Best Big Men to Ever Play the Game

[teamdonkey]

no i understand. in his first 8 years he was a stat whore and averaged 22.8 ppg. Then he saw the light, stopped trying to just fill up the stat sheet, and dropped down to 27 ppg for the next 4 seasons.

this thread has changed my mind, Eaton >> Hakeem

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
Russell played against Wilt in a lot of those championships. Fact is Russell DID win eleven. 23 boards per game is pretty damn impressive, and may merit you top 5, winning 11 championships and 5 MVP's in addition to the boards and defense (just a sick shot blocker, dominated games defensively) gets you into the top 3. You think Boston wins all those championships with Robinson?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) No one knows how many shots Russell blocked. All we have is anecdotal evidence.

2) The Celtics had a bunch of HOFers on the team. What makes you think they wouldn't win with Robinson (a possible HOFer) on the team?

3) The problem with rating Russell is that, he is invariably judged by his rings. And the rings were caused, at least in part, by the fact he was on a stacked team. If you take away all the championships, is Kareem a top 5 center? Is Wilt? Is Shaq? The answer is yes for all of them. The answer for Russell is less clear. Which is why I don't think he's automatically one of the top 5 centers of all-time.

4) 23 rebounds per game is impressive. But it is inflated because of the era. Fact is, Rodman led the league in rebounding more often than Russell did, yet he's probably not even an HOFer.

[Mano]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Russell played against Wilt in a lot of those championships. Fact is Russell DID win eleven. 23 boards per game is pretty damn impressive, and may merit you top 5, winning 11 championships and 5 MVP's in addition to the boards and defense (just a sick shot blocker, dominated games defensively) gets you into the top 3. You think Boston wins all those championships with Robinson?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) No one knows how many shots Russell blocked. All we have is anecdotal evidence.

2) The Celtics had a bunch of HOFers on the team. What makes you think they wouldn't win with Robinson (a possible HOFer) on the team?

3) The problem with rating Russell is that, he is invariably judged by his rings. And the rings were caused, at least in part, by the fact he was on a stacked team. If you take away all the championships, is Kareem a top 5 center? Is Wilt? Is Shaq? The answer is yes for all of them. The answer for Russell is less clear. Which is why I don't think he's automatically one of the top 5 centers of all-time.

4) 23 rebounds per game is impressive. But it is inflated because of the era. Fact is, Rodman led the league in rebounding more often than Russell did, yet he's probably not even an HOFer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rings matter - MJ would not be MJ without the rings. George Gervin was a fantastic player and scorer in the 80's, but you hardly ever hear about him because of the lack of rings. Russell played with some very good players (most notably Cousey and Heinson early in his career and Havlicek later) but he was clearly the team leader throughout that era, and his team was completely dominant. Chamberlain also played with some good players (Paul Arizin early in his career, Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham later at Philly, and the LA teams were sick with West and Elgin Baylor, Gail Goodrich, etc.) so it's not like he had no support. I'm not even arguing to put Russell above Wilt (although I know others would), but I think he is definitely top 3.

[rubbrband]

If Russell is somehow top 3 because of his defense/championships??? Then which of these three Lakers is below him?
Shaq Wilt Kareem

[Mano]

[ QUOTE ]
If Russell is somehow top 3 because of his defense/championships??? Then which of these three Lakers is below him?
Shaq Wilt Kareem

[/ QUOTE ]

Should be obvious I mean Shaq.

[rubbrband]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Russell is somehow top 3 because of his defense/championships??? Then which of these three Lakers is below him?
Shaq Wilt Kareem

[/ QUOTE ]

Should be obvious I mean Shaq.

[/ QUOTE ]
ROFL

[DrewDevil]

If by calling Hakeem a "stat whore," you mean "a preternatural athlete with an indomitable will who did everything within his seemingly limitless powers to help his team win," then I agree with you completely.

[rubbrband]

Wait wait wait.... your saying Russell>Shaq AAAhahahahha

[teamdonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i think 1.2 blocks over an entire career is huge... you also have to adjust for pace and taking that into account the wallace's probably become non-existant and the blocks advantage more pronounced... then it probably boils down to wallaces steals vs. eaton's blocks... and i'm pretty sure a block is worth more than a steal..

[/ QUOTE ]

It's huge, but blocks are somewhat overrated. It got Camby a DPOY award even though there are doubts about his defensive prowess (mainly a strong help defender). They're nice, of course, but is it any better than a steal? A steal is a turnover, a block less than. Anyway, the glaringly bad stat for Eaton is being a 7'4" dude in there for his defense only pulling 9 boards a game. Ben pulling an extra 3+ is huge.

edit: I just checked 82games.com and it appears I'm giving Camby a bit of a bad wrap. My point still stands, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think a blocked shot has a bigger effect on a game than any other single action. A shot blocker makes a huge difference for you defensively. For every shot that a guy blocks, he alters others. Some of those he alters he doesn't even have to try and block it, the mere fact that he's there changes the shot's trajectory and lowers it's percentage. Often a penetrator will pull up early and shoot a J instead of take it to the rim.

So while you're technically right, in overall effect a block is >> a steal.

edit - i'm not taking Eaton's side, clearly Wallace > Eaton

[Mano]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait wait wait.... your saying Russell>Shaq AAAhahahahha

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. If you want to LOL, look at your rating of Shaq > Wilt.

Shaq underacheived for most of his career - Russell did whatever it took to win championships. Ever hear Russell's former teammates, coaches or opponent's refer to him as lazy?