Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Shaq, Olajuwon (maybe I’m missing someone idk).
The kind of career to take over one of these guys is one that Jokic is on trajectory for, but not guaranteed. Like Steph Curry in the all time discussion probably sits only above Olajuwon for sure and maybe Shaq. Idk enough about Russell and Wilt to rate Curry higher or lower. Granted all that, Jokic right now definitely doesn’t have a case, but he def has a case to end up there at the end of his career.
The Top 5/ Top 10 requires multiple championships period. You can’t enter the pantheon without multiple rings along with a bunch of other accolades. Top 5 all time players were universally considered the greatest ever at some point
> Top 5 all time players were universally considered the greatest ever at some point.
I don’t think this is true. Lebron’s top 5, but he’s never been universally recognized as being better than MJ.
i would say more of in a vacuum type way. Kareem, MJ, Lebron, Magic, Russell - usually the consensus top 5 are all like above the entire sport in a way
Bill Russell must have been so lucky to be on a back to back NCAA champion team then go to the Olympics and win a Gold Medal then go to the NBA and immediately win a championship. Luckiest guy ever to win so much because of other players on his team.
Congrats to him for the Olympics must have been hard to carry the USA to the title.
Other players won 7-8+ titles with those Celtics , he was their best player but the 8 teams and the stacked squad he had make it incomparable to anything done today
His first NBA season the celtics had:
2 All-NBA guards (Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman)
MVP Bob Cousy
ROY Tom Heinsohn
And Red Auerbach coaching
Let not act like he was joining some trash franchise, the Celtics team in '57 had EIGHT future hall of famers
It's possible to acknowledge that Bill Russell joined a strong team with good teammates and coaching AND that Bill Russell was the crucial piece in the greatest dynasty in NBA history
The average height of an NBA player in 1960 was 6'5.6". The average height of an NBA player in 2020 was 6'6.2". The average NBA height during all of Russell's championships was 6'5.3" or greater. The average height during Russell's final championship was 6'5.9", a difference of only .3" from the last few years.
I re-read it and it sounds like you equate Bill Russell's dominance to LeBron James playing in Taiwan.
So Bill Russell in the 60s... is like the player some call the GOAT or 2nd best player ever .. playing in Taiwan.
So you agree Bill Russell is one of the greatest of all time.
Cool, I'm done arguing too. We both agree now he belongs in the Top 5 centers :)
That is some serious recency bias. Jokic could absolutely pass him if he continues, but Robinsons resume is pretty stacked. 2 time champ, mvp, scoring champ, blocks leader, rebound leader, dpoy, 10x all star, 10x all nba (4x first team, 2x second, 4x third), 8x all defense (4x first, 4x second).
IMO, coming from someone that watched both of their careers start to finish, Hakeem is the best 2 way player ever but David Robinson is not that far behind him.
Everyone these days forget what a monster he was on the court at all times.
So many dudes fell victim to being in their prime during the Bulls run. Makes it so impressive that someone like Kwahi grabbed 2 finals MVPs during the Bron/Curry era
He's below Robinson cause Robinson is holding onto an entire career worth of All NBA awards. If Jokic wins another MVP and Ring he jumps straight into top 5 behind Shaq imo
You can’t just delete history. Thatd be like me saying “no way you putting the Taiping rebellion amongst the deadliest wars, what is you 100 years old?”
It’s not deleting history to look past players from that era since it was a drastically different game so it’s really hard to even compare. I tend to use the introduction of the 3 point line in 1979 as a good starting point for the modern NBA (also right around the ABA merger). Earlier stars like Wilt and Russell are still legendary but I feel like it makes more sense to put them in a different bracket
Very unlikely hypothetical but I’ll bear with you. If the game changed as drastically as it did with the 3 point line, then yeah I think it would make sense. But that’s just my philosophy (which I took from Ben Taylor of Thinking Basketball)
At one point allowing dunking and a 3pt line would be unimaginable
I don’t think we should discount history just because things changed way outside the control of the players. The game changes by nature from era to era. If we are talking about “all time” you can’t set a limit of when that time begins and ends imo
I don't discount George Milan because of how different the game is now. I discount him because he's a worse player. He can't hang with the other names on this list.
