I've noticed one guy with the handle, 'Blazers' and another with the handle 'Celtics', so I know for sure that there are some NBA junkies out there!

Come on, where are you all?
Let's get this discussion started!

I'm going to a Clippers game tomorrow and I'm psyched!

Hope to hear from some fellow zona hobbyists who also have an interest in pro basketball.

CoolHandLuke

Hey CHL,
If you make it down to LA early, lets hook up and I'll show you show chicas in the clubs down here.

Pecs

Here in Vegas,all the games have numbers.

517 UTAH JAZZ
518 LA CLIPPERS

When you place a bet,you simply state the # of the game you want and the amount of your bet.
This saves the bettor the embarrassment of actually going up to the window and saying
"$330 to WIN on the LA CLIPPERS" for all to hear.

Gotta love the Celts start this year. Paul Pierce was named player of the week recently and has been on a roll. They have a great one-two combo with Peirce and Walker. Since they got rid of the ex-Providence coach and hired a BC man they have improved--it's about time. What amazing is how Pierce came back from the multiple stab wounds he suffered in a club the Milkman probably used to work in. I thought TJ was tough.

I noticed Shag was clanging many free throws once again in the victory over Dallas the other night. He didn't look to happy getting pulled from the game with two minutes left. So the Diesel follows that by bricking eight of eleven from the stripe in last nights loss to the Kings. Maybe he should start shooting underhand. Of course, wins are like great sessions in the Zona... at 16-2, who's complaining?

If any of you bet NBA,take a look at
www.sportsdatabase.com.All the trends for each
game are listed there about one hour after the
previous nights games are over.It costs about $100
for the season,but there is lots of free areas
and also guest passes are available.

Hey Pecs...we still have to meet up in the zona. Sorry I didn't get your message on here until after I came back.

Hey Celtics...16 flags in 55 years says that the Boston team is the best NBA franchise and quite possibly the most successful professional sports franchise ever. Glad to see you chime in.

Any of you folks play fantasy basketball? I never bet. I have too little spare money that is reserved JUST for the zona!!

Ho hum. Get ready for a three-peat.

I've been a die hard Lakers fan since '68, when I was just a toddler. I grew up near UCLA, land of Wooden. Of course, I *HATE* the Celtics. But I gotta respect the great Celtics teams of yore.

Even though I'm a diehard Lakers fan, and my team is the best in the NBA right now, I must say that the current team is rather unlikeable. So if you *hate* the Lakers, I'll understand. I'll even extend sympathy when my team beats the crap out of your team.

In case y'all didn't know, let me share some FACTS.

The Greatest Player Ever is BILL RUSSELL. I'm not saying that he's the most talented individual ever to play the game (e.g., Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, or just perhaps maybe Michael-Marketing-Jordan). In baseball terms, Russell was Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson, and Frank Robinson, all rolled into one. 11 out of 13 NBA championships. Player-coach for his last 2 NBA championships. 2 NCAA championships at USF (never mind that his coach couldn't figure out how great he was). 1 Olympic gold medal (in the days when it meant something). If you are among the masses who think MJ was the greatest, check this dude out. Get educated.

The Greatest Team Ever is the 1987-88 Lakers. Back to back, against great Celtic and Piston teams. Ok, the other greatest team ever is the 1969 Celtics. These crotchety old bastards won their 11th championship, and did it at the expense of one of my greatest Lakers teams (Chamberlain, West, Baylor). What they lacked in talent they made up for in brains, guts and heart. I *hate* the Celtics.
That '86 Celtic team (yawn) was pretty good, but this is the team that the Lakers beat in surrounding years. The Bulls? Those 80's teams (Lakers, Celtics, Philadelphia, Detroit, and maybe Houston) could handle them. The team concept was not a novelty in those days.

The Greatest Coach Ever is PHIL JACKSON. 8 championships and climbing. Zen mind. Coaches teams full of super-brats and gets them to work as a team (a novel concept in the '90s and '00s). If he isn't the greatest coach ever, then he's the greatest babysitter ever. The other greatest one is of course Red Auerbach. What an asshole. I hate Red Auerbach. Once when I visited Faneul Hall (sic) in Boston, I nearly got arrested for strangling the statue of Red and his stinky cigar.

5 greatest players of all time:

Bill Russell
Magic Johnson
Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Michael Jordan
Larry Bird

(Others: Julius Irving, Wilt Chamberlain, Bob Cousy, Isaiah Thomas, Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and others)

Great players currently active (or at least not retired)

Michael Jordan (past his prime)
Scotty Pippen (past his prime)
Hakeem Olajuwon (way past his prime)
Shaq O'Neal
Alan Iverson

Book is still out on: Kobe, Tim Duncan, Vince Carter, Chris Webber, Kevin Garnett, others...
They are good, but are they *Great*?

Good but Never great: Karl Malone & John Stockton, Gary Payton

OK--that should be enough to start some debates.
Dogster the correct

Dogster

I think if Los Angeles can keep Kobe & Shaq with his Big toe "nsync" and surround them with some great vets and a few upcoming stars i think they will be " The team " for the next 3-5 years.

John Stockton is a classic basketball player and is one of the greatest to play the game.
You won't see him scoring 78 points a game but statistics are misleading.
Oh how many assists does he have ?

