Casey Hampton, Ed Reed and Shawne Merriman either, but he’s still always included in the "greatest RB of all time debate."”
I didn’t even notice this before. Whoops. Umm…Jim Brown is not included in the “greatest RB of all time debate”. Jim Brown IS the “greatest RB of all time debate.” There is no other acceptable answer….
@the.monk – I think sam does have a point though, but I’m having a hard time finding the words to say it. Basically, competition levels are higher now and standing out from the crowd is more difficult. The worst players in sports these days are better relative to their peers than in the past, because there are just more players that are really good/athletic than their used to be. So while Jim Brown is the greatest, he’d be playing a relatively higher level of competition and his performance would undoubtedly suffer some.
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 9:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
perhaps
we can only speculate, obviously, but watching sayers and brown back in what we could call the renaissance (if the present is post-industrial revolution) of amerikaner football, there’s some timeless qualities that are indelible. we shouldn’t underestimate the power of the mind in the genius-level athlete, and the human capacity to adapt. brown was unstoppable in lacrosse in college, as an example of his adaptability. guys i would consider lesser athletes like priest holmes, terrell davis, l.tomlinson have all put up huge seasons statistically. the sixteen vs. twelve game season, plus two extra rounds of playoffs, is a big structural difference, and the guys who averaged 140 yds./gm probably would get worn down to 110-120.
by the.monk on Aug 20, 2009 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
perhaps
we can only speculate, obviously,
true
guys i would consider lesser athletes like priest holmes, terrell davis, l.tomlinson have all put up huge seasons statistically.
I think you’re underestimating the athleticism difference. I’m not sure Jim Brown would be a better athlete in today’s game than a guy like Ron Dayne (who has proven he can complete dominant lesser athletes but looks very mortal when matched up against guys with similar size and much more speed. Like you said, all we can do is speculate, but I don’t think a young Jim Brown with the benefit of some protein shakes and fancy workout equipment would have the same kind of success he did in the 50s and 60s.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 20, 2009 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“I’m not sure Jim Brown would be a better athlete in today’s game than a guy like Ron Dayne”
I disagree very, very, very strongly with this. Jim Brown was arguably the best athlete alive when he was in his prime. Sure, conditioning, nutrition, and weight lifting and such have changed since then, but as long as we’re assuming he gets up to date in those things I think we have to assume he’d at least be an elite level athlete in this day and age. It’s not like human genetics have changed since then, an elite athlete is an elite athlete in any time period (though over time the number of great/elite should increase with the population I’d think), they just didn’t have the same access to training.
by Missing Barry on Aug 21, 2009 5:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn’t read Skpetic’s point before posting…yeah he basically said the same thing as me….
by Missing Barry on Aug 21, 2009 5:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but, again, that takes us back to George Mikan. Would he be an elite athlete today? He certainly was at the time, but I really can’t see it. The speed of all professional sports has changed dramatically over the last 50 years. In football especially, the size of the average athlete has changed dramatically over the last 50 years. I really don’t think its all just better training. Brown was able to physically dominate almost all of his opponents. He was quite possibly the fastest and one of the strongest men in the NFL at that time. I can’t imagine a better diet, and a better workout really giving him the ability to physically dominate a Ray Lewis, Brian Urlacher, or Patrick Willis.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 21, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You seem to be claiming one of two things:
A) Human beings are intrinsically better athletes than they were 40 years ago
or
B) The NFL is attracting more top-tier athletes than it was 40 years ago.
I am guessing your stance is “B”, which is a reasonable one since athletes get funneled into different sports depending on what’s popular, what the current notions are, etc. Whereas nowadays top-tier athletes are generally either basketball or football players, 40 years ago they would have chosen track and field for their vocation. I would be curious to hear your exact opinion on this, though.
Thing C
by markdash on Aug 21, 2009 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
40 years ago baseball was all the rage but football was not to far behind with smoaking Joe etc.
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on Aug 21, 2009 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think its a little bit of both. Human beings, especially in pro sports, are faster than they were 40 or 50 years ago. Football players are much, much bigger and certainly haven’t sacrificed any of that speed, in fact they’ve managed to get a whole lot faster. Just look at the relative size of Brown to the guys he played against. 1963 was probably Brown’s best year. That year Gino Marchetti was an elite defensive lineman (now in the hall of fame) while weighing in at a whopping 244 lbs. Bob Gain was an elite defensive tackle at 256 lbs. These days guys like that would have to be pretty dang fast because he’d be playing LB…..or they’d have to pack on about 50 lbs. Of course diet and training programs have something to do with this, but I don’t think its gonna make so much of a difference that Jim Brown would still be elite. At the time Brown was bigger and faster than any linebacker and as big as many of the defensive linemen, almost as big as some of the interior guys. Thats just ridiculous. Sure the guys blocking for him are bigger too, but do you really think modern diet and exercise would make Jim Brown some sort of 6’4", 275 lb Adrian Peterson-fast monster? Because thats essentially what he would have to be to physically dominate today’s competition the way he did then.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 21, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Because thats essentially what he would have to be to physically dominate today’s competition the way he did then.”
Again, I don’t think he’d physically dominate them the way he did his time period. I believe he’d be the best RB in the league, but he wouldn’t be as dominant as he was in his time period.