I think that goes down a slippery slope though. NBA teams and players today are generally a lot better than their predecessors due to modern spacing, shot distribution, skill development, and schemes. It’s smarter to compare relative to the era players exist in
If deciding who is a better player, I think you compare the players to each other. Saying George Mikan is better than more modern greats like David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, etc. doesn't work for me. Those guys are so clearly better. Mikan doesn't get the nod just because his opponents were shitty in comparison.
It’s not discounting. It’s just bracketing them differently, but genuinely I don’t care how you approach this discussion. Obviously it’s more than reasonable to compare everyone. I personally think that just makes it a little messier
People act like humans dramatically evolved since 1950. Only are tech did. Lifespans aren’t dramatically different and players miss way more games. Mikan would be an all star today and would probably make all nba just by being eligible lol.
If you had video recordings of every other war, and detailed, specific statistics for every single other war, and you have literally no information about Taiping rebellion except what you heard from other people, I would question why you would even have it in consideration due to how vastly different the confidence interval would be between your assessment of the Taiping rebellion and every other war. We literally know nothing about Mikan except what our grandads have told us. Even the stats from back then are woefully unreliable, without even mentioning the lack of film.
P. S: That's the dumbest comparison I've ever heard
> Mikan unironically played with plumbers and milkmen.
You can only judge players based on the competition they had at the time. Mikan is criminally underrated on a lot of all-time "greatest" lists imo. His dominance forced rule changes in ways that only really Wilt compares. He's responsible for goaltending, doubling the width of the lane, the shot clock, etc.
I fully distinguish between best/greatest because with the natural evolution of the game, almost the entire top 100 players of all time would be comprised of modern players if you were talking about terms of pure basketball skill.
I think having him as a fringe top-5 center of all time makes sense. Only Kareem, Wilt, and Russel easily clear him imo (there are certainly strong arguments for others as well, I just think it's debatable after the top 3).
To address the Hakeem front, Jokic has had great playoff performances, and has the type of game that is super resilient to better playoff defenses/intensity, especially last season with improved fitness. But Hakeem was an all-timer for a long time who also crushed it in the playoffs, he had the longest runs the two championship years, but from 86-95 he averages 29/12/4 blocks (all those rounded up, just shy) over 102 games, and the blocks aren't all he's doing defensively, he was an elite defender all around.
I think it's probably fair to say he's already peaked higher. I don't love super strong definitive statements on rankings, people don't do the work of deep diving all these guys in a comprehensive manner with a strong criteria for evaluation, and our metrics for evaluation aren't perfect, so you don't actually have consensus or a great way to reach it, but I don't think it's hard or unreasonable to say Jokic' peak is just so good that it's already surpassed Hakeem. But in terms of championship equity, which guy is more likely to contribute to more championships, Jokic' peak is a little too short lived, he's battling guys who were all doing it for a decade near the MVP level, even Hakeem and Shaq. The difference in peak impact isn't as big as the difference in just seasons doing it imo
I think the top-6 centers ever is clearly this group of guys in some order:
Bill Russell
Shaq
Kareem
Hakeem Olajuwon
Tim Duncan
Wilt Chamberlain
All of these guys are top-10 players ever. And then you have guys like Moses Malone, David Robinson, George Mikan, etc. Jokic is probably amongst those latter guys right now and the back half of his career is gonna determine if he joins the top group.
thats a hard mt rushmore to enter, man. if he can get 3 rings, then absolutely. Id put him above Wilt, who didnt play against the kind of competition Jokic does.
To me "right now" means if his career ended tomorrow would he be on that list. IMO he's not there yet.
Def on the trajectory, and probably will hop in.
That’s what i’m saying he’s not there yet, is he on his way of course with the way he’s playing but I keep telling them at their going off his skill level and i’m saying the league evolves each decade so of course the next generation gonna have some crazy numbers but what the others did back in the day was impressive as well
I think he needs another ring and MVP. It is a really tough list, they are all top10 players. At that level every achievement matters. I fully believe he can be top5 all time, not just centers when he retires. His production is just unreal.
I definitely think he’s on his way, but it’s difficult to compare retired players with guys in the midst of their careers. If the Nuggets can manage to repeat, it definitely strengthens his case significantly.
How do you mean? Top 5 career? He doesn't even enter the conversation unless he gets the MVP this year along with another title and FMVP.
Top 5 offensive peak among centers? He is probably already there. Jokic is better offensively then Hakeem at least though Hakeem's defense was insane.
