Who is the GOAT?

Yada yada yada we all can’t prove anything and we’ve all have been down this road before....it’s all whatever one feels/believes and I’m fine with that.

Durant is not worthy of being in this conversation.

15. Sudden Sam 14. Logo 13. Pistol Pete 12, Dr. J 11. Hondo 10. MJ. 9. James 8. Elgin 7. Hakeem, 6. Oscar 5. Magic 4. Bird 3. Kareem 2. Wilt 1. Bill

Bill changed the game of basketball more than any other person not named Bob Cousy. He basically invented the blocked shot and Defensive basketball. If you never saw him play you really don't know how great he was if all you've seen is grainy black and white highlight reels. It's not the 11 rings that make him the greatest. It's the way he played and dominated. Because he played against the second best player of all time, Wilt, he is elevated even more. Bill was 6'9" and weighed 225, Wilt 7' and 300lbs. and the equal of any big man who played after him. Yet Bill almost always won. All those great players whose offense led them into the paint would be in for a very rude awakening. If MJ and LeBron and even Larry Bird had to play against a Russel led team they would only be able to score from outside. How great would they be then?

This all seems so simple to me. Same as in the other sports. Babe Ruth, Bobby Orr, Bill Russell, and Jim Brown

but y'all already know how I feel

swish wrote:
mrkleen

No problem - I don't heat up that quickly

Your below statement points out why we differ in opinion.

    "I think Bill Russel has the credentials as an athlete, that if you put him in any era - he would rise to the top of the heap.  There is no doubt in my mind that given the kind of nutrition, personal trainers, private jets, pampered lifestyle of the modern NBA - Bill Russell would be just as great as he ever was, probably better."

I prefer to compare the players of the Russell era as they actually were ( in real time) -  against the players of the last 40 or so years - also in real time. You suggest that Russell would benefit greatly from a remake to modern standards - I totally agree, but unfortunately it's those very same benefits that the modern player enjoys that sets up a very noticeable difference in the caliber of play between the Russell years and the present.  Even in sports the march of time is also a big factor. So "here's to Russell" my favorite Celtic of all time - Who perhaps could have been the greatest player of all time if if he had benefited from all the modern hi tech stuff that goes into the making of an nba player.
  Two options to choose from - go with the one that fits you best.


  swish  

That is the problem with your argument....you want to have it both ways.  

You want to suggest modern players are better than players from the past because of the benefits they receive from having superior training, nutrition, comfortable travel etc.  But you wont do the opposite.

Dont have time to get into this...so leaving it here.

mulcogiseng wrote:15. Sudden Sam 14. Logo 13. Pistol Pete 12, Dr. J  11. Hondo   10. MJ.  9. James  8. Elgin  7.  Hakeem,  6. Oscar 5. Magic  4. Bird  3. Kareem  2. Wilt  1. Bill

Bill changed the game of basketball more than any other person not named Bob Cousy. He basically invented the blocked shot and Defensive basketball. If you never saw him play you really don't know how great he was if all you've seen is grainy black and white highlight reels. It's not the 11 rings that make him the greatest. It's the way he played and dominated. Because he played against the second best player of all time, Wilt, he is elevated even more. Bill was 6'9" and weighed 225, Wilt 7' and 300lbs. and the equal of any big man who played after him.  Yet Bill almost always won. All those great players whose offense led them into the paint would be in for a very rude awakening. If MJ and LeBron and even Larry Bird had to play against a Russel led team they would only be able to score from outside. How great would they be then?

This all seems so simple to me. Same as in the other sports.  Babe Ruth, Bobby Orr, Bill Russell, and Jim Brown

but y'all already know how I feel

 

Mulcogi,

Since we're taking a stab at the (probably) impossible GOAT in basketball, why not the other 4 major U.S. sports? We've done this one here before, and it's always led to some great thoughts and lists. I recall we've even gone beyond the big 4.

I'll take Willie Mays, Bobby Orr (over Howe and Hull, and I'm not from Boston), Kareem (stated earlier), and Jim Brown.

Regards

What's Willie's World Series ERA?

mulcogiseng wrote:What's Willie's World Series ERA?    

Great counter-point. A big argument in favor of Ruth is that he was a dominant pitcher at first.