Tough guy Karl Malone is also one of the great ones.

We can sit all day and debate.

I pretty much agree with most of what you said.
I lived in Boston for 27 years and watching the Celtics/Lakers battle it out was just awesome.

the Celtics need one more scorer and perhaps a vet or big rebounder and they will have a championship team in a year or 2.

Remember I am the only loser on this board that said the Pats had a chance to win it all and guess what ?

Take care and perhaps Shaq can pull a Ronnie Lott and cut his poor toe off his foot !!

Milkman

Only a Laker fan would put Kareem over Wilt Chamberlain. The guy lead the league in assists one year for god's sake. That Lakers team in the late 80's would not have a prayer with Phil's Bulls team with Rodman, Pippen, MJ, Kukoc and Kerr. Remember, Rodman was the most dominating rebounder in the NBA when Bulls had their second threepeat and Kukoc and Kerr were deadly 3 point shooters. Phil Jackson vs. Pat Riley. My money's on Phil. The Lakers would still be getting punked in the first round if Phil wasn't their coach.

i think he put 5 guys ahead of wilt, and i think wilt played more with the lakers than anyone else didn't he? what about havlichek(i know the spelling has to be wrong)?
and my first nba memories were those battles between chamberlain and russell. my take--one guy cared about stats and the other wanted to win.
later the same teams battled in out year after year with each team winning win it was healthy. would have loved to see a lakers/celtics battle with both teams in good health.
today i hardly watch the game. would love to see kobe continue to develope simply because i've got at least a dozen of his rookie cards. maybe kobe can send lil'sampson to college(well maybe one year).

I can't help it I have to put my 2 cents worth in here. I spent years watching the Baylor-West Lakers get beat out by the Celts at the end of the season. I don't feel like Baylor gets enough credit when people talk about the all-time greats. I also remember that the lack of a big man in the middle left them unable to compete with Russell and Boston. The Lakers had a center named Ray Felix and I still have a picture in my memory of Hot Rod Hundley throwing him a behind the back pass which bounced off of his skull.

My personal all time favorites: Best all around player - Oscar Robertson, Best big man - Wilt, Top Winner - Bill Russell, and most fun to watch - Magic. And the runner-up list would have to have players like West, Dr. J, Kareem, Shaq, Bird, and of course Dennis Rodman.

Oh good. There are some people here who *think* they understand basketball, and may even *think* that they understand greatness. Let the smackdown begin.

The great ones could dig deep despite the odds and come out on top. And something about them transcended the sport. Great = Willis Reed (Nicks) in the '70 championship. Great = Bill Russell at Medgar Evers' funeral. Great = MJ single-handedly keeping the Bulls alive at the end of the 7th game. Great = "Havlichek steals the ball" (well those Reed and Havlichek moments were awful, too.) Great = Auerbach finding a way to draft Larry Bird. Great = Kareem's longevity and that invincible Sky Hook. Great = Rookie Magic Johnson playing guard, forward and center in the final game of the '80 championship.

"Only a Laker fan would put Kareem over Wilt Chamberlain." That's fuckin' brilliant man. And lets not forget that Wilt was only 6’10.

"That Lakers team in the late 80's would not have a prayer with Phil's Bulls team with Rodman, Pippen, MJ, Kukoc and Kerr." Guess Again.

"Phil Jackson vs. Pat Riley. My money's on Phil. The Lakers would still be getting punked in the first round if Phil wasn't their coach." I agree with this. The '80s Lakers rose and fell with Magic Johnson (and Kareem). Magic was essentially a player-coach. Riley was good but generally irrelevant. Phil Jackson is a genius (Triangle, meditation for mental fitness, world's greatest punk sitter).

"I don't feel like Baylor gets enough credit when people talk about the all-time greats." Absolutely correct. The original king of hang time. Oscar Robertson and various others we haven't discussed were pretty special.

Greatest Center Ever: NOT WILT
...And I loved Wilt. I remember almost getting his autograph at the Forum when I was a kid. He was mobbed after a game by a bunch of people seeking autographs. But I was probably all of 4 feet tall—the taller kids got autographs. To be sure, Wilt was great. He was an influential superstar. Wilt remains the only NBA superstar to average over 50 points per game, for an entire season. Along the way, he became the only player ever to score 100 points in a single game. After his rookie season in 1960, the NBA added the three-second violation and banned offensive goal-tending to reduce his impact on the game. He would have won more if the NBA hadn’t pulled this crap on him. He never fouled out. Wilt won two championships (the 1967 Philadelphia 76ers and the 1972 Los Angeles Lakers). He would have won more if not for (a) his foul shooting, and (b) his enormous ego. It didn’t help that the Celtics had a stockpile of talent. He won championships when he was persuaded to focus on defense. But more generally, he lost championships (Mostly to Russell, but later to the young Jabbar). His ’68 Sixers (lost to Boston) and ’69 Lakers (lost to Boston. Ugh.) sealed his legacy. If you know the story, you know why I don’t think Wilt is the best ever.

The greatest Center was… either Russell or Jabbar. Russell had the brains, guts, grit, and heart. The ultimate team and defensive player. Jabbar had brains, strength, height and finesse. He had it all—the most well-rounded center ever. And that skyhook was yogic poetry in motion.