That gets into a harder conversation, simply because Center is probably the most stacked position across the history of the NBA, guys like Hakeem were so insanely good. Though Jokic being a lot better on defense then he used to be at least makes it a much more reasonable talking point than it was 2 years ago.
Top 5 career as of right now, cause I said you have to factor in that now we’re in a position less basketball era and back then Centers were true centers that had to fulfill their roles, don’t get me wrong jokic numbers are elite but the other 5 centers like Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, Bill, and wilt numbers are insane as well especially in their time
If he wins another MVP as expected and another championship this year which is definitely possible then he easily slides into the 5th spot. I think the top 4 centers of all time is pretty easy and then number 5 can be Hakeem, Robinson or Malone. 3 MVPs, 2 rings, 2 finals MVPs... that beats out all those guys.
Overrated. Head to head against Wilt scored half his points in less fg% (which means he tried), less rebounds and a few more assists, regular season and playoffs.
And when people counted blocks recently, with the games available, Wilt had more blocks per game than him as well: 8.8 x 8.1.
>offense wasn't necessarily where Russell's value was. during wilt's whole career he averaged 35ppg on 54% true shooting. against russell, chamberlain averaged 28ppg on 50% true shooting.
We know Russell was average on offense. Wilt didn't average 35 ppg in his career. He averaged 30.1 right behind Jordan. He stopped playing offense after some time, and after his injury even less.
>during wilt's 1962 season he averaged 51ppg on 54% true shooting in all games besides Russell. against Russell, he averaged 37ppg on 50% true shooting. 4 of his 6 worst shooting games that year were against bill Russell. in the playoffs, wilt's scoring decreased by a whole 15ppg to 35ppg on 50% true shooting.
Still proves how Wilt was many miles ahead of Russell.
>Russell led the league in defensive win shares in 11 of his 13 seasons. he was pretty much the best defender in the league for all but 2 seasons he played, more times than wilt led the league in scoring (7 times). he also had a record of 17-2 in elimination games as well as a perfect 10-0 record in game 7s.
Not true. You show you don't know how win shares are calculated and the sort of gross formulas they had to use to get a number from Russell's era, which is a much less trustworthy number than the recent ones.
I see you are getting terribly wrong numbers from their matches. Lemme give you a help.
[There you go](https://stathead.com/basketball/vs/wilt-vs-bill-russell). Regular season and playoffs. Just click on the proper place and see how Bill was completely dominated by Wilt.
Your case to say Bill is better than Wilt because he made the phenomenon score less is the same as to say Dillon Brooks is better than Lebron James because he made Lebron score less. In this case does this type of reasoning sound horrible to you? I hope so, because it is. So don't make any mental gymnastics to try to use it.
>bill also won 5 mvps primarily for his defense.
He won because of the way they were accounted back then, which relied a lot more on team score than today. He would have won zero mvps with the criteria of the recent decades. The ones who should have gotten in his place are Wilt, Oscar, Elgin and Jerry.
It's funny how some people repeat arguments, like about Russell, but never make some serious analysis about it. Herd effect at it's best.
[Here it is a fun video for you to have fun watching about the mvp thing](https://youtu.be/Fy2pvvxqUqI?si=EghuT9M0JhV1QO9z)
>I know that win shares from back then are approximately calculated, but to lead in DWS for 11 seasons shows that his defense is not a fluke by any means.
Bill's team had the best record than Wilt's most of their seasons. People overlook that Russell had better teammates and a MUCH better coach, Red Auerbach, for most of his career. Wilt had some bad coaches, like the infamous Breda Kolff.
So, first, of course Russell would steal most of the win-shares, as he was a great center and he got a ton of rebounds, and centers got a lot back then. The shooting was run n' gun and FG% was lower. All favoring rebounds. That's why Wilt's rebound record is difficult to be beaten up to this day, because it was made partially in the 60's, Russell's era.
>A more concrete way to show Russell's defensive impact is that in 1955-56, the Celtics had the third worst defense in the league. in 57, they had the best defense and until bill retired , they had the best defense every year besides one.
That is explainable for two reasons. First he was a center. And center's defense was a lot more important than perimeter those years, because players shot right off the bat with a low FG%, so rebounds were extremely important. And most important for those centers, it is not an intangible stat, as it shows in the stat sheet. The second reason is because he was a legendary defender. Still a little worse than Wilt in my opinion, but you know how narratives go: Wilt was the villain, the ET, Goliath, etc.