While Mays can't claim that one, I've always gone on the basis of the five elements of baseball mastery and stardom; hit for average, hit for power, field, throw and run. In my view, Mays holds the edge in fielding, throwing (as a fielder) and running. Ruth has the edge in BA and most power stats, including HR. That gives Mays 3 dominant skills over Ruth. Despite having been one, I generally discount pitchers due to their focus on one skill, and from only 66' 6". It is true that a top pitcher can sometimes control a game, but not in every start or relief appearance. In discussing Ruth's throwing, I rate him more on his play in right field (not his only position). Maybe among the better to play there too, he supposedly could get a good read and break on fly balls. I just think Mays was stronger, more accurate, and reportedly appears to have made better decisions in the OF. Also from available reports, I think Mays probably covered more ground in the OF. They didn't time it then, but on admittedly very sketchy film and accounts, I would bet Mays had the quicker catch to release time.

My saying "from available reports," lends credence to the theory of the impossibility of these comparisons!

But don't you see? You just did an excellent job of doing exactly that. The reason that Willie often gets entered into these discussions is because he was so great at so many different things. the aggregate of those skills make Willie an excellent choice for anything other than pitching. Oh, he was also never reported to have used performance detracting drugs, unlike the Babe.

Mulcogi,

Performance detracting drugs! I think you've got a new category.

Does that include lifestyle in general? Would Mantle be at or near the top of that list?

Regards

Greatness is ultimately measured by winning.

No player has more rings than fingers except for the ultimate Goat, Bill Russell.  

No player influenced winning on his team more than Russell.  The GOAT is not necessarily the most talented player.  

Funny that winning that many titles in 13 years still gets overlooked.  Not by me.  Bill Russell all the way.  Not even a tough decision.

swish wrote:

mrkleen09 wrote:

swish wrote:  

Fantastic resume - perhaps the best of all time - but how does that lead to the conclusion that he was the greatest player of all time?

 swish

Did you just say that you cannot understand how someone could conclude that the player with the best resume in NBA history could be considered the best player of all time?  LOL.

Kareem called Russ the greatest of all time.
Phil Jackson said he would pick Bill Russell first OVER MJ if he were starting a team.
Wilt said that Russ was the greatest of all time.

Basketball is a TEAM GAME.  Any measure of the greatest player is one who makes his teammates better and wins more.  Case closed.  No one will ever be better than Bill Russell.  

I have no intentions of going back and forth with you on this - my opinion will not be changed by any statistic, bull shit comparison of the weight of modern athletes or anything else.  Save your breath.

Can't have a friendly debate when one party chooses to bow out of the discussion - and I was looking forward to your side of the argument in regards to the B-S side that I present.

 swish

Hayward leaving Utah to join the Celts should not be compared to Durant leaving and going to GS. No comparison.

mrkleen09 wrote:

swish wrote:
mrkleen

No problem - I don't heat up that quickly

Your below statement points out why we differ in opinion.

    "I think Bill Russel has the credentials as an athlete, that if you put him in any era - he would rise to the top of the heap.  There is no doubt in my mind that given the kind of nutrition, personal trainers, private jets, pampered lifestyle of the modern NBA - Bill Russell would be just as great as he ever was, probably better."

I prefer to compare the players of the Russell era as they actually were ( in real time) -  against the players of the last 40 or so years - also in real time. You suggest that Russell would benefit greatly from a remake to modern standards - I totally agree, but unfortunately it's those very same benefits that the modern player enjoys that sets up a very noticeable difference in the caliber of play between the Russell years and the present.  Even in sports the march of time is also a big factor. So "here's to Russell" my favorite Celtic of all time - Who perhaps could have been the greatest player of all time if if he had benefited from all the modern hi tech stuff that goes into the making of an nba player.
  Two options to choose from - go with the one that fits you best.


  swish  

That is the problem with your argument....you want to have it both ways.  

You want to suggest modern players are better than players from the past because of the benefits they receive from having superior training, nutrition, comfortable travel etc.  But you wont do the opposite.

