Best Big Men to Ever Play the Game - Page 30

Los Feliz Slim · #**291** 05-31-2007, 06:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK, I had to wait until you mentioned Robert Horry before it was remotely appropriate to make sure Robert Parish's name appeared somewhere in this thread.

Best Big Men to Ever Play the Game and Smoke a Ton of Doobie:

1. Kareem
2. Shaq
3. Robert Parish
4. ?????
5. Profit!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll bet you a couch from Bernie & Phyl's that I could out smoke both those guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I opened this thread I really expected a response from you, Chief, so I'm glad you made an appearance.

Quality, Comfort, and Price! That's nice.

Mano · #**292** 05-31-2007, 06:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]
Shaq was/is def an underachiever but he and Wilt are the best ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, Shaq was physically dominant, and I am not saying he sucks - if you look back at my ratings I put him 4th. But Shaq has played on alot of very good teams, and only won rings when he had 2nd or third best player in the NBA on his team carrying alot of the weight. I think Wilt, Kareem and Russell in their primes would have won more titles than Shaq did on the teams he has played on.

blindside · #**293** 05-31-2007, 07:02 PM

sure

Mano · #**294** 05-31-2007, 07:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
so it only applies if they were the best player on the team...

so i guess now ben wallace is better than KG, barkley, ewing and the mailman...

[/ QUOTE ]

There is clearly a difference between playing on a championship team and being the main reason a team wins championships. Do you really not get this (I think you do and are just being argumentative)?

Championships are not the only metric, but especially in Basketball they do say something. Would people generally be rating Duncan higher than Karl Malone and Barkley if they had each won a couple of championships? Probably not, but they didn't. Players with good stats who have the opportunity to win championships and do not generally do not get ranked as high as players with good statistics that do win.

gusmahler · #**295** 05-31-2007, 07:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so it only applies if they were the best player on the team...

so i guess now ben wallace is better than KG, barkley, ewing and the mailman...

[/ QUOTE ]

There is clearly a difference between playing on a championship team and being the main reason a team wins championships. Do you really not get this (I think you do and are just being argumentative)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it really clear that Russell was the "main reason" the Celtics won championships?

Mano · #**296** 05-31-2007, 07:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so it only applies if they were the best player on the team...

so i guess now ben wallace is better than KG, barkley, ewing and the mailman...

[/ QUOTE ]

There is clearly a difference between playing on a championship team and being the main reason a team wins championships. Do you really not get this (I think you do and are just being argumentative)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it really clear that Russell was the "main reason" the Celtics won championships?

[/ QUOTE ]

Every interview I have seen with former teammates and coaches indicate this. I really doubt they would have been beating Wilt's Philly teams without him. Show me a compelling argument that this is not the case.

blindside · #**297** 05-31-2007, 07:42 PM

i just don't get how team accomplishments, and this applies to mvp discussions also, fit into these greatest of all time arguments... this isn't tennis or golf or bowling... it's a team sport...

nobody would make the argument that any of the pistons players were better than kobe or shaq... yet they won the championship that year... jordan probably wins zero rings w/o pippen, grant and rodman... shaq or kobe doesn't win one without the other.... these are irrefutable facts....

so much goes into a team winning a championship other than a singular player being great that it shouldn't even be a factor in any discussion regarding the greatest of all-time..

blindside · #**298** 05-31-2007, 07:43 PM

"Every interview I have seen with former teammates and coaches indicate this. I really doubt they would have been beating Wilt's Philly teams without him. Show me a compelling argument that this is not the case. "

that is such a silly argument... you are aware that the pistons don't beat the lakers w/o wallace guarding shaq?

gusmahler · #**299** 05-31-2007, 07:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so it only applies if they were the best player on the team...

so i guess now ben wallace is better than KG, barkley, ewing and the mailman...

[/ QUOTE ]

There is clearly a difference between playing on a championship team and being the main reason a team wins championships. Do you really not get this (I think you do and are just being argumentative)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it really clear that Russell was the "main reason" the Celtics won championships?

[/ QUOTE ]

Every interview I have seen with former teammates and coaches indicate this. I really doubt they would have been beating Wilt's Philly teams without him. Show me a compelling argument that this is not the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

More compelling than "everyone says so"? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Do I have any proof? Of course not. I just hate the circular reasoning wrt Russell. "Why is he the best? Because he is a winner. Did they win because of Russell? Yes, because he's the best."

I hate when people rate him ahead of Wilt, when Wilt was so clearly better than him. E.g., 10 of the 20 ESPN voters thought Russell was better than Wilt. Not just that, those 10 voters each said Russell was the best center of all-time: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailyd...reatestCenters

Look at the names on that list. Each was dominant on both the offensive and defensive end. Except Russell, who was merely competent offensively. Yet he's the best center ever?

Mano · #**300** 05-31-2007, 08:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so it only applies if they were the best player on the team...

so i guess now ben wallace is better than KG, barkley, ewing and the mailman...

[/ QUOTE ]

There is clearly a difference between playing on a championship team and being the main reason a team wins championships. Do you really not get this (I think you do and are just being argumentative)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it really clear that Russell was the "main reason" the Celtics won championships?

[/ QUOTE ]

Every interview I have seen with former teammates and coaches indicate this. I really doubt they would have been beating Wilt's Philly teams without him. Show me a compelling argument that this is not the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

More compelling than "everyone says so"? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Do I have any proof? Of course not. I just hate the circular reasoning wrt Russell. "Why is he the best? Because he is a winner. Did they win because of Russell? Yes, because he's the best."

I hate when people rate him ahead of Wilt, when Wilt was so clearly better than him. E.g., 10 of the 20 ESPN voters thought Russell was better than Wilt. Not just that, those 10 voters each said Russell was the best center of all-time: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailyd...reatestCenters

Look at the names on that list. Each was dominant on both the offensive and defensive end. Except Russell, who was merely competent offensively. Yet he's the best center ever?

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that he was MVP of the league 5 times (Chamberlain won MVP 4 times in an overlapping career, Kareem 6, Shaq 1) is also some indication that he was pretty good. I guess that is also an "everybody says so" argument, as is the poll of "NBA experts" that you cited. BTW, I did not say he was better than Wilt - I had him listed 3rd behind Wilt and Kareem.