Other Great NBA Centers include: Mikan, Olajuwon, and O'Neal.

First of all, Wilt was 7'1", not 6'10". If you don't know what you are talking about, step off. Secondly, anyone who thinks Wilt Chamberlain was not the best basketball player of all time has more than a few screws loose.

BEST PLAYER means best individual talent ... NOT best team player, NOT best player who makes his teammates better (although that's arguable, since Wilt did lead the league in assists one season), NOT best ass kisser, NOT most championships (this is not Tennis), NOT best player you have seen on NBC, NOT best player the refs let push off against Utah in the Finals so he can hit the winning shot (Jordan) ... it means the most KICK ASS, best motherfucking player of all time ... and that means STATS:

--Year--	--Team--	--G--	--PTS--	--REB--	--ASS--
1959-60	Philadelphia	72	37.6	27.0	2.3
1960-61	Philadelphia	79	38.4	27.2	1.9
1961-62	Philadelphia	80	50.4	25.7	2.4
1962-63	San Francisco	80	44.8	24.3	3.4
1963-64	San Francisco	80	36.9	22.3	5.0
1964-65	SF/Phila	3	34.7	22.9	3.4
1965-66	Philadelphia	79	33.5	24.6	5.2
1966-67	Philadelphia	81	24.1	24.2	7.8
1967-68	Philadelphia	82	24.3	23.8	8.6
1968-69	Los Angeles	81	20.5	21.1	4.5
1969-70	Los Angeles	12	27.3	18.4	4.1
1970-71	Los Angeles	82	20.7	18.2	4.3
1971-72	Los Angeles	82	14.8	19.2	4.0
1972-73	Los Angeles	82	13.2	18.6	4.5
TOTALS		1045	30.1	22.9	4.4

Basically, Wilt did what he wanted. He was a CENTER who led the league in ASSISTS because he said he FELT LIKE DOING IT!

Chamberlain averaged 50.4 points per game in 61-62! Remember the playoffs last year when the media got excited about Allen Iverson and Vince Carter going for 50 points in back to back playoff games? Two fucking games?? Wilt averaged more than 50 points per game over 80 games one season.

Iverson leads the league this year at 31.4 ppg per game, which is 5 more per game than #2 Shaquille "I foul on every single fucking move I make to the basket" O'Neal. Wilt had 7 seasons where he averaged more per game than this years leader.

Ben Wallace leads the league this year with 12.9 rebounds per game. Wilt averaged 10 rebounds per game MORE than this years leader over the course of his entire CAREER!! Dennis Rodman is considered the best rebounder of this era ... Rodman's best single season average was 18.7 rpg. Not only is that not even close to Wilt's 27.2 best, Wilt averaged more than 4 rebounds per game MORE than Rodman's single-season best for his CAREER, and his 22.9 career rpg average dwarfs Rodmans shitfuck 13.1.

Wilt is the only center to lead the LEAGUE in assists. The best assists center this year is Tim Duncan at 3.5 per game. Wilt averaged 4.4 for his CAREER!

More fun Wilt stats: He averaged more than 48 minutes per game one season. Wilt never fouled out in 1,045 games. Wilt won four MVPs.

Idiots who argue Russell was better must have forgotten how Wilt beat Russell straight up: Wilt's 29 ppg to Russell's 15 ppg head to head. Wilt's 29 rpg to Russell's 24 rpg head to head. Russell won more championships because he played with guys named Cousey, Havlicek, Sharman, and KC Jones, not because he was better than Wilt.

Playing for a great team or playing with other great players does not make an individual a great player. Kareem had Magic and vice versa, Jordan had Pippen (Jordan never won shit without him), Bird had McHale, Erving had Moses, Malone had Stockton. Wilt was a stud, and for most of his career he was the team.

End of discussion.

-Superman-

sorry superman i can't agree with everything you said. wilt was very selfish. he led the league in assists because he wanted to. one year he led the league in field goal percentage because he wanted to prove he could. i feel like in the context of an entire season--because wilt was so number conscience he passed the ball one year when he probably should have shot and didn't shoot one year when he should have because he didn't want to hurt his percentage. i don't know who was/is the greatest player of all time, but i like the way magic and bird competed--they did whatever it took to win--and competed every minute of every game as hard as they could--they did different things on different nights--they assessed the situation and responded--these guys were great players and didn't run to the box score at the end of the game. larry bird could have averaged 10 more points per game, but the celtic's may have one 10 fewer games per year as well. wilt was a man amongst boys physically, and although you can't fault him for being bigger and stronger he didn't have to compete with people his size on a nightly basis.

about his size--i read once that he was very sensitive about his height and wouldn't let anyone measure him. in honor of him someone built a statue of him 7'2" tall and when he stood next to it he was taller than the statue.

Superman: My blunt sarcasm was apparently too subtle to pass through your dense kryptonite skull. THUNK! My 6'10 comment was in response to "Only a Laker fan would put Kareem over Wilt Chamberlain." Get it? Or does it take awhile for the nickel to drop?