“Human beings, especially in pro sports, are faster than they were 40 or 50 years ago.”
The problem is the explanation. How can the explanation be anything other than external factors? Unless you have a reason the internal factors (basically genetics) that are relevant have somehow changed from where they were back then? I see no plausible explanation for an actual change in genetics, which leads me to the only possible conclusion I can think of – that it’s completely because of advances in those external things.
by Missing Barry on Aug 21, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m along markdash’s reasoning. I don’t think you can reasonably argue something has changed physically about people (the A option). There are definitely more of us now, so there are more elite athletes for sprots to choose from (and with the lucrative offers in major sports they basically have their pick of the top athlets in America and various parts of the world). With George Mikan, I don’t really know enough about him to answer this, but being completely racist here, as a white dude, I question whether he was really an elite athlete or just a good athlete that was big at a time that basketball was still developing. Jim Brown I have 0 questions about. He would be one of the top, if not the top athlete in the NFL if he was playing today (assuming his nutrition/training was up to par with todays standards). At 6’2 232, he would still be big for a RB even by today’s standards, and I have no doubt he’d be unbeliveably fast, as well. Think a bigger version of Adrian Peterson. Jim Brown really was that special.
That said, I also think you’re right, the speed of the game has changed, the size of the game has changed, there is a bigger pool of better athletes to choose from than in the past. Jim Brown would still be special, but I don’t think he would stand out from the crowd as significantly as he did in the past. Basically, the crowd has gotten better.
by Missing Barry on Aug 21, 2009 10:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
do you really think Jim Brown was as fast as Adrian Peterson?
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 21, 2009 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, but with modern training, yes, I think he would be.
by Missing Barry on Aug 21, 2009 12:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok, we’re just never gonna agree there.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 21, 2009 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just haven’t seen an answer on why people have changed that could convince me it’s anything other than external factors that we’re assuming Jim Brown would now have going for him.
by Missing Barry on Aug 21, 2009 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well it depends what you define as “external factors.” You could argue that Acanthus of Sparta would still be an elite athlete if he were born today because he’d have all the advantages of advances in science and if he was born today its unlikely he would be 4’9"
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 21, 2009 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, if he was truly an elite athlete, than yes, I would argue that. :)
Based on population sizes and such I would guess he was not really anything too special in that way, though.
by Missing Barry on Aug 21, 2009 6:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know you were addressing his comment specifically, but it’s irrelevant since speed is obviously not the only factor that contributes to the success of an NFL RB.
Thing C
by markdash on Aug 21, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
watching sayers and brown back in what we could call the renaissance (if the present is post-industrial revolution) of amerikaner football, there’s some timeless qualities that are indelible.
Yeah, Great athletes in any era would still be great athletes today. The training, nutrition, and dedication levels change but the best guys would adapt and still be the best.
It depends on the rest of the team as to which of those greats would be the best center but if I had to pick one it would probably be Wilt
Hard to argue with a 100 point game. Rookie season average 37 points and 27 rebounds good enough for Rookie of the year and allstar MVP and league MVP. Averaged over 50 points and 25 rebounds per game for a season. Scored 4029 regular season points one year. Pulled down 2149 rebounds one season. Had a 55 rebound game. Scored 42 points and 24 rebounds in an allstar game. Even lead the league in assists one year.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 20, 2009 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Averaged over 50 points and 25 rebounds per game for a season. Scored 4029 regular season points one year. Pulled down 2149 rebounds one season. Had a 55 rebound game. Scored 42 points and 24 rebounds in an allstar game. Even lead the league in assists
Haha, Rudolf has his work cut out for him if he’s correct in his assertion that he’s gonna be the best player ever?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 20, 2009 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, Great athletes in any era would still be great athletes today.
So you think a 25 year old George Mikan would be a legitimate threat in today’s NBA?
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 21, 2009 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you think a 25 year old George Mikan would be a legitimate threat in today’s NBA?
Haha, I’m old but not that old.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 21, 2009 12:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Averaged over 50 points and 25 rebounds per game for a season.”
He also averaged more than 48 minutes a game that season. Yes, you did read that correctly. Obviously everything he accomplished is impressive (and he statistically stands out more than any other player in basketball history), but his stats are inflated and need to be put into some context…
by Missing Barry on Aug 21, 2009 5:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but at the same time averaging more then 48 min’s is freakish in it’s own right, you have to be in great condition to pull that off and at the level he did it even more so.
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on Aug 21, 2009 7:25 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Absolute, I wonder how many total minutes he didn’t play that season. LIke 3? If I’m not mistaken they also used to play at a much faster pace than we do now, so that’s a lot of running. However, I also think it speaks to the overall talent level of the league that one person can get that many minutes (that the talent level was less good). Actually, I just did a calculation, and it appears he did not play in 7 or 8 total minutes that season. Ridiculous.
by Missing Barry on Aug 21, 2009 7:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was just looking at Mikan’s career last week. What I hadn’t realized was how incredibly short it was. Seven seasons. Shaq, for all the noise he makes, impressed me when he stepped up to pay for Mikan’s memorial service, acknowledging the game’s history and Mikan’s place in it.
by jae on Aug 21, 2009 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And he was only really effective through 6
He retired after the ’54 finals, and sat out the entire 54-55 season and most of 55-56.