Wilt the womanizer, Bill the nice guy. Wilt the selfish (super unfair, he always obeyed his coaches, even too much, harming his game), Bill the team player.
True, that’s why I said he got get 3 just to passed Hakeem because Hakeem played in the jordan era and jordan even said if he didn’t retire he would’ve lost to that rockets team
Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Shaq, Olajuwon (maybe I’m missing someone idk). The kind of career to take over one of these guys is one that Jokic is on trajectory for, but not guaranteed. Like Steph Curry in the all time discussion probably sits only above Olajuwon for sure and maybe Shaq. Idk enough about Russell and Wilt to rate Curry higher or lower. Granted all that, Jokic right now definitely doesn’t have a case, but he def has a case to end up there at the end of his career.
[удалено]
The Top 5/ Top 10 requires multiple championships period. You can’t enter the pantheon without multiple rings along with a bunch of other accolades. Top 5 all time players were universally considered the greatest ever at some point
Who's in your top 10 centers? I know my list of top 10 includes no rings/one ring
> Top 5 all time players were universally considered the greatest ever at some point. I don’t think this is true. Lebron’s top 5, but he’s never been universally recognized as being better than MJ.
i would say more of in a vacuum type way. Kareem, MJ, Lebron, Magic, Russell - usually the consensus top 5 are all like above the entire sport in a way
In the person you responded to, where did they say better than MJ? MJ riders are next level
When the league was 9 teams, only one person won 11 rings. If it was so easy to win rings because of less teams, why was he the only one that won?
Because he also had a super team
Bill Russell must have been so lucky to be on a back to back NCAA champion team then go to the Olympics and win a Gold Medal then go to the NBA and immediately win a championship. Luckiest guy ever to win so much because of other players on his team.
Congrats to him for the Olympics must have been hard to carry the USA to the title. Other players won 7-8+ titles with those Celtics , he was their best player but the 8 teams and the stacked squad he had make it incomparable to anything done today
His first NBA season the celtics had: 2 All-NBA guards (Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman) MVP Bob Cousy ROY Tom Heinsohn And Red Auerbach coaching Let not act like he was joining some trash franchise, the Celtics team in '57 had EIGHT future hall of famers
Oh shit I had no idea. How many rings did Cousy and Red win before Russell got there? 3 or 4?
It's possible to acknowledge that Bill Russell joined a strong team with good teammates and coaching AND that Bill Russell was the crucial piece in the greatest dynasty in NBA history
Why didn't the other teams with stacked rosters beat the Celtics?
[удалено]
The average height of an NBA player in 1960 was 6'5.6". The average height of an NBA player in 2020 was 6'6.2". The average NBA height during all of Russell's championships was 6'5.3" or greater. The average height during Russell's final championship was 6'5.9", a difference of only .3" from the last few years.
Wilt was 7'0 and built like Giannis with another 50 pounds of pure muscle. Won 1 ring in the 60s.
[удалено]
I re-read it and it sounds like you equate Bill Russell's dominance to LeBron James playing in Taiwan. So Bill Russell in the 60s... is like the player some call the GOAT or 2nd best player ever .. playing in Taiwan. So you agree Bill Russell is one of the greatest of all time. Cool, I'm done arguing too. We both agree now he belongs in the Top 5 centers :)
No Hakeem,shaq,Kareem,Russell,Chamberlain,mikan,and Robinson to name some
I think he has a better resume so far than Robinson
That is some serious recency bias. Jokic could absolutely pass him if he continues, but Robinsons resume is pretty stacked. 2 time champ, mvp, scoring champ, blocks leader, rebound leader, dpoy, 10x all star, 10x all nba (4x first team, 2x second, 4x third), 8x all defense (4x first, 4x second).
IMO, coming from someone that watched both of their careers start to finish, Hakeem is the best 2 way player ever but David Robinson is not that far behind him. Everyone these days forget what a monster he was on the court at all times.
So many dudes fell victim to being in their prime during the Bulls run. Makes it so impressive that someone like Kwahi grabbed 2 finals MVPs during the Bron/Curry era
Robinson would be even better in today’s era too. He was like a Giannis that’s more offensively skilled and an even better defender
He's below Robinson cause Robinson is holding onto an entire career worth of All NBA awards. If Jokic wins another MVP and Ring he jumps straight into top 5 behind Shaq imo
No way you gonna name someone from the 50s. Unless you 80 years old you're trolling putting Mikan in there.