As an L.A. product, I grew up watching both Wilt and Kareem frequently. (Hint to B.: Wilt played a fair number of games in the Fabulous Forum). I watched Wilt dominate, then fall apart in key games, when it counted. I watched young Kareem generally dominate older Wilt whenever they played, though it was amazing whenever the Lakers could squeak by the Bucks. You learn more about players and teams by watching games than poring over often meaningless stats. The best players and coaches understand this -- the only stat that matters is whether they win the championship or not.

Back in the day ('70s, '80s), people used to discuss who they thought was the best center of all time. People made credible arguments for Wilt, Russell, and Kareem. (I remember George Mikan saying that he thought that Kareem was the best all-around center, and that was before Kareem won more championships).

"BEST PLAYER means best individual talent ... NOT best team player, NOT best player who makes his teammates better (although that's arguable, since Wilt did lead the league in assists one season), NOT best ass kisser, NOT most championships (this is not Tennis), NOT best player you have seen on NBC, NOT best player the refs let push off against Utah in the Finals so he can hit the winning shot (Jordan) ... it means the most KICK ASS, best motherfucking player of all time ... and that means STATS" Wrong. How utterly misguided, in so many ways. Anyway, we were talking about GREATEST, not BEST. Wilt was great, but not the greatest. And he was not the best. Sampson can explain this to you, as he clearly knows more about Wilt than you do.

In baseball, many still say that Babe Ruth was the greatest ever. They understand that he probably wouldn't hold a candle to today's players, but they also understand that stats and steroids do not define greatness.

In physics, lots of people have more publications and awards than Albert Einstein. And some of their theories are more likely to be correct than E's. But Einstein was the greatest. Fuck the stats.

Doubleff, Sampson, Milkman, others--excellent points.

Supermans a loser.Don't argue with him.He's like lakers,he has to have the last word,he has the biggest cock,the best experiences,etc.Ignore him.

I think picking the best center of all time is probably hopeless and will only provoke arguments. How can you compare Shaq with George Mikan? Different times and very much different games. Part of what needs to be considered is the team they played on and how well they fitted in. Wilt wasn't the center, he was the team for many years before he came to the Lakers. I wouldn't take any thing away from Russell because he was surrounded by other talent. That's part of greatness, and he was probably unsurpassed as a defensive player. Kareem was a perfect fit for the Lakers of the 80's. There never seemed to be any problems on a team with him, Magic, and Worthy. Egos could have ruined this team. Other great centers would have to include Olajuwan (sp?), Reed, etc.

All of that being said, I have seen no mention of my real favorite: Lisa Leslie.

Doubleff:
I wouldn't DREAM of provoking an argument. Heh, heh.

I think that you make some good points, and you score extra for not being an angry partisan sports dork like the kind you hear on sports talk radio.

I think that greatness includes being able to keep the ego in check and meld with the team, as you seem to imply. That's how ya beat other great teams, even if you aren't matched in purely individual ability. Some great players knew instinctively that this was especially important (Russell, Magic, Bird, Cousy), some eventually learned it (MJ, Isiah, Shaq & Kobe), and some had to be bludgeoned into a team style before they could win, and even then never quite "got" it (Wilt). Wilt had talent on his teams, even before the Lakers.

DOGSTER This is the first time in my life I have ever heard anyone state that Kareem was better than Wilt. Anyone who played basketball or watches it with a keen eye and with knowledge would never say Kareem is better than WIlt. With Russell, you have an argument. With Kareem, your objectivity is clouded by the fact that you are a Lakers fan.
I still disagree with you on Lakers vs. Bulls but, then again, you are coming from a subjective and biased perspective

Blazers!
I've seen some of your other posts, so I know that you are an OK dude.

First time? Sorry to pop your cherry on this topic.

"With Kareem, your objectivity is clouded by the fact that you are a Lakers fan."

Dude, you're killing me!!! Hint#2:
.R.E.K.A.L..A..S.A.W..T.L.I.W
There's something ass-backwards here. Can you solve it? It may take a keen eye and some knowledge to decipher this.

Sheesh. Dogster.

P.S. Sorry, Wilt. Please forgive me. 1971-72 was the best!!!

Kareem info, including opinion that he was the best:
http://ww3.sportsline.com/b/member/playboy/8606.html (Playboy interview)
http://www.lordly.com/talent/sei/Abdul-JabbarKareem.html (Refers to Time Mag opinion)


Wilt Info, including opinion that he was the best.
http://members.tripod.com/~airjudden/wilt/wiltrules.html
http://www.wiltchamberlain.com


Russell Info, including opinion that he was the best.
http://www.sportspublishinginc.com/Titles/The-Sports-100-Online/html/Bill-Russell.html

Phil Jackson?...The guy had the top player in the league (MJ) and a top-5 guy in Pippen while he was at Chicago...With LA he has arguably the numbers 1 and 2 in the league in Shaq and Kobe...His ability to win with talent like this makes him a great coach?...Lakers could coach that LA team and win 50 games...Redongdo could've coached Chicago and won 55...

Let's give "the Zen Master" a Cleveland or a Seattle and see how far he takes them...

Regarding Wilt, Superman is correct here...I've always felt you had to tip the hat to Wilt, mainly because his numbers are just so otherwordly...