Dont have time to get into this...so leaving it here.

mrkleen

I'll take care of that issue right now.
The players of the Russell era were not as good as the current generation - because they did not benefit from all the advantages that the modern player has. No matter what the reason is - the bottom line is still that Russell and his generation of players were vastly inferior.


swish

dboss wrote:Greatness is ultimately measured by winning.

No player has more rings than fingers except for the ultimate Goat, Bill Russell.  

No player influenced winning on his team more than Russell.  The GOAT is not necessarily the most talented player.  

Funny that winning that many titles in 13 years still gets overlooked.  Not by me.  Bill Russell all the way.  Not even a tough decision.

dboss

I guess that a list of the 10 greatest players of all time should include K.C. Jones, Jim Loscutoff, and Frank Ramsey.

 swish

NYCelt wrote:Mulcogi,

Performance detracting drugs! I think you've got a new category.

Does that include lifestyle in general? Would Mantle be at or near the top of that list?

Regards

Depends on the lifestyle. I put Babe in that category for all the drinking and partying that he did. Sometimes he is supposed to have shown up for the game directly from the bar and still, uh, in his cups as they say. lol Mantle would definitely fit in this category. These stories about players like The Babe and Mickey Mantle have contributed enormously to the list of things "not to do", and it has benefitted many players to avoid those mistakes. Yup "performance detracting".. With booze you lose and all that.

Ktronic1 wrote:

swish wrote:

mrkleen09 wrote:

swish wrote:  

Fantastic resume - perhaps the best of all time - but how does that lead to the conclusion that he was the greatest player of all time?

 swish

Did you just say that you cannot understand how someone could conclude that the player with the best resume in NBA history could be considered the best player of all time?  LOL.

Kareem called Russ the greatest of all time.
Phil Jackson said he would pick Bill Russell first OVER MJ if he were starting a team.
Wilt said that Russ was the greatest of all time.

Basketball is a TEAM GAME.  Any measure of the greatest player is one who makes his teammates better and wins more.  Case closed.  No one will ever be better than Bill Russell.  

I have no intentions of going back and forth with you on this - my opinion will not be changed by any statistic, bull shit comparison of the weight of modern athletes or anything else.  Save your breath.

Can't have a friendly debate when one party chooses to bow out of the discussion - and I was looking forward to your side of the argument in regards to the B-S side that I present.

 swish

Hayward leaving Utah to join the Celts should not be compared to Durant leaving and going to GS. No comparison.

It seems like someone always get jilted in free agency dealings - and certainly to debatable various degrees. The bottom line is that both were perceived as villains by the fans of the cities that they left.

swish

swish wrote:

dboss wrote:Greatness is ultimately measured by winning.

No player has more rings than fingers except for the ultimate Goat, Bill Russell.  

No player influenced winning on his team more than Russell.  The GOAT is not necessarily the most talented player.  

Funny that winning that many titles in 13 years still gets overlooked.  Not by me.  Bill Russell all the way.  Not even a tough decision.

dboss

I guess that a list of the 10 greatest players of all time should include K.C. Jones, Jim Loscutoff, and Frank Ramsey.

 swish

Agree however Russell was the main guy.

swish wrote:

mrkleen09 wrote:

swish wrote:
mrkleen

No problem - I don't heat up that quickly

Your below statement points out why we differ in opinion.

    "I think Bill Russel has the credentials as an athlete, that if you put him in any era - he would rise to the top of the heap.  There is no doubt in my mind that given the kind of nutrition, personal trainers, private jets, pampered lifestyle of the modern NBA - Bill Russell would be just as great as he ever was, probably better."

I prefer to compare the players of the Russell era as they actually were ( in real time) -  against the players of the last 40 or so years - also in real time. You suggest that Russell would benefit greatly from a remake to modern standards - I totally agree, but unfortunately it's those very same benefits that the modern player enjoys that sets up a very noticeable difference in the caliber of play between the Russell years and the present.  Even in sports the march of time is also a big factor. So "here's to Russell" my favorite Celtic of all time - Who perhaps could have been the greatest player of all time if if he had benefited from all the modern hi tech stuff that goes into the making of an nba player.
  Two options to choose from - go with the one that fits you best.


  swish  

That is the problem with your argument....you want to have it both ways.  

