Scottie Quitten: One of the NBA's 50 Greatest or not?

So you completely dismiss the fact that he was the greatest shotblocker and defensive player ever to play the game, one of the two greatest rebounders in the history of the game alongside Wilt Chamberlain, averaging 22.5 rebounds per game over his career, that he averaged 4.3 ASSISTS per game as a CENTER, in an area when it was harder to get assists--when a pass had to lead DIRECTLY to a pass in order to be an assist (no dribbling first), the fact he was the most intelligent player ever to play the game and had the most cerebral approach to the game of anyone ever, that he was the greatest team player ever, unconcerned with individual accolades but only with the success of the team, the greatest psychological player and intimidator, who would play mind games with opponents to help his team toward victory...need I go on?
And he DIDN'T have to score, and he was not interested in doing so only to prove a point: "In order to win, you have to get yourself past a lot of things that may not be vital to winning but make you feel good, like scoring a lot of points. You have to forgo the pleasure of proving a point, _because what somebody else wants you to prove may be inconsistent with the way you should play to win."_ He was interested in one thing and one thing only--WINING. He scored when it was necessary in order for the team to win. And as far as his 44% field-goal percentage goes, shooting percentages were lower back then. Russell actually regularly ranked among the league leaders in shooting percentage. Look it up. And players such as Elgin Baylor (43.1%) and Bob Pettit (43.6%) actually have LOWER shooting percentages than Russell did, yet I've never seen anyone talk about them being horrible offensive players...



------------------
THE REGULATOR
"I'm not the showstopper, I'm _RUNNING_ the show!"

 

FINALLY

Someone who knows what they're talking about

Welcome to the board ThaRegul8r!!! Nice to have someone else aboard who knows what basketball is really all about.

------------------
When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity.-
Albert Einstein

[This message has been edited by BobFinn* (edited June 17, 2001).]

 

Prove that. Looks to me like Hakeem has more blocks. How are you ever going to prove that Russell was the greatest defender ever? You do realize that's impossible, right? Why don't we compare the average height of the teams Russell played against vs. Hakeem -- then we'll have an idea of what great defense is. Anybody can guard midgets.

Again, let's look at the height of the players he went up against. And I already conceded that he was great on the defensive side of the ball. I'll even grant you that he was the greatest defensive center and rebounder ever. That's still only one side of the ball.

Again, that's a combination of him not being able to score as well as being surrounded by great players. Dennis Rodman was a good passer too -- he had to be. The assist numbers really don't mean much to me.

In an era where the size of the paint was about half what it is now. In an era where offensive goaltending was legal. In an era where free agency did not exist. In an era where the players were smaller and weaker -- I don't think you want to start comparing eras.

Okay, I'll grant you all those...can't refute those "facts".

You mean "shooting percentages were lower back then" kinda like rebounding stats were higher, right? If you're going to compare his rebounding numbers to players of today, I'm sure as heck going to use his terrible field goal percentage to show that he couldn't play offense. You need one basket to win a championship -- do you want the ball in Russell's hands?

[This message has been edited by TheFreak (edited June 18, 2001).]

 

Bob*,

Sharman and Cousy were in their prime when Russell entered the league. The Celtics where already a perinneal contender. Sure Russell helped Sharman have his best years, but Sharman was in his prime, and Havlichek played one yr with Sharman, so the Celtics did not skip a beat when Sharman's scoring retired.

Russell was a constant. There is no way I can argue otherwise. He was their best player. He was better than Wilt. But, he did not win 11 rings by himself. Every year he had at least 2 other Top 50 players in their prime playing with him. For 4 rings, that team have 4 Top 50 players.

All I meant by the Russell v Wilt argument is that that was hotly debated in the time. So, if one believes Russell was better, it is always ones measure of rings, defense and teamwork.

Dream has 2 rings, superior defense than Russell (based on the 2 inches), superior offense, and nowhere near the teammates of Russell. The only argument against Dream is less rings.

The 11 rings cannot be awarded solely to Russell, when that is also the whole argument for Cousy, Sharman, Jones, Havlicheck and Heinsohn, being Top 50 players (Heinsohn an Top 90).

Dream is better than Russell, and Shaq is better than Wilt. in my opinion. And I do really respect Russell and your opinion on this.

 

any btw.

Russell was NOT the only constant

Sam Jones "Mr. Clutch" won 10 rings with Russell and was a Top 50 player. How can you just say that Russell was the only constant?

 

Making that statement to prove your point is bogus and you know it. Blocked shots were not kept until the 1973-74 season, four years after Russell retired. Olajuwon has the most since they were recorded as a statistic. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, whose "record" he "broke" to become the "all-time blocked shot leader" had the first four years of his career missing from his total. He had 3,189 blocked shots during the 1,239 games in which blocked shots were kept. 321 games worth of blocked shots were not kept. His average during which blocks were kept comes out to 2.57 bpg. Even if you just take that average and multiply it by 1,560 games, you get 4,015 blocked shots, leaving Hakeem 275 short. Do the math. That's Jabbar, let alone Russell.