I mean, just look at those fetching statistics...Individual comments can be found for Russell and Kareem-- as Dogster provides-- but I would wager that the consensus selection goes to Wilt...

Top 3 all-time centers:

1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Bill Russell
3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Top 3 all-time coaches:

1. Red Auerbach
2. Red Holzman
3. Lenny Wilkens

YoungBrig

Lenny Wilkins: It is hard to say something negative about him because he's such a decent guy and he's been around so long, both as a player and a coach. But lets face it. The guy is a living monument to mediocrity. He has barely won half of his games (@55%) in a long coaching career. With one ancient title in 27 years in a league with 29 teams, he's as good as a coin flip. He is often referred to as 'the winningest' coach in NBA history, but with @1200 wins and @1000 losses, he's also gotta be the 'losingest.' When people note that he has a weak playoff record, they like to say that he never has had the core of players needed to dominate. This is rather false, and this underachieving season is no exception. At the same time, the NBA powerhouses know about Wilkins' mediocre track record, and generally won't waste great talent on him. Of the active long-time coaches, Give me Phil Jackson, Rudy T, or Pat Riley, any day. (I dunno about that Larry Brown dude). Or, of the new crop, give me Byron Scott. I give Wilkins lots of credit for being so highly regarded, despite his record.

Red Holzman: To be sure, a great coach. On his good days. A couple NBA championships with the talent-laden Nicks ('70, '73), and also some very lean, mediocre years. Helped some great players (starting with Bob Pettit) reach their potential. On par with Auerbach and Jackson? I don't really think so.

Phil Jackson: Great players like this great coach because he has what it takes. The Bulls and especially the Lakers just didn't have it until he took over the reigns.

Red Aurbach: I've already said plenty about him and PJ. He had tons of talent on those Celtic teams. He had an incredible eye for talent, and knew how to win. He'd probably be confused by the triangle, though.

Wilt's records: Today, N.B.A. teams have a three-second lane is 16 feet wide. Wilt played a long time with a 12-foot-wide lane, which meant he could get closer to the basket before taking his shots. So it's bozoic to blindly compare his monumental stats to Kareem's stats, or stats from more recent players. So, I agree that Wilt was great, but you gotta look at rule changes and other factors that influenced the game. But crying "Wilt as greatest" is more in vogue now than 15-20 years ago, when more people remembered seeing Wilt, Russell, and Kareem play.
All the recent "Wilt is Greatest" talk is probably a reaction to all the "Michael is Greatest" talk that dominated for years. Kind've odd that the Michael Jordan groupies aren't weighing in on this issue...

Dogster, I think you've made several good points here. I see people putting down the coaches who have won with a lot of talent, but that's what the job is all about; getting the most out of what you have. The Jordan-Pippen Bulls had a completely different makeup from the Shaq-Bryant Lakers. Jackson was able to turn both of them into powerhouses. I'm pretty sure that an "average" coach would not have had this success. Although it's NCAA instead of NBA, John Wooden has to be the best example of a coach who could turn teams with completely different make ups into winners.

I also agree with what you say about comparing players from different eras. With the changes in the game it's not only impossible to compare Wilt with Shaq, but also Cousy with Stocton, or Petit or Baylor with today's fowards. Makes for spirited debates though.

Doubleff: Sounds like we're largely on the same page. I agree with what you said about Wooden, too. All those undefeated seasons were incomparable. There can be no question that he was the greatest college coach ever and that UCLA was the best college team ever (heh, heh).

I don't think it is "impossible" to make comparisons, but I think many people don't factor in variables necessary to make those comparisons meaningful.

Yeah, I like those "spirited" debates. At the same time, there are lots of people in our society who express lots of what I call "self-righteous sports anger." As in, "X was the greatest ever and anybody who disagrees is a total nutcake loser." It is quite a phenomenon. Everything is viewed in angry volatile black and white. And they keep sports radio talk shows in business...

I think we are converging on some key points. If you are serious and smart about building great teams that win championships, you hire a great coach AND great players. The two go together. There are reasons that Auerbach and Jackson were paired with all that talent, and Wilkins was paired will lesser talent. If a "great" player rarely got to play with great teammates or a great coach, then it isn't a coincidence. Sometimes a mismatch occurs, but the weak link is replaced quickly in the best franchises. True champions won't tolerate being surrounded by mediocrity for long.

One factor regarding "greatness" that never figures into the stats is creativity. For instance, Cousy revolutionized the point guard position with his fancy passing and focused anticipation. Nowadays, everybody has a point guard who tries to do this, but Cousy was the first. (It took Auerbach a long time to understand the significance of Cousy's innovations). Similarly, Russell changed the defensive nature of the game. Russell figured out how to block any number of shots, including the old-style hook shot, so those shots and the players who relied on them became obsolete. Mikan was a remarkable innovator; before Mikan, basketball people didn't appreciate the value of a big man at the center spot (although prostitutes have understood this for a long time). Magic Johnson was remarkable because he essentially coached the team from the point position, could play any position well, and made everybody else on the team look good.

Anybody who thinks that stats tell the whole story doesn't get it.

There. I win. I'm right and they are wrong. LOL.