And I agree, Shaq paying for his funeral is one of the classiest things he has ever done.
by philthiest on Aug 21, 2009 8:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and that the lakers wouldnt be in la if it werent for him
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
by montadaboss on Aug 21, 2009 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sam
you can make a pretty legit argument, that athletes have dramatically advanced physically over the past 60 years, that none of the top guys in the 60s wouldstand a chance at the end of the benchs today. I think those guys like Jim Brown was the best athlete possible for his time. Its not his fault. I still respect those guys like Mikan and Brown because they were so dominant when the game was purely on skill not athletism. For god sakes, I’m sick of tired of the NBA’s prospects mainly because they are all just athletic freaks that barely have more skill than most varsity high school players. Athleticsm is overrated, unless you are like MJ, Kobe, or D Wade, where your athleticsm helps your overall game, but it isnt the only past of your game.
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
by montadaboss on Aug 21, 2009 10:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hakeem #1? Really? I have no doubt Kareem is #1. I simply cannot believe he is #5 in the poll right now (really #4, stupid hipsters with their “irony”). I’d personally put Shaq #2., he was an absolutely dominating force that made everyone else around him so much better. Someone used the logic that Hakeem is better than Shaq because Hakeem beat him in the finals. Really? Hakeem was a 10 year veteran at that point, Shaq was in his third season in the league. To put that into perspective, Kevin Durant is going to be in his 3 season next year. Dwight Howard is in his 5th year and still developing his game. I’d go Wilt next, followed by Hakeem and then Russell.
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 6:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hakeem was a 10 year veteran at that point, Shaq was in his third season in the league. To put that into perspective, Kevin Durant is going to be in his 3 season next year. Dwight Howard is in his 5th year and still developing his game.
Thats similarly unfair, Durant and Howard both broke into the NBA at a much younger age and neither was as physically mature as Shaq was when he broke in.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 20, 2009 7:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also
At the time of the ‘95 finals, Hakeem was 32 and Shaq was 23 or 24 (the age Howard is now). Hakeem’s best statistical years were behind him, while Shaq had just put in one of the finest seasons he’s ever had. So is it really fair to say that Hakeem was much closer to his prime than Shaq was? I agree that using that one finals series as the sole measure of each player’s worth isn’t fair, but not for the reasons you stated.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 20, 2009 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two replies? Trying to make this difficult for me, eh?
Ok, in all seriousness, I think comparing ages is worse than comparing years in the league. College years won’t give you nearly the same development as NBA years. Ultimately, the playoff game is a much different game than the regular season. The defensive intensity is turned up and playing efficiently is more important than ever. Efficiency tends to improve with experience, in addition to the other skills it takes to beat talented players playing tough D – making good decisions, passing well, seeing the double team coming, etc. Experience is incredibly important in the playoffs – that’s why young superstars struggle to win it all. (And maybe that makes Wade’s accomplishment even more impressive…). Hakeem hadn’t really slowed down yet (after all, that was the highest scoring year of his career) – I’d expect him to dominate a 3rd year guy, even one as talented as Shaq. Not trying to take anything away from Hakeem, he was an amazing player, but there have been some other amazing centers in history, and the fact that he’s in the conversation with them reflects how highly he’s thought of…
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, in all seriousness, I think comparing ages is worse than comparing years in the league. College years won’t give you nearly the same development as NBA years.
NBA years CAN give you more development than college years but that certainly isn’t always the case. I just don’t think the examples you used were disingenuous considering how physically undeveloped both Durant and Howard were when they came into the league….especially compared to Shaq who was already one of the most physically dominant players in NBA history by his 3rd year. Why not say “to put that into perspective, Brandon Roy was in his 3rd year in the NBA last year” instead? Like Shaq, Roy came into the NBA at an older age than Durant and Howard and was physically prepared to compete immediately but in his 3rd year still probably hasn’t quite maxed out his potential.
Ultimately, the playoff game is a much different game than the regular season. The defensive intensity is turned up and playing efficiently is more important than ever. Efficiency tends to improve with experience,
Yet Shaq’s numbers that year, even in the playoffs, don’t bear that out. He had one of his most efficient playoffs in ’95 despite being outplayed by Olajuwon in the finals.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 20, 2009 8:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“Yet Shaq’s numbers that year, even in the playoffs, don’t bear that out. He had one of his most efficient playoffs in ’95 despite being outplayed by Olajuwon in the finals.”
That’s just because Shaq’s that good! Honestly, I used Durant just because he was the best 3rd year player I could think of, I didn’t put very much thought into my examples. NBA years, if you’re getting significant playing time, will develop you more than college, pretty much hands down because of the competition level, at least with a good player like Shaq. That said, I do recognize you have a fair point about physical development (and it’s not like guys don’t develop at all in college, that certainly puts them at a higher level coming into the league). Bottom line is Shaq’s a beast, and Olujawon was a beast, but slightly less so…in my opinion of course…
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 9:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
College years won’t give you nearly the same development as NBA years.