You want to suggest modern players are better than players from the past because of the benefits they receive from having superior training, nutrition, comfortable travel etc.  But you wont do the opposite.

Dont have time to get into this...so leaving it here.

mrkleen

   I'll take care of that issue right now.
The players of the Russell era were not as good as the current generation - because they did not benefit from all the advantages that the modern player has. No matter what the reason is - the bottom line is still that Russell and his generation of players were vastly inferior.


 swish

I agree that today's players are, in general, better than in the early years. However, I disagree as to why modern players are better. Sure modern nutrition and training is superior, but the improvements they provide are limited. The real and simple reason why modern players are better is simply numbers. As the game became more popular, more and more kids grew up playing the game. Thus, the chances of a naturally gifted kid picking up the ball and putting in the time increases. Additionally, the US population has more than doubled since 1950, further increasing the potential talent pool. Finally, child labor laws and the emergence of a society where everything is purchased (as opposed to made at home or farmed) means this larger pool of kids had more time to play. More kids playing more ball means higher chances of naturally gifted people taking up the game, which leads to more talented and skilled players, thus rising the overall talent level of the NBA. If the talent and natural ability are not there, then all the training won't make someone an NBA level player.

Another important point; the previous paragraph just says the overall talent of the league has improved, it doesn't say anything about when the GOAT graced the court. For example, there are a lot more people in the world now than in the late 1500s/early 1600s, but Shakespeare may very well be the greatest writer in any language. However, on average,many more people write well today compared 1600 (or even 1900), and becoming a professional writer is becoming more competitive due to the number of talented people competing.

Shamrock1000 wrote:

swish wrote:

mrkleen09 wrote:

swish wrote:
mrkleen

No problem - I don't heat up that quickly

Your below statement points out why we differ in opinion.

    "I think Bill Russel has the credentials as an athlete, that if you put him in any era - he would rise to the top of the heap.  There is no doubt in my mind that given the kind of nutrition, personal trainers, private jets, pampered lifestyle of the modern NBA - Bill Russell would be just as great as he ever was, probably better."

I prefer to compare the players of the Russell era as they actually were ( in real time) -  against the players of the last 40 or so years - also in real time. You suggest that Russell would benefit greatly from a remake to modern standards - I totally agree, but unfortunately it's those very same benefits that the modern player enjoys that sets up a very noticeable difference in the caliber of play between the Russell years and the present.  Even in sports the march of time is also a big factor. So "here's to Russell" my favorite Celtic of all time - Who perhaps could have been the greatest player of all time if if he had benefited from all the modern hi tech stuff that goes into the making of an nba player.
  Two options to choose from - go with the one that fits you best.


  swish  

That is the problem with your argument....you want to have it both ways.  

You want to suggest modern players are better than players from the past because of the benefits they receive from having superior training, nutrition, comfortable travel etc.  But you wont do the opposite.

Dont have time to get into this...so leaving it here.

mrkleen

   I'll take care of that issue right now.
The players of the Russell era were not as good as the current generation - because they did not benefit from all the advantages that the modern player has. No matter what the reason is - the bottom line is still that Russell and his generation of players were vastly inferior.


 swish

I agree that today's players are, in general, better than in the early years. However, I disagree as to why modern players are better. Sure modern nutrition and training is superior, but the improvements they provide are limited. The real and simple reason why modern players are better is simply numbers. As the game became more popular, more and more kids grew up playing the game. Thus, the chances of a naturally gifted kid picking up the ball and putting in the time increases. Additionally, the US population has more than doubled since 1950, further increasing the potential talent pool. Finally, child labor laws and the emergence of a society where everything is purchased (as opposed to made at home or farmed) means this larger pool of kids had more time to play. More kids playing more ball means higher chances of naturally gifted people taking up the game, which leads to more talented and skilled players, thus rising the overall talent level of the NBA. If the talent and natural ability are not there, then all the training won't make someone an NBA level player.

Another important point; the previous paragraph just says the overall talent of the league has improved, it doesn't say anything about when the GOAT graced the court. For example, there are a lot more people in the world now than in the late 1500s/early 1600s, but Shakespeare may very well be the greatest writer in any language. However, on average,many more people write well today compared 1600 (or even 1900), and becoming a professional writer is becoming more competitive due to the number of talented people competing.