Dogster, you touched on the subject of best franchises. Since they've been in L.A. the Lakers have featured the following greats: Baylor, West, Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Worthy, Shaq, and Kobe along with several other near-greats. I can't see where it would even be debateable that they are number one in this category with the Celtics a distant second. I guess that saying there couldn't possibly be a debate would be one of the best ways to provoke an argument,huh?

Your mention of those with "self-righteous sports anger" brings up the reason I can't even stand to listen to the radio sports talk shows. It seems like quite a few of these guys place sports somewhere above world peace, pollution, and the holes in the ozone layer in importance. I'll wager that they would even consider sports more important than mongering.

"Hey Celtics...16 flags in 55 years says that the Boston team is the best NBA franchise and quite possibly the most successful professional sports franchise ever. Glad to see you chime in."
--CoolHandLuke, who started this thread.

Luke! Luke! Where are you? We need you to keep us Lakers fans in check. Even if you are on hiatus from the Zona Norte, you can still talk monger sports smack. I know you won't totally AGREE with me here... Damn those Celtics. Like many things Bostonian (e.g., the Kennedy family), they were once mighty and now in decline...

Doubleff, I have to agree. The Lakers have featured all those greats and are clearly the greatest franchise. Anybody who doesn't know this should just step off. So we have a consensus.

You make some great (LOL) points regarding "self-righteous sports anger." There should be a psychiatric diagnosis for this group, e.g. "Sports Personality Disorder." The absolute worst example of this is Jim Rome. Thanks to some malignant kink in my pineal gland, I've developed a sick fascination with his rude, painful radio show. I try not to listen as often as I can.

Lakers vs. Timberwolves last Thursday: I was there at Staples, courtside-an awesome place to be. Some observations:

Minneapolis Lakers: The LA lakers finally recognized/celebrated their Minnesota roots. It is about fuckin time. There was a 1/2-time ceremony for Mikan and the rest of the Hall of Famers from that team. Mikan was frail but clearly loving every minute. The Lakers played in powder blue and white MPLS uniforms resembling the original Lakers uniforms. They looked funny. I almost called out to Shaq, "NICE DRESS!" but decided against it. I think the celebration was cool, but I think some of the motivation had to do with claiming 13 total NBA championships for the Lakers. Don't look now, but the Lakers are within striking distance of the Celtic's record of 16 championships.

Lakers Girls: The best chearleaders ever. I kept doing a double take, thinking I was in TJ's Chicago Club. But of course the prices at Staples are much higher...

Bill Russell vs Wilt. Here's more to ponder for all you Wilt Heads: From the Lakers' game program (Hoops magazine). "Russell's declaration of affection for Wilt doesn't impair his ability to make his own case to those who declare The Dipper the superior player. When the subject turns to the MVP award, which Russell wone five times and Wilt's four, Russell is quick to point out that his first four honors came when the players still voted for MVP. (Russell)'The year (61-62) that wilt averaged 50 points (actually 50.4) and 27 (25.7) rebounds per game--which is remarkable, as a guy who really knows a lot about basketball, it's so far off the charts, there's nothing to compare it to--I won the MVP award,' Russell says." If Wilt was the greatest ever, then why didn't the players of his era see it that way? Blazers? Superman? Youngbrig?

The '01-'02 Lakers: They are clearly playing at the level necessary to 3-peat. The team game, passing, defense, and implementation of the Triangle, are all solidly in place. When the games start to matter, they'll turn on the switch, like they did at the beginning of the season. Such is the way with seasoned champions. This was the first time I'd been to a game this year, and I didn't realize just how solid they were. (TV misses so much...)

Shaq: Clearly awesome, towering dominant. But we already knew that. I think he's growing as a player.

Kobe: Didn't have the greatest game, but ok.

Kevin Garnett: Played an ok game, but hardly noticable vs. the Lakers slick presentation.

Staples Center: The place rocks. It is like you are in the middle of a giant pinball machine in Vegas. Of course, there were lots of celebs and former jocks floating around, finding their way to the bar underneath the tunnel. Jerry West was there, floating around the Arena Club, talking to old friends--a rare citing these days. I'm not into all the pomp, so I don't go all that often. I'll go to some playoff games, though...

Chick Hearn: This was his second game back after medical problems.

Dogster

Dogster:

I am not anti-Russell at all...My formative NBA years were spent when Russell was coaching my Supes, with Tommy Burleson manning the pivot and Slick Watts and Downtown Freddie Brown ably handling the backcourt...

I loved Russell and the Sonics in those days, and still do...

Back then, Russell preferred playing a straight 2-3 zone which he didnt even attempt to disguise...Burleson stood in the middle and blocked shots while Brown and Watts chased the ball around out front...Watts, in fact, led the league in steals (and assists) in 1975-1976-- a rather handsome parlay...

Anyway, it was always a mystery as to why the 7-4 Burleson, after a great college career at N.C. State that would have been even brighter had he not played in the shadow of David Thompson, couldn't develop into an NBA force under the "careful" tutelage of Russell...

Well, the unpleasant fact was that Auerbach's system was similar to the one that Russell implemented in Seattle-- the Celtics played a disguised zone in which the guards chased the ball out front, the ball got funnelled down low, and Russell wound up blocking a ton of shots...