I would have thought the same thing, but I’ve been looking into this and there’s only a one year difference in average age of statistical peak isn’t heavily influenced by age at which someone first gets to the league. Straight out of HS or 1 year of college players seem to improve until their mid 20s, almost exactly like players who stayed in college. The former group tends to involve more of the best athletes now, so their peaks tend to be higher, but the numbers I’ve played with shows a fairly similar development curve.
by jae on Aug 21, 2009 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You develop much better in College than the NBA
Like if OJ Mayo, stayed in college for one or more seasons, we may be talking about one of the greats ever. but he comes to the league and develops a way to score, but with terrible decison making and habits, which would not happen if he went to college. D Wade would not even be in the league if he didn’t go to college for 3 years. Imagine if D howard went to college. Or lebron. or kwame brown(jk). The reason we have so many busts is because they are still far too raw and don’t develop themselves with a trainer…because nba coaches have very little ammount of time to develop the guys unless they are on the court(which may turn into an oj mayo situation).
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
by montadaboss on Aug 21, 2009 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
my best example is brandon roy.
if he had gone into the draft in 2002…. i dont think he’d even be in the league, but after 4 years of college, he is one of the best players in the nba right now. or he would become a martell webster type, who doesnt develop other parts of his game.
Marco Belinelli's Biggest Fan
by montadaboss on Aug 21, 2009 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The plural or anecdote is not fact. Some players would not likely have drawn attention from NBA clubs if they had left early. Because it likely benefited Brandon Roy we cannot conclude that all players would have similarly benefited.
by jae on Aug 22, 2009 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if he had gone into the draft in 2002…. i dont think he’d even be in the league,
Why not? Why couldn’t he develop just as well in the D league or a foreign league? It’s probably more about the maturity than where they get it. Look at all the college players who are never NBA greats.
The best argument for 4 years of college is that it lets then develop on their own time instead of on ours. I’d rather have them show up here mature and ready to play like Morrow or Kurz instead of drop outs like Rudolf or Montay who had to learn to be men before they can train them to be players.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 22, 2009 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You develop much better in College than the NBA
I don’t really see any evidence for this. I’m not sure exactly how you control for it, but in general, the guys who leave earlier wind up being the better players. They probably left early because they were also more talented to begin with, so it’s not really possible to say how much more or less they would have developed in college. What’s clear though in what I’ve seen is that they reach their peak (regardless of how high that peak is) at about the same chronological age. Being in the NBA younger seems to have a very, very limited influence on the age a player peaks at.
There appear to be just as many busts now as there have always been. I do not see any evidence that there are more busts today with players coming out early.
by jae on Aug 22, 2009 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two Lakers at the top of the list!
That’s against the rules. This is “GSOM” for god’s sakes there have to be standards.
I can understand an argument for Kareem at number 1, but not Shaq at number 2. Shaq has never been a great defender. Offensively there is no one like him that has ever played the position, but to be the best at your position, you must excel on both sides of the ball.
Hakeem Won MVP, Finals MVP, and Defensive Player of the Year in the same season! How can you put Shaq above him!
"Without deviation from the norm their can be no progress"
-Frank Zappa
by Tom Fullery on Aug 20, 2009 7:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shaq has never been a great defender? Are we watching the same dominating force controlling the lane? If you want to make an argument his on ball defense was weaker, ok, though it’d be hard to tell since he didn’t really have good enough competition to really make that judgment (there was a very weak crop of centers offensively in the late ’90ish era). I personally think Shaq was a much better defensive player than you apparently do.
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 7:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe never was a little harsh
When he had fresh legs, and was commited to defense, he was great, but his effort was not consistant night in and night out on the defensive side of the ball. With Shaq you could always count on rebounds, dunks and points. I’m not saying he is bad on defense, but he does not come close to the other four centers in this disscussion. Your point on weak competition is valid with all centers. I wonder what era of NBA history had the most talented players at the center position. Any ideas?
"Without deviation from the norm their can be no progress"
-Frank Zappa
by Tom Fullery on Aug 20, 2009 8:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have absolutely no evidence to back this up, but I’m guessing Shaq’s opponents were, in general, held well below their average shooting % and well under their rebounding averages when they went head to head with him.
(waiting for markdash, m.b., jae, or another more statistically gifted GSoMer to do all the work and give me the assist on this one)
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 20, 2009 8:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“I wonder what era of NBA history had the most talented players at the center position. Any ideas?”
I think the best way to look at this isn’t in terms of the depth at center, but rather the talent of the elite centers. It’s great that we have Russell and Chamberlain to compare against each other since they played each other in their respective primes.
The ’70’s had Kareem, Moses Malone and Walton all in their primes. I think Ewing, Mutombo, Mourning, Olujawon and Robinson was a pretty good era, especially with a second tier guy like Smits who was pretty good himself. Vlade was decent. Shaq overlapped them somewhat. Of course this was when I first started following basketball so I know the players better.