Assuming you've never seen him play (which I'm guessing you haven't), do some research. Every knowledgeable basketball expert/observer who've seen them ALL unanimously agree that Russell was the greatest defensive player who ever lived. Russell would completely dominate games defensively. He could control a game from the defensive end--he didn't need to score a single point in order to dominate. Russell absolutely terrified shooters. He had them continually wondering where he was on the court, often stopping to see where he was before they took a shot. Players would go for what they thought was an open shot, but then Russell suddenly would come out of nowhere and block it. Oftentimes he had them looking for him WHEN HE WASN'T EVEN IN THE GAME! He completely disrupted offenses. And he knew WHEN to block shots. Sometimes he might intentionally let a player make a certain move, but then when it came down to crunch time, he'd take it away, having them wondering why what was working all game suddenly wasn't. Sometimes he'd take away a move from the very beginning, making them do something else. He had the psychology. And when he blocked shots, he didn't knock it out of bounds--which would merely be a stop in play with the other team getting the ball back, but would block it so that it would pop straight up in the air and he would then grab it like a rebound and then get it out to the guards, or he would direct the ball towards a teammate to start the fast break. "This was not merely demoralizing to the shooter: it set up the Boston fast break even better than an ordinary rebound, because when Russell blocked one, the rest of the opposing team was still on offensive mentally, and moving towards the basket." He'd block the ball to a teammate, and they'd be off on the fast break before the other team could get back. He played defense and blocked shots better than anyone ever, no disrespect to Hakeem...

And height does not equal skill. The height now is boosted by stiffs such as Shawn Bradley (7'6"), Greg Ostertag (7'2"), Bryant Reeves (7'0"), etc. Wilt Chamberlain, Walt Bellamy, Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed, et al, are not midgets. And once again, he had to face them more often. As everyone knows, Russell's biggest rival was Wilt Chamberlain. In the 10 years that they faced off, Russell faced him 142 TIMES!!! No expansion means that you have to fact the best more often...the best centers now don't have to face each other over 10 times a season plus the playoffs...

He did it to make the team better. To WIN. Sheesh, is that such a hard concept to grasp? He didn't have to score with Cousy, Sharman, Havlicek, Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, et al. They didn't NEED him to score, they had enough scoring. Should he have scored more points just for the sake of doing so, and the hell with the team? Forget winning, as long as I get my points? He scored when it was necessary in order for his team TO WIN: 19 pts, 32 rbs in Game 7 of the 1957 NBA Finals; 22 pts, 35 rbs in Game 7 of the 1960 Finals; 30 pts, 38 rbs in Game 5 of the '61 Finals; 30 pts, 40 rbs in Game 7 of the '62 Finals; 25 pts, 32 rbs in Game 7 of the '66 Finals. And yeah, being one of the best passers ever at your position doesn't have much value...

The size of the paint was NOT half of what it is now. That's a ridiculous statement with no factual basis. And offensive goaltending was banned in 1958. Try again.

It's amazing to me how people feel they must discredit the greats of the past in order to validate those of the present... ::shakes head:: And in 30 years this will be you talking to someone saying that Hakeem Olajuwon simply can't compare with whoever it is then...


------------------
THE REGULATOR
"I'm not the showstopper, I'm _RUNNING_ the show!"

[This message has been edited by ThaRegul8r (edited June 19, 2001).]

 

Russell WAS the only constant. He was the only one there from beginning to end...



------------------
THE REGULATOR
"I'm not the showstopper, I'm _RUNNING_ the show!"

 

Russell was there for all 11 titles, but wasn't Sam Jones there for 10 of them? If so, then you can't say Russell was the only constant. I'm not saying Jones contributed as much to the Celtics, but you can't say he wasn't a constant if he was there for 10/11 titles.

As far as Russell's offensive game goes...true, he didn't need to score, but that still dosen't dismiss his poor field goal percentage. For example, Rodman didn't score a lot of points with the Bad Boys, and no one would consider him to be a great offensive player. Yet, he made the shots that he took (at a high percentage). If Russell only shot the ball 4 or 5 times a game (just throwing a number out) because he didn't have to score, he still has no excuse for not making close to 50% of his shots. Throw in the fact that he's a center (and not a jump shooting one) and it makes his fg% look even worse.

I'm not bashing Russell, but if I had to pick, I would choose Dream. Russell was a better defender, but Dream wasn't too shabby in that department. Dream's offensive game was light year's ahead of Russell. I don't see how you can deny this no matter if the Celtics counted on him to score or not. Russell has more rings, but he also had the top talent in the league on his team for the majority of his career. I would take Dream's championship in 94 with his talent-depleted squad over any of Russell's with the deep Celtics. True, he was there for every championship and was a constant presence on the team, but he never had a season where he truly didn't have any help. Dream played the majority of his career that way, put up great numbers that way, and won a title that way, so he get's my vote.