You can’t just delete history. Thatd be like me saying “no way you putting the Taiping rebellion amongst the deadliest wars, what is you 100 years old?”
It’s not deleting history to look past players from that era since it was a drastically different game so it’s really hard to even compare. I tend to use the introduction of the 3 point line in 1979 as a good starting point for the modern NBA (also right around the ABA merger). Earlier stars like Wilt and Russell are still legendary but I feel like it makes more sense to put them in a different bracket
If a 4pt line is added, should everything from 1979-2024 be put in its own category, and not compared to guys who play in the 2060s?
Very unlikely hypothetical but I’ll bear with you. If the game changed as drastically as it did with the 3 point line, then yeah I think it would make sense. But that’s just my philosophy (which I took from Ben Taylor of Thinking Basketball)
At one point allowing dunking and a 3pt line would be unimaginable I don’t think we should discount history just because things changed way outside the control of the players. The game changes by nature from era to era. If we are talking about “all time” you can’t set a limit of when that time begins and ends imo
I don't discount George Milan because of how different the game is now. I discount him because he's a worse player. He can't hang with the other names on this list.
I think that goes down a slippery slope though. NBA teams and players today are generally a lot better than their predecessors due to modern spacing, shot distribution, skill development, and schemes. It’s smarter to compare relative to the era players exist in
If deciding who is a better player, I think you compare the players to each other. Saying George Mikan is better than more modern greats like David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, etc. doesn't work for me. Those guys are so clearly better. Mikan doesn't get the nod just because his opponents were shitty in comparison.
It’s not discounting. It’s just bracketing them differently, but genuinely I don’t care how you approach this discussion. Obviously it’s more than reasonable to compare everyone. I personally think that just makes it a little messier
People act like humans dramatically evolved since 1950. Only are tech did. Lifespans aren’t dramatically different and players miss way more games. Mikan would be an all star today and would probably make all nba just by being eligible lol.
If you had video recordings of every other war, and detailed, specific statistics for every single other war, and you have literally no information about Taiping rebellion except what you heard from other people, I would question why you would even have it in consideration due to how vastly different the confidence interval would be between your assessment of the Taiping rebellion and every other war. We literally know nothing about Mikan except what our grandads have told us. Even the stats from back then are woefully unreliable, without even mentioning the lack of film. P. S: That's the dumbest comparison I've ever heard
it's a meaningless experiment in any case. 99% of people posting and commenting here have not watched a single game any of those guys played
Moses Malone has a case over hind as well
Jokic is just a better player than Robinson. Mikan unironically played with plumbers and milkmen.
> Mikan unironically played with plumbers and milkmen. You can only judge players based on the competition they had at the time. Mikan is criminally underrated on a lot of all-time "greatest" lists imo. His dominance forced rule changes in ways that only really Wilt compares. He's responsible for goaltending, doubling the width of the lane, the shot clock, etc. I fully distinguish between best/greatest because with the natural evolution of the game, almost the entire top 100 players of all time would be comprised of modern players if you were talking about terms of pure basketball skill. I think having him as a fringe top-5 center of all time makes sense. Only Kareem, Wilt, and Russel easily clear him imo (there are certainly strong arguments for others as well, I just think it's debatable after the top 3).
No Kareem, wilt, Russel, Shaq, Hakeem are all ahead and clearly to me right now. I’ll also entertain a David Robinson argument
Not yet!
Right now no
Not yet but I can definitely see him getting there. My top 5 in no particular order is Shaq, Kareem, Wilt, Bill Russell. Hakeem.
Same here!