Shamrock1000

I was just speaking in generalities - later today I'll get back to you with a more specific line of reasoning.


swish

Well The Cooz weighs in too

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/sports/celtics/2018/05/22/bob-cousy-isn-missing-trick-during-celtics-cavs-series/LJiYMIpaP7cQicEXwEO6KN/amp.html

According to him Russel is best team player ever, but he ranks LeBron over MJ as the GOAT.

Matty wrote:Well The Cooz weighs in too

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/sports/celtics/2018/05/22/bob-cousy-isn-missing-trick-during-celtics-cavs-series/LJiYMIpaP7cQicEXwEO6KN/amp.html

According to him Russel is best team player ever,  but he ranks LeBron over MJ as the GOAT.

I thought I was going it alone on this issue - only to find out that COUSY is in the bunker with me. Great call "CUZ".

 swish.

Swish,

Cousy also says this about himself:

“I would put my creativity and imagination from a point guard position, frankly, up against anyone who has ever played the game".

He is definitely not in the bunker with you on that.  I'm not saying that I agree with his statement, I'm just pointing out what he said on his skillset in regards to the modern game.

The Cooz says this about Al Horford:

“He does everything right, but he plays a little soft for a big guy, and he’s never going to bring you to the Promised Land”

That statement goes against many who say Al is our glue guy and plays a big part of what makes us tick.  IMO, Al has been devalued for much of his career, and Cousy joins the chorus with that statement.

Cousy says playoff basketball is more intense, and that favors the younger Celtics.

“I think that’s what will make a difference in the Cleveland series,” he says. “The Celtics are on average 24 years old and Cleveland is 32, and in the playoffs where you’re expected to sustain that intensity, age starts to make a difference.”

That certainly goes against the common belief that experience gets you to the promised land.  IMO, what the Celtics are doing this season buck the historic trends in that department.

I love what the Cooz brought to the game back in the day (from a historical perspective, I have no memory of actual live performances).  I do believe he has forgotten more about the game than I will ever know.  I'm just saying that everything that he says isn't dipped in gold.

gyso

The answer is Russell. 11 championships, spending his whole career fending off the most dominant player in any era, Wilt. As great as MJ was, he had to wait for Bird and Magic to get old, for the Pistons run to end. Lebron doesn't even have that excuse. There's nothing comparable to him in his era. Put the mentality of Russ or Bird or Magic or MJ in Lebron and he'd have won twice as many championships.

GOAT!!!

gyso wrote:Swish,

Cousy also says this about himself:

“I would put my creativity and imagination from a point guard position, frankly, up against anyone who has ever played the game".

He is definitely not in the bunker with you on that.  I'm not saying that I agree with his statement, I'm just pointing out what he said on his skillset in regards to the modern game.

The Cooz says this about Al Horford:

“He does everything right, but he plays a little soft for a big guy, and he’s never going to bring you to the Promised Land”

That statement goes against many who say Al is our glue guy and plays a big part of what makes us tick.  IMO, Al has been devalued for much of his career, and Cousy joins the chorus with that statement.

Cousy says playoff basketball is more intense, and that favors the younger Celtics.

“I think that’s what will make a difference in the Cleveland series,” he says. “The Celtics are on average 24 years old and Cleveland is 32, and in the playoffs where you’re expected to sustain that intensity, age starts to make a difference.”

That certainly goes against the common belief that experience gets you to the promised land.  IMO, what the Celtics are doing this season buck the historic trends in that department.

I love what the Cooz brought to the game back in the day (from a historical perspective, I have no memory of actual live performances).  I do believe he has forgotten more about the game than I will ever know.  I'm just saying that everything that he says isn't dipped in gold.

gyso

gyso

I agree with your above comments 100% - especially that not everything he says is dipped in gold. My enthusiasm over his comment is based on the fact that he separated the rings from his decision and the fact that he is the first old timer, including members of this board, that seem to share my view on this particular issue. We are miles apart when it comes to his role in the modern nba. As to the role of experience - His own Celtic teams were just loaded with very talented vets.
Thanks for your comments

swish

Without any doubt, fierce is the only one here that can prove his pick is correct.