------------------

 

Olajuwon was a better scorer than Russell, I don't believe anyone's said otherwise. However, scoring is only one aspect. Russell was a superior rebounder, better defender and a better passer.

If you're choosing a team and you'd rather have Olajuwon, fine, that's your prerogative. I respect that. But other people on this board attempt to dimish Russell and his accomplishments, writting off what he did and saying he can't compare to players of today. I saw in a thread last year someone saying that Russell wouldn't be any better than an A.C. Green today, which is a ludicrous statement. Greats are greats in any era. PERIOD. And the thing is, I see that most people admit that they don't have much, if any, knowledge of the greats of the past. If you've never seen them play, nor know anything about when they played, how can you POSSIBLY have any basis of comparison to make a statement of who's better?

It's like on another thread on here were it was said that Kobe Bryant was the second-best guard ever, which would put him above Magic Johnson and Oscar Robertson. What if someone never saw either of them play, but said that they can't be better than Bryant because they can't imagine anyone better? What kind of weight does that hold? I've seen some people who didn't see Jordan who said that Kobe is the best guard EVER, after the San Antonio series, saying that even though they didn't see Jordan, they can't imagine him having been any better than that. Can that then be used as a valid argument?


------------------
THE REGULATOR
"I'm not the showstopper, I'm _RUNNING_ the show!"



[This message has been edited by ThaRegul8r (edited June 20, 2001).]

 

Hakeem is a better defender because he is faster and taller than Russell was, and you cannot even try to tell me that Russell had defensive instincts that Hakeem only dreams of.

yeah right.

Up and down the line, Hakeem matches Russell for defense, and he is taller to boot.

 

It may interest you to know that Russell was a track star at USF. Didn't know that did you? And height alone does not translate into better defensive ability. Russell was 6'9½", Olajuwon 6'11". Olajuwon was 1½" taller than Russell. That in and or itself does not make Olajuwon a better defender. I've seen it said that David Robinson was quicker than Olajuwon, and Robinson was 2" taller. Does that mean that Robinson was a better defender than Olajuwon? I notice that you keep talking about height, but when I use your own criteria against you, you never address that. I wonder why?

Those are the things which Russell did. Whether you believe it or not does not change anything. I said before that he was the most intelligent player ever and had the most cerebral approach to the game. These are some examples. Those were just some of the reasons why Russell was the greatest shotblocker and defensive player ever to play the game. But I point out that YOU are the one who says those are instincts Hakeem only dreams of...

Now THAT'S certainly a compelling rebuttal...

I smell some homerism here... you've never even SEEN Russell play, yet when presented with what Russell did, you can come up with nothing better than, "Yeah right." If you would take the blinders from your eyes and do some research if you don't believe what I say, you will find it unanimous that Russell was the greatest defensive player ever. FACT. And I believe that what people say about it who have seen EVERYONE throughout the years, have been around the game for years and are knowledgeable about the game carries a whole lot more weight than someone who's never even SEEN all the players in question. Olajuwon's place in history can never be taken away. He's one of THE greatest players ever to play the game. He was an absolute pleasure to watch, and his run in 1994 to 1995 was incredible. Yet you cannot be so close-minded to the greatness of others simply because you don't believe it, or, I suspect, don't WANT to believe it...Russell's greatness doesn't diminish what Olajuwon did at all...

------------------
THE REGULATOR
"I'm not the showstopper, I'm _RUNNING_ the show!"



[This message has been edited by ThaRegul8r (edited June 20, 2001).]

 

I've seen Russell play, and he looks like he's in slow-motion when compared to Dream.

Hakeem Olajuwon was the quickest player to ever play the center position.

And Russell was not the only constant in those Championships - what about Red Auerbach? After all, it was Auerbach who built a team so talented that they at one point brought Havlicek off the bench. Let me say that again :

The Boston Celtics had so much talent that they once brought one of the Top 50 players in league history off the bench

Russell was a great player - but Dream is better.

------------------
"I always thought it was something that went around my house"
- World B. Free on Defence

 

Russell played the same (largely inferior) players over and over and over each season. In ten years, he would play the same guy maybe 100 plus times. In my opinion, that favors the defender, because he gets to learn the other guy's every move.

In Dream's time, it was much harder to learn every move of the opposition, since you only see him a few times a year. So, Dream's defense could not be as well crafted toward an individual player as Russell's was.

Russell has said his strength was in knowing which way a guy liked to go, making him go another way, and being there to block when he did.

Russell's supporting cast cannot be undervalued. He played with a strong team, and the stability (compared to today's teams) made his job easier because he knew what people would do.

If Dream gets in a time machine and goes back to Russell's era, he kicks Russell's ass. No way Russell guards the Dream Shake.

------------------
Some days you eat the bear. Some days the bear eats you.

 

Russell was a great player who would get dusted by Dream in any time.

:chuckles: :shrugs: :looks quimsically:

:leans back: :chuckles again:

:and wonders why anyone would feel the need to describe their personal activities while posting:

------------------
Some days you eat the bear. Some days the bear eats you.