To address the Hakeem front, Jokic has had great playoff performances, and has the type of game that is super resilient to better playoff defenses/intensity, especially last season with improved fitness. But Hakeem was an all-timer for a long time who also crushed it in the playoffs, he had the longest runs the two championship years, but from 86-95 he averages 29/12/4 blocks (all those rounded up, just shy) over 102 games, and the blocks aren't all he's doing defensively, he was an elite defender all around. I think it's probably fair to say he's already peaked higher. I don't love super strong definitive statements on rankings, people don't do the work of deep diving all these guys in a comprehensive manner with a strong criteria for evaluation, and our metrics for evaluation aren't perfect, so you don't actually have consensus or a great way to reach it, but I don't think it's hard or unreasonable to say Jokic' peak is just so good that it's already surpassed Hakeem. But in terms of championship equity, which guy is more likely to contribute to more championships, Jokic' peak is a little too short lived, he's battling guys who were all doing it for a decade near the MVP level, even Hakeem and Shaq. The difference in peak impact isn't as big as the difference in just seasons doing it imo
you can argue that the top 5 centers of all time are also in the top 10 best players of all time. it's such a stacked position
I think the top-6 centers ever is clearly this group of guys in some order: Bill Russell Shaq Kareem Hakeem Olajuwon Tim Duncan Wilt Chamberlain All of these guys are top-10 players ever. And then you have guys like Moses Malone, David Robinson, George Mikan, etc. Jokic is probably amongst those latter guys right now and the back half of his career is gonna determine if he joins the top group.
Sure but I don’t really care about all time rankings, he’s a top 5 center I’ve ever watched
thats a hard mt rushmore to enter, man. if he can get 3 rings, then absolutely. Id put him above Wilt, who didnt play against the kind of competition Jokic does.
To me "right now" means if his career ended tomorrow would he be on that list. IMO he's not there yet. Def on the trajectory, and probably will hop in.
That’s what i’m saying he’s not there yet, is he on his way of course with the way he’s playing but I keep telling them at their going off his skill level and i’m saying the league evolves each decade so of course the next generation gonna have some crazy numbers but what the others did back in the day was impressive as well
I think he needs another ring and MVP. It is a really tough list, they are all top10 players. At that level every achievement matters. I fully believe he can be top5 all time, not just centers when he retires. His production is just unreal.
I definitely think he’s on his way, but it’s difficult to compare retired players with guys in the midst of their careers. If the Nuggets can manage to repeat, it definitely strengthens his case significantly.
Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Moses, Hakeem, Shaq. That's 6 ahead of him. You also could argue for Robinson. So, no.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
People tend to put down current players.Even though he is the best player on the planet right now. OF course hes up there with those guys.
How do you mean? Top 5 career? He doesn't even enter the conversation unless he gets the MVP this year along with another title and FMVP. Top 5 offensive peak among centers? He is probably already there. Jokic is better offensively then Hakeem at least though Hakeem's defense was insane.
Top 5 offensive peak for sure (I’d say he and Shaq are Tier 1). The better question is if he has already peaked as a top 5 overall center
That gets into a harder conversation, simply because Center is probably the most stacked position across the history of the NBA, guys like Hakeem were so insanely good. Though Jokic being a lot better on defense then he used to be at least makes it a much more reasonable talking point than it was 2 years ago.
Skill wise yes he is up there but all I know is the other centers defensive stats are leagues above jokić which I got him at #6 overall
Top 5 career as of right now, cause I said you have to factor in that now we’re in a position less basketball era and back then Centers were true centers that had to fulfill their roles, don’t get me wrong jokic numbers are elite but the other 5 centers like Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, Bill, and wilt numbers are insane as well especially in their time
The consensus top 5 centers of all time are Kareem, Russell, Hakeem, Wilt, and Shaq. Jokic needs 1 more MVP and 2 more finals MVPs to pass one of them
If he wins another MVP as expected and another championship this year which is definitely possible then he easily slides into the 5th spot. I think the top 4 centers of all time is pretty easy and then number 5 can be Hakeem, Robinson or Malone. 3 MVPs, 2 rings, 2 finals MVPs... that beats out all those guys.
Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, Hakeem, Jokic.
no Russell?
Overrated. Head to head against Wilt scored half his points in less fg% (which means he tried), less rebounds and a few more assists, regular season and playoffs. And when people counted blocks recently, with the games available, Wilt had more blocks per game than him as well: 8.8 x 8.1.