I’d say Shaq’s era, once those guys started getting old, has to be up there with the weakest class of centers in modern NBA history…
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thurmond
competed against russell, chamberlain, abdul-jabbar, and unseld, yet on relative merits we might consign him to ‘second tier’ status! his career extended just long enough that he has an ‘official’ quadruple double (russell/chamberlain likely had many when blocked shots weren’t an official stat). if thurmond is second tier, someone like ewing who had no ball handling skill should be on a still lower level.
by the.monk on Aug 20, 2009 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How could I forget Thurmond?! I’m embarassed, my bad. I think when thinking up tiers it’d be good to use a historical context to create the tiers rather than ones for each era. Obviously Thurmond wasn’t Wilt or Russell or Kareem, but if he’s comparable to other great centers throughout history who I’d call top tier guys (and Ewing is definitely one of them), he should be considered a top tier guy himself. That would just go to show how good Wilt, Russell and Kareem are if they so clearly stand above a guy like Thurmond who’s universally considered one of the game’s great centers…
by Missing Barry on Aug 21, 2009 5:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ewing deserves top tier rating, but he’s one of the weaker top tier. He got heavily hyped from his first year at G’town and being in NYC kept that up, but as a pro, he was never as good as Robinson or Olajuwon, and it’s not really close. Just by the numbers, Ewing is much more comparable to Robert Parish.
by jae on Aug 21, 2009 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you calling Adonal Foyle a hipster?
Is it because he changed the name of “Democracy Matters” to “Whatever”?
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Aug 23, 2009 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m calling the ironic vote for Adonal Foyle a hipster thing to do.
by Missing Barry on Aug 23, 2009 8:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was joking. You surely realize that your overt hostility toward hipsters just further fortifies their existence. They’re like that red slime in Ghostbusters 2 that gained all its power from negativity and hate.
If we, as a country, just got together and said, “Hipsters, we like you and we think we should all be more like you guys”, they would vanish completely.
I have to say I kind of appreciate the paradox that hipsters present.
They are the classic conformists in nonconformists’ clothing which is ironic until I start thinking about how irony is such a defining characteristic of hipster culture. So then I think that it’s completely the opposite of ironic since by being ironic they are actually just sincerely expressing the true essence of what they are, which is ironic because they don’t think that’s what they’re doing.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Aug 23, 2009 8:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good points. It’s kind of like goth kids – dressing like all the other goth kids to try to “reject conformity”, despite the fact that they’re just one big conformist group themselves…
Ha I only recently found out hipsters exist, I think it’s funny to make fun of them. I just don’t get all these guys wearing tight pants, that just can’t be comfortable at all. I think we’d be worse off with no hipsters, what strangers would I be able to laugh at while I’m walking down the street if there were no hipsters?
by Missing Barry on Aug 24, 2009 7:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
More on Hakeem
He is one of only four players to have recorded a quadruple-double,
He is the only center to rank among the top ten all time in steals.
Hakeem averaged 3.09 blocks per game and 1.75 steals per game in his career.
"Without deviation from the norm their can be no progress"
-Frank Zappa
by Tom Fullery on Aug 20, 2009 6:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I suspect that Wilt has several quadruple doubles, but neither blocks nor steals were recorded in his day. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if he had a quintuple double (points, rebounds, blocks, steals assists) once or twice.
by jae on Aug 21, 2009 9:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wilt Chamberlain
He played for the Warriors. He owns 5 of the top 6 season scoring averages in league history. He averaged 50 points per game. He has to be the most prolific per game scorer the NBA has ever seen, as well as the career rebounding leader. He won 2 titles, so he’s not Charles Barkley or Dan Marino. He slept with too many women to count so he made up a number that made him even more famous. Wilt the Stilt, GoAT.
by the guy on Aug 20, 2009 6:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
-Statistically there’s just no arguing with Wilt. (career averages of 30 pts and 23 boards per game, think about how everyone goes a little crazy when Dwight Howard pulls down 23 boards in a game…. that was Wilt’s average for his entire career!)
-Using rings or defense as the primary measurement there’s no arguing with Russell
-The most skilled (that I’ve seen) was Olajuwon.
-The most physically dominant was Shaq (or Wilt)
-Kareem may very well be 2nd in all of those categories and thus may very well be the most well rounded.
Of those 5 there just isn’t really a wrong answer.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 20, 2009 7:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I’d throw Duncan in the mix for most skilled. Physically, he isn’t the force that the rest of them were, though.
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 7:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Duncan
Yeah, I was kinda holding him out for the GSoM GoAT: PF diary, even if he is basically a Center. Actually (spoiler alert) he probably is my GoAT for PF, by a hair over KG (with Barkley, the Mailman and maybe McHale rounding out the top 5). You wanna fire up the next GoAT/PF diary at some point, MB (or Sam)? It’s basically a guaranteed rec, and it puts the political thread a step closer to being put out of its misery…
Life is a much better teacher than these blog back and forths. -- the.monk
by Sleepy Freud on Aug 20, 2009 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll let MB handle that one, PF seems like its gonna be a lot harder to decide than C.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 20, 2009 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno if I can do that, I’m traveling for the next week. Ha I haven’t touched that political thread in a while, I went like a day without reading it and it got up to 200+ new comments, so I just didn’t want to read all that crap. It ended up getting up to like 600 new comments, but it appears to be gone now. Hopefully I didn’t miss any more econ misconceptions I could have shined some light on…
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can't squash this beef
There must be a right answer.
