Best Big Men to Ever Play the Game - Page 31

MEbenhoe · #**301** 05-31-2007, 08:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
you are aware that the pistons don't beat the lakers w/o wallace guarding shaq?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shaq averaged 26.6/10.8 and had a .631 FG% in that series. The Lakers only lost because no one else showed up. Kobe's .380 FG% in that series might have had something to do with it for example.

rubbrband · #**302** 05-31-2007, 08:38 PM

I am surprised no one mentioned there were only 8 teams around when Russell won his 1st three championships. 9 teams when he won his next 6. 12 and 14 teams when he won his last 2 years.

teamdonkey · #**303** 06-01-2007, 12:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I am surprised no one mentioned there were only 8 teams around when Russell won his 1st three championships. 9 teams when he won his next 6. 12 and 14 teams when he won his last 2 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hard to consider that without also thinking about what it means for Wilt.

Jack of Arcades · #**304** 06-01-2007, 12:21 AM

O/T note to assani: the Juan Dixon joke ran its course over 6 months ago. Let it die.

bottomset · #**305** 06-01-2007, 12:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am surprised no one mentioned there were only 8 teams around when Russell won his 1st three championships. 9 teams when he won his next 6. 12 and 14 teams when he won his last 2 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hard to consider that without also thinking about what it means for Wilt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wilt's teams weren't nearly as loaded

kidcolin · #**306** 06-01-2007, 01:06 AM

He still played alongside 2 or 3 HoFers and other strong players, both in Philly and LA, and he himself was supposed the best by a very wide margin. I agree with donkey here.

rubbrband · #**307** 06-01-2007, 01:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am surprised no one mentioned there were only 8 teams around when Russell won his 1st three championships. 9 teams when he won his next 6. 12 and 14 teams when he won his last 2 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hard to consider that without also thinking about what it means for Wilt.

[/ QUOTE ]
He won 2 championships. Russell had a better team than him, not like Russell was owning him in their match ups.

THAY3R · #**308** 06-01-2007, 02:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Trying to rank player we never saw and going by stats is just silly imo. You simply have to go by the wisdom of the people that did see them play- obviously you won't get as good of an analysis of them as you would a modern day player that you personally saw, but its the only thing you can do.

[/ QUOTE ]

If my grandkids ever tell me that David Eckstein was awesome, and Steve Nash was the best guard in the history of human kind, I will kill them.

Eagles · #**309** 06-01-2007, 03:49 AM

I just skimmed through this thread.
I find it funny you use 1982 as your guideline because that is your lifetime. Can you remember sitting in your crib watching the 1982-83 season, watching players and seeing how good they are?
For the group A/B things
Lets say it was proven that the 60% of that list should be made of 80s players. Could you argue, well they are listed evenly so I'm not biased, but you are creating an arbitrary baseline for the division.
Also the reason why Duncan's supporting cast has less top 10, 20, 30 players is mainly due to expansion and increased parity caused by the luxury tax or other reasons, but obviously there were more dynasties earlier. Just because the balance of talent used to be more shifted doesn't mean we should punish Duncan.

I agree with JoA about Juan Dixon.

Edit: This is Pudge on Eagles account.

bottomset · #**310** 06-01-2007, 04:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Trying to rank player we never saw and going by stats is just silly imo. You simply have to go by the wisdom of the people that did see them play- obviously you won't get as good of an analysis of them as you would a modern day player that you personally saw, but its the only thing you can do.

[/ QUOTE ]

If my grandkids ever tell me that David Eckstein was awesome, and Steve Nash was the best guard in the history of human kind, I will kill them.

[/ QUOTE ]

haha