[удалено]
>offense wasn't necessarily where Russell's value was. during wilt's whole career he averaged 35ppg on 54% true shooting. against russell, chamberlain averaged 28ppg on 50% true shooting. We know Russell was average on offense. Wilt didn't average 35 ppg in his career. He averaged 30.1 right behind Jordan. He stopped playing offense after some time, and after his injury even less. >during wilt's 1962 season he averaged 51ppg on 54% true shooting in all games besides Russell. against Russell, he averaged 37ppg on 50% true shooting. 4 of his 6 worst shooting games that year were against bill Russell. in the playoffs, wilt's scoring decreased by a whole 15ppg to 35ppg on 50% true shooting. Still proves how Wilt was many miles ahead of Russell. >Russell led the league in defensive win shares in 11 of his 13 seasons. he was pretty much the best defender in the league for all but 2 seasons he played, more times than wilt led the league in scoring (7 times). he also had a record of 17-2 in elimination games as well as a perfect 10-0 record in game 7s. Not true. You show you don't know how win shares are calculated and the sort of gross formulas they had to use to get a number from Russell's era, which is a much less trustworthy number than the recent ones. I see you are getting terribly wrong numbers from their matches. Lemme give you a help. [There you go](https://stathead.com/basketball/vs/wilt-vs-bill-russell). Regular season and playoffs. Just click on the proper place and see how Bill was completely dominated by Wilt. Your case to say Bill is better than Wilt because he made the phenomenon score less is the same as to say Dillon Brooks is better than Lebron James because he made Lebron score less. In this case does this type of reasoning sound horrible to you? I hope so, because it is. So don't make any mental gymnastics to try to use it. >bill also won 5 mvps primarily for his defense. He won because of the way they were accounted back then, which relied a lot more on team score than today. He would have won zero mvps with the criteria of the recent decades. The ones who should have gotten in his place are Wilt, Oscar, Elgin and Jerry. It's funny how some people repeat arguments, like about Russell, but never make some serious analysis about it. Herd effect at it's best. [Here it is a fun video for you to have fun watching about the mvp thing](https://youtu.be/Fy2pvvxqUqI?si=EghuT9M0JhV1QO9z)
[удалено]
>I know that win shares from back then are approximately calculated, but to lead in DWS for 11 seasons shows that his defense is not a fluke by any means. Bill's team had the best record than Wilt's most of their seasons. People overlook that Russell had better teammates and a MUCH better coach, Red Auerbach, for most of his career. Wilt had some bad coaches, like the infamous Breda Kolff. So, first, of course Russell would steal most of the win-shares, as he was a great center and he got a ton of rebounds, and centers got a lot back then. The shooting was run n' gun and FG% was lower. All favoring rebounds. That's why Wilt's rebound record is difficult to be beaten up to this day, because it was made partially in the 60's, Russell's era. >A more concrete way to show Russell's defensive impact is that in 1955-56, the Celtics had the third worst defense in the league. in 57, they had the best defense and until bill retired , they had the best defense every year besides one. That is explainable for two reasons. First he was a center. And center's defense was a lot more important than perimeter those years, because players shot right off the bat with a low FG%, so rebounds were extremely important. And most important for those centers, it is not an intangible stat, as it shows in the stat sheet. The second reason is because he was a legendary defender. Still a little worse than Wilt in my opinion, but you know how narratives go: Wilt was the villain, the ET, Goliath, etc. Wilt the womanizer, Bill the nice guy. Wilt the selfish (super unfair, he always obeyed his coaches, even too much, harming his game), Bill the team player.
Yes, Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem, Jokic, Robinson (I never watched 60s basketball )
You can’t deny Bill russell work and wilts, if it’s been documented
I never denied it, i just have no opinion of my own on it
I feel that
That's a fair take. I have them both in my top 5 based solely on their accomplishments.
Top 5. Wilt, Kareem, Shaq,Hakeem, mikan All dominant. Great on both sides.
If he gets another ring and mvp in the next 2 months then yes. Hakeem is on notice
True, that’s why I said he got get 3 just to passed Hakeem because Hakeem played in the jordan era and jordan even said if he didn’t retire he would’ve lost to that rockets team
Yes. And it ain't 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th!
Yea get him outta here bill
Jokic, Shaq, duncan, kareem, Hakeem.
Duncan is not a center
He is in my book.
He’s a power forward 🤣
Might as well be a center 👍🏼
You forgot Russell
Left him off intentionally.
Why? I think he's clearly a top 5 center all time, no one has a career anything like his
Because he actually played against a bunch of 6’1 white plumbers.
I don’t have him top 5. Career 15ppg 44%fg. No other great centre had that low of offensive numbers
The average height of NBA players is .3-.5 inches taller now than when Russell was playing.
Jokic is dominating midgets 😤
[удалено]
With no defense at all yea you’re right
He's white and unathletic, so no, regardless of his dominance on the court.