If only we could get them all to play against each other in their primes.
We need a timemachine……
"Without deviation from the norm their can be no progress"
-Frank Zappa
by Tom Fullery on Aug 20, 2009 7:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Play against each other in a one-on-one game (or tournament)? I’m definitely taking Olajuwon there.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 20, 2009 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
More than anything I would love to see Wilt and Shaq match up. The two biggest beasts to ever step foot on a basketball court.
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also...
The didn’t keep track of Blocks which hurts Russell and Wilt when looking at stats
A Sonics fan without a team... but after 6 seasons now of GS Warriors season tickets have convinced me to adopt the boys from Oakland.
by mcwalter44 on Aug 21, 2009 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They didn’t keep track of Blocks which hurts Russell and Wilt when looking at stats
Yeah, for instance in the 1st game of the 67 playoffs against the Celtics Wilt had 24 points, 32 rebounds, 13 assists and 12 blocks.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 21, 2009 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blocks weren't track by the NBA 1973-74 season
After the ABA started keeping track of that stat and steals. If some went back and watched the 1st game of the ‘67 playoffs and tracked the blocks that’s one thing. But in no way was record by the official scorekeeper.
A Sonics fan without a team... but after 6 seasons now of GS Warriors season tickets have convinced me to adopt the boys from Oakland.
by mcwalter44 on Aug 21, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How can anyone not say Wilt?
Rules were changed just to slow him down and none of them succeded. He was just a flat out beast. Post moves like no other also.
by ZaMzAm FiRe on Aug 20, 2009 9:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think that people often emphasize winning a little too much when judging players – it’s a team game, one player in any sport can only do so much….but with Wilt, I just can’t get over this thought – if he was really as good as the stats he put up (because they were by far the most dominating stats of all time, it’s not even close), why didn’t he win more?
by Missing Barry on Aug 20, 2009 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the reason Wilt didn't win much was because he never had a good team around him,
and he had to against Bill Russel who had a great team with him. I think that’s why Wilt only won once(I think).
by ZaMzAm FiRe on Aug 21, 2009 12:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I’m under that understanding as well, but still, I can’t help but question whether all his stats really helped his team as much as they appear on the surface. He’s still one of the greatest of all-time, I just have reservations about calling him the greatest.
by Missing Barry on Aug 21, 2009 5:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Voted For Russell
He’s from Oakland, plus all those rings man! Little surprised Patrick Ewing isn’t even on the poll, know he didn’t have those rings, but he was in Space Jam!
by Hoopachoo on Aug 20, 2009 9:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Little surprised Patrick Ewing isn’t even on the poll, know he didn’t have those rings, but he was in Space Jam!
Yea, where’s Shawn Bradley on this thing?
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 20, 2009 10:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
cartoon has bigger guns than sb ever had …
by hardcore on Aug 21, 2009 7:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
“…semi-literate freakshow will hijack it with an inflammatory political comment, bait people into replying, and proceed to post 50-100 hysterical, barely coherent rants a day on subjects he knows next to nothing about, fueling his own prodigious ego while misrepresenting, ridiculing and disrespecting opposing views, alienating one regular poster after another … and enlightening precisely no one?”
QFT
by Rob Kurz blocks Yao Ming on Aug 20, 2009 10:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
quantum field theory
probably has a claim by precedence on that abbreviation, no? maybe we witnessed a phenomenon (original sense, pertaining to the transitory as opposed to permanent or ideal) in the realm of a verbal (not necessarily intellectual) quantum field. socrates, acc. to his amanuensis plato, tried to warn his students against the sophists, who took great pride in their logic, reason, and mastery of words.
by the.monk on Aug 20, 2009 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ADONAL FOYLE
that fanshot of the kobe bryant song remix did it for me he is the best player in the game there is no center that can stop he is a beast!
by deandres2k on Aug 20, 2009 10:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I was all hot to trot for Russell until I looked at his stats (contain your surprise that I relied on numbers for this).
He was a TERRIBLE shooter! He only broke 50.0% TS% once in his career, and he did it exactly. Of course, he was a fabulous defensive center, a tremendous rebounder, and above all a winner, but I don’t think I can ignore the offensive side of the ball when there were plenty of great rebounding big men who played D and were competent on the offensive side of things.
My vote is for Kareem. 25th all-time in TS%, 54th in rebound %, won a title in Milwaukee and several more in LA. He’s pretty similar to Shaq in their profiles, but I also find something about Shaq’s game a little… brutish. Kareem was a big pussy but at least he was a skilled pussy.
Thing C
by markdash on Aug 20, 2009 11:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He’s pretty similar to Shaq in their profiles
haha, except shaq’s butt is a lot bigger?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 20, 2009 11:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You would know, you’ve had both of their shorts on your bedroom floor! OH SNAP
Thing C
by markdash on Aug 21, 2009 12:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
both of their shorts on your bedroom floor?
That makes no sense at all? Can you explain??
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 21, 2009 12:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was a joke regarding homosexuality made in poor taste.
Still, you should have the right to marry either of them if you wanted to :)
Thing C
by markdash on Aug 21, 2009 12:48 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
If you’re going for the LA poster-boy, if we’re talking Tinseltown, then their movie careers are entirely fare game.
Kareem over Shaq.
Airplane is still an entertaining movie, nearly 30 years later. Game of Death was reasonably entertaining entirely because it had Kareem in it.
But Steel, Blue Chips, Kazaam? Who greenlighted them? WHO? Someone is responsible!
by jae on Aug 21, 2009 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wasn’t he in a Bruce Lee movie as well?
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on Aug 22, 2009 7:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Game of Death was the Bruce Lee movie. Most of the movie was lame, save for Bruce vs. Kareem.
by jae on Aug 22, 2009 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It did spread the cheese rather thick but for the era, was pretty good.
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on Aug 22, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And it was orders of magnitude better than anything Shaq has been in.
by jae on Aug 22, 2009 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it was orders of magnitude better than anything Shaq has been in.
It don’t compare to shaq bringing his grandpa to the courtside interview after he won the finals. Shaq is a nice guy when he’s being the real shaquille.
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 22, 2009 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Keep in mind TS% has changed over time. I wonder if there’s anywhere to see the league average over the years…?
by Missing Barry on Aug 21, 2009 6:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you mean the definition of TS% has changed over time, or the league average TS% has changed over time?
Thing C
by markdash on Aug 21, 2009 7:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I meant league average. You could say the definition changed with the adddition of the 3 point shot, too, I guess. I imagine the linear weights of the various types of shots should have changed, slightly, as well, because I’m under the impression TS% takes into account the probability of an offensive rebound when calculating the relative weights. Unless the chances of an offensive rebound have stayed exactly constant over time (which I highly doubt).
by Missing Barry on Aug 21, 2009 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I looked into this, and you are indeed correct that average TS% has changed over time. Only 6 players in 1964-65 (I chose this as one of Russell’s “prime” years, he also shot 47.2% TS% that season which is virtually identical to his career 47.1% mark) shot higher than 54%, which is the current average.
Russell ranked 5th on his own team in TS% among players with more than 10 games played, and he was pretty much smack dab in the middle of all players in the league. So he’s better than I gave him credit for, but I still think the greatest center of all time should be better than league average in scoring efficiency during his (arguably) best season.
Thing C
by markdash on Aug 21, 2009 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree. I think Russell’s offensive weakness pushes him down the list. This is about what I was expecting you’d find. As good as he was defensively, to not even be above average offensively is a lot to overcome. I don’t think anyone can play defense that well.
by Missing Barry on Aug 21, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
russell's defense had huge effect on offense
but it was reflected by his teammates’ scoring stats more than his own. his blocks and rebounds were converted into dizzying fast breaks because he controlled the direction of many blocks and was such an adept outlet passer in a system designed to capitalize on those possession changes. that celtic tradition was passed down to the nelson woe-yrs when he had davis running the team, but lacking the shot blocks and rebounds they used deflections and steals.
chamberlain and russell are difficult to compare because the latter was in a system with teammates who complemented him, did the scoring, and required defending; chamberlain had to wait until he got to LA to enjoy that, and until then often faced double or triple defenders. i would lean toward putting them along with olajuwon in their own category because of the level of effort and quality of play the three sustained on both ends of the floor—abdul-jabbar didn’t quite have their strength and endurance and o’neal didn’t bother to maintain his weight and conditioning. o’neal rarely had an opponent strong enough, or quick and long enough, to counter his size. the past his prime, injury riddled sarbonis gave him a pretty good contest in those playoffs vs. Por.
by the.monk on Aug 22, 2009 11:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
With all due respect, I think a lot of these points are off. For example, Shaq destroyed Sabonis in that playoff series. Shaq averaged almost 26 points a game, over 12 rebounds a game, over 4 assists a game, while Sabonis was averaging just over 8 points a game and under 6 rebounds a game.
by Missing Barry on Aug 23, 2009 8:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks for those stats
both a sampling size and bias error on my part. in one of the few games i got to see, sabonis fared o.k., at a time when o’neal was considered unstoppable. those LA teams didn’t get past UT and SA though until bryant gained a little experience, which helped feed the narcissist’s ego and self-belief that he was the team’s mvp rather than o’neal.
do you see the all-court skills and 48 min. effort of chamberlain and russell in o’neal ? that’s the point i tried to make.
by the.monk on Aug 23, 2009 10:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not old enough to have seen Chamberlain or Russell, but I don’t really recall anyone ever questioning Shaq’s game effort. His fitness was always a public issue, but I don’t ever remember ever actually thinking “if Shaq were in better shape he would have made that play.” His weight fluctuated, but, in his prime, his dominance did not. Weren’t there some questions about whether or not Wilt was really going 100% of the time he was out there, too? I think when a guy is a physically dominating force the way Shaq and Wilt did “we” will always question his drive because we expect them to dominate every play.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 23, 2009 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only issue with Shaq’s conditioning was more "if he was in better shape, he probably wouldn’t have missed 20+ games. But that was never a roadblock to a championship for his teams, so even that is hard to really hold against him.
by jae on Aug 23, 2009 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But that was never a roadblock to a championship for his teams, so even that is hard to really hold against him.
Yeah, Seems like he was a master of knowing when to play hard and when to save his body for more meaningful games or more important minutes?
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I would rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up to heaven
At this crescent in the sky
by Skeptic con Urquell on Aug 23, 2009 11:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never saw any real negative effects of Shaq’s conditioning/weight, though. If anything, he took full advantage of every pound he had by pushing people around down low. I just don’t think it’s fair to view guys like Shaq and Wilt more negatively because physically nobody could match up – that’s what made them special and so good and such dominating forces.
by Missing Barry on Aug 24, 2009 7:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
TS% does not include probability of an offensive rebound. It’s an estimate of possessions used to score a point.
Two things change over time. The league average changes, and I don’t know what it was historically, but as FG% has changed, I can’t imagine that TS% would be stable around the ~54% mean that we’ve had the last few years. Importantly, calculating TS% assumes a standard value for FTs for estimating how many possessions were used. I doubt it has changed that much, but the number of and-one opportunities, changes in the way that foul shots are awarded could change this enough to make some of the estimates from back in the day less than entirely comparable with today’s figures.
by jae on Aug 21, 2009 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. Basketball-reference.com lists TS% for past seasons, but I would imagine it’s a standard formula based on the current league. Still, I can’t imagine the formula changing TOO much.
I couldn’t find a comprehensive list of TS% for all players back then, so I went team-by-team. Most teams had 5-7 guys who had higher TS% than Russell, and about as many lower. He’s pretty roughly in the middle, maybe slightly above average, but not by much.
Thing C
by markdash on Aug 22, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not surprised Adonal Foyle got so many votes…
by DubsFan408 on Aug 20, 2009 11:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nice post...
I love that you chose Dream. Going against the numbers and voting with my heart, I have to agree and say Hakeem. I have never enjoyed watching a big man play as much as I enjoyed watching him. He is the single biggest reason I started to love the game of basketball.
Poetry in motion.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Aug 21, 2009 12:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I won’t have gone with the Dream, but man was that guy great. In fact you know he was great because the Rockets don’t get any crap talked to them for passing on Michael Jordan because they got Hakeem. Hell, Hakeem was so good they tanked the whole season to get the #1 pick to draft him.
A Sonics fan without a team... but after 6 seasons now of GS Warriors season tickets have convinced me to adopt the boys from Oakland.
by mcwalter44 on Aug 21, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I got to say I was one of the 2 votes for David. But that is beacuse he was the best center that I’ve seen play, it had nothing to do with rings or stats.
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on Aug 21, 2009 12:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I met Wilt Chamberlain after he retired..........
At the risk of exposing my age……in 1981 during my late 20’s I moved to LA and joined a racketball club (yes there was such a thing) next door to my office in Santa Monica and intended to practice in mid afternoons when it wasnt busy…I noticed this huge brown Bentley convertable parked out front and dicovered it belonged to Wilt ! He was practicing in the courts with the glass rear wall and it was amazing seeing this guy stretched out on a small racketball court……he saw me there a few times and invited me to play but it was a joke as when he moved in front of me I couldnt see around him -much less-actually move around him for the ball……if there are any squash or racket ball players out there you can only laugh at the thought being on a court with this guy lol !
by Only In Fairfax on Aug 21, 2009 12:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Kareem > Stilt > Russell > Shaq > The Dream > Robinson
Missed this discussion though haha
Welcome to the Warriors, Stephen Curry, the 2009 NBA Rookie of the Year.
Panda's and Curry in the Bey Area. Who would've known?
Conductor of the "We're Back!" Bandwagon!
by ejdacanay on Aug 22, 2009 12:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Did anyone else notice that the title of this thread, when said aloud, is “Goatse”?
I think I’m spending too much time on the internet.
Thing C
by markdash on Aug 23, 2009 7:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I thought it was gonna be about Earl “the Goat” Manigalt.
Thing A
by sam23 on Aug 23, 2009 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Supplimental GoATCenter catergories . . .
The most similar name to GoAT: Gorat
I’m not a basketball player, I am a grocery bagger who happens to play basketball: Ervin Johnson
C who was really PF (Profoundly Fugly): George Muresan
Just plain freaky to watch do anything: Manute Bol
CoAT (Coolest of All-Time): Darryl Dawkins
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Aug 23, 2009 4:30 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
continuing the trend
LoAT: (Lamest of All Time) Todd Fuller.
(just doing) R-PART, centers who were in the Right Place At Right Time (and thus have rings to show for it): Luc Longley, Bill Cartwright, Scott Williams, Bill Wennington.
by jae on Aug 24, 2009 1:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Loat my choice is...
Big Country Reeves
On second though he was better than Todd. Todd didn’t even have a
"Without deviation from the norm their can be no progress"
-Frank Zappa
by Tom Fullery on Aug 24, 2009 11:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
SORRY?
"Without deviation from the norm their can be no progress"
-Frank Zappa
by Tom Fullery on Aug 24, 2009 11:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gotta go with Wilt on this. The clincher for me was when he decided to win the assists title—he won it!
Wilt
Russell
Hakeem
and surprisingly, Bill Walton. We all knew his knees wouldn’t hold up, but it was his bad feet that cost him. Great player when healthy.
by breaker on Aug 23, 2009 9:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