In a system designed by Auerbach that was cranking-out championship after championship, Russell began receiving the lions-share of the credit...

But he actually was a product of the system...He possessed neither the raw or developed offensive skills of Chamberlain, and thus was never able to come close to duplicating Chamberlain's offensive numbers...

Hence, Burleson never developed because Russell did not possess the requisite offensive skills to aid him in taking his game to the next level...So, Burleson set up down low and swatted an occasional shot...Not entirely unlike his mentor...The mid-70s Sonics were CelticsLite, and Burleson was RussellLite...

The scale still tips to Chamberlain...

YoungBrig

Jeez, an ode to TOM PINCHE BURLESON??? Makes me think my Benoit Benjamin fetish was somehow SANE!!!

Since we're telling basketball stories, once upon a time I met Moses Malone one sunny summer day in Virginia. I was there to pick up a vehicle that had been serviced and he (according to the employees) was there to get a new Jag for his mom. I got really excited and yelled 'HEY MOSES' from across the parking lot (yeah, I've always been COOL like that!) and ran up to talk to him. He was playing in Atlanta then and they had just been bounced from the playoffs a few days before. I said with all sincerity 'tough what happened to y'all in the playoffs'. His reply was CLASSIC: 'Life goes on!!!' and he walked away! Ranks right up there with 'Fo Fo Fo' fo me.

Afterwards my friend (some non sports fan fufu) who stayed in the vehicle asked 'why were you yelling at that big black guy'?

Wilt has some numbers that will probably never be approached and that compare with Cy Young's 511 lifetime wins or Cobb's .360+ lifetime batting average. He may be the best individual to play the game, but BB is a team game and where are the championships?

Can we add Daryl "Chocolate Thunder" Dawkins to Burleson and Benjamin?

Dogster, if I asked one of the Laker girls to go upstairs what do you think it would set me back, and would I get a BBBJ?

Doubleff: If you are as reasonable with the Laker girls as you are about basketball analysis, then I’m sure it won’t cost you much. Pehaps we should stop calling ourselves Mongers or Hombres. Instead, we should call ourselves Talent Scouts. That way we could encompass various genres, including CC and Laker girls.

YoungBrig: Hey, I lived in Seattle a few years ago. I loved the place except for all the rain and mildew. All that greenery, water, and friendlier people than SoCal.

Anyway, that was a very interesting analysis. How do you account for Russell’s successes before he met Red Auerbach? (2 NCAA championships w/55 consecutive victories & 2 undefeated seasons, 1 Olympic gold). I think that it is important to note that Russell’s personal focus on defense represented a tactical decision. In college, he was as dominant on offense (20.7 ppg) as he was on defense (20.3 rpg). He could’ve continued to develop his offensive skills in the NBA. But he and Auerbach correctly surmised that Russell’s defense was the key to winning NBA championships.

I dunno about the Burleson analysis (Burleson was 7’2, not 7’4, wasn’t he?). You could well be correct about his limitations as they relate to Burleson. How do you account for Russell’s successes coaching the Celtics, despite his own limited offensive prowess? There were some very solid offensive performers on those Seattle teams (e.g., Downtown Brown), and they seemed to thrive. (What kind’ve coach would Wilt have made?)

In Russell’s own words: “When you think about the great players in any sport, most of the time you think about offense. But on the next page, they’ll tell you that defense wins championships. When you’re assessing a player, you might say he was the best defensive player ever, but then you’ll say that so-and-so was the better player because he scored more points. In basketball, you have to play offense and defense. If a guy is the best offensive player, that’s great, but people don’t put the same weight on the person who they say was the best defensive player. I took myself out of that debate about who’s the best player of all time (by winning all those championships).” Russell’s priorities were strikingly different than Wilt’s on several key dimensions (defense vs. offense; team vs. individual performance) and it paid off. Wilt won whenever he became more like Russell.

I humbly stick to my guns. All this Wilt-mania is a recent trend, and doesn’t reflect the views of those who were most familiar with Wilt and Russell. Back in the day, people knew that both were great, but Russell was viewed as the superior player by players (based on MVP voting) and sportswriters (Declared Greatest Player in the History of the NBA by the Professional Basketball Writers Association of America--1980). See my previous posts.

Now, all these years later, it is supposedly “obvious” that Wilt was the best. Sure, it is clear that the balance of opinion has shifted to Wilt in recent years. That shift has to do with a number of factors:

(1) He’s dead. If you want to be a legend, do something exceptional and then die young. It helps that Wilt the self-promoting extrovert was a larger than life personality (and was physically larger than life). Like Elvis, his legend will grow with his passing. Like Babe Ruth. Like Marylin Monroe. And just wait until Hollywood makes a movie about Wilt…
(2) Wishful thinking in the post-Jordan era. After all the spin and marketing about the great MJ, there was bound to be a backlash against Michael’s perfect image, warranted or not. Even without all the marketing, it makes sense that some people will try to minimize his legacy. Some of these people are simply not fans of the Bulls or Michael. Others, like some NBA marketers, realize that the memory of Michael’s greatness is something of a liability to the NBA’s future profitability. If fans don’t forget Michael and fail to identify with the new talent, there’ll be a revenue problem. An obvious instance of this backlash involves Charles Barkley, who claims on national TV that Wilt was the greatest. He gets big $ for saying stuff like that and ticking off his sometimes buddy MJ. Wilt the distant ghost is a beneficiary of this anti-MJ backlash. Distant ghosts are marketable (e.g. Wilt, Babe Ruth). Today’s stars are marketable (e.g., Shaq, Iverson, Carter etc.). But yesterday’s Superstar just gets in the way.
(3) The NBA’s current emphasis is on offense, not defense. The scores of games are very low relative to past years. This is the case despite the fact that the NBA is doing whatever it can to increase scoring. Look at all the rules changes, as well as the lenient way that officials tolerate fouls, traveling, pushing off, etc. Fans and the NBA are hungry for points, not great defense. Someone like Wilt, not Russell, is just what the game needs today. Shaq, who in many ways resembles Wilt, is the perfect star for today’s game. No wonder that the legendary great scorer of yore is held in especially high regard. No wonder that the legendary great defensive player is relegated to the background.

Dogster,

Russell is your pick, fine. Unfortunately, you do nothing to back up Russell as being the better player. You offer a lot of superfluous information, but that's it.

Anyone could drag up a million different "greatest player" quotes and awards for either player. Players voting for Russell means nothing other than he played on better teams. MVP awards more often than not go to players on REALLY GOOD TEAMS, it only stands to reason Russell got the one extra award. Plus, Wilt started in '59 and Russell in '57, so Wilt must have won a few of those "player votes" himself.

Even today the MVP does not always go to the best player. Wilt did manage to win 4 MVP's of his own though, only one less than Russell, so somebody must have been voting for him too.

As far as Wilt was a jerk, etc., well, Russell was not exactly Mr. Nice Guy. Russell never signed autographs, saying "he owes the public nothing," he did not attend his own induction into the Hall of Fame or the Celtics ceremony retiring his number. Sounds to me like the guy was a dick. Again, that is superfluous - Barry Bonds is a dick and he's the best baseball player of his generation, so who cares?

Basketball is about numbers ... points, rebounds, assists. The object of the game is to outscore the other team. If all five of your guys outscore all five of the other teams guys, then you win, end of story. Wilt did his part in his head to head matchups with Russell. Unfortuantely, Russell's four other guys ouplayed Wilt's four other guys. Russell's teams were VASTLY superior to Wilt's teams. The 1962 Celtics had SEVEN future hall of famers on their roster. You could plug Aardvark onto a team with 6 other hall of famers and win a championship every single year.

Again, the bottom line is Wilt beat Russell in their head to head matchups by 14 points per game and 5 rebounds per game. They did not play in different era's, so we don't need to speculate on "what if" they had battled each other. They both battled each other in their PRIMES and Wilt KICKED HIS ASS.

To help you understand further, Wilt Vs. Russell head to head is like Superman battling Dogster in 21 and me winning 21-7 every game. Then maybe we roll some 5 on 5 and you get on a team of high school ballers and I get stuck running with the band. You're team would roll mine, but I'm still better than you. Do you get it yet?

Russell winning more championships means nothing, because like I said before, this is not Golf or Tennis. Basketball is a team game. Dennis Rodman is not better than Karl Malone or Charles Barkely, but Rodman won more championships ... Will Perdue has more titles than Patrick Ewing, but that does not make him better ... it only means he played for better teams.

Finally, for all you "Wilt was not a team guy" types, I'll leave you with this quote from your man Bill Russell from when he was player-coach of the Celtics:

"Wilt is playing better than I used to -- passing off, coming out to set up screens, picking up guys outside, and sacrificing himself for team play." (Great Moments in Pro Basketball, by Sam Goldaper, p.24). Russell could not carry Wilt's jock and he knew it.

-Superman-

Porker: The last I heard, Burleson was heavily involved in the hydroplane racing curcuit, not in the big unlimiteds but in the smaller limited classification...You know, Benoit played some Center for the Sonics as well...

And, did your run-in with Malone pretty much put an end to your jock-sniffing?...:-)

Dogster: Excellent points as always...

I was not aware previously of the players' involvement in the MVP voting in that particular era...However, in that Wilt was difficult and not well-liked on a personal level, he would have been at an obvious disadvantage...

Burleson was one of those guys that came out of college and was listed at 7-2 and all of a sudden you picked up a media guide and he was listed at 7-4...Or perhaps it was the other way around...

YoungBrig

Here's some perspective setting speculation for you:

Let's say Wilt and Russell in their primes were available in the next NBA draft, who would be drafted #1? How would they break down by what GM's look for in players?

Height: Advantage Wilt, 7'1" to 6'10"

Weight: Advantage Wilt, 275 to 220

Speed: Advantage Russell

Strength: Advantage Wilt

Scoring: Advantage Wilt

Rebounding: Advantage Wilt

Passing: Advantage Wilt

Defense: Advantage Russell

Needless to say, I'd bet every single GM in the league would pick Wilt ahead of Russell.

Russell would not even play center in today's game - at 6'10" 220 he could not do it. At 220 he'd get pushed around by power forwards too.

On the other hand, Wilt's size and game would still be as effective today as it was then. At 7'1" 275, the only player close to him in "size combined with athletic ability" would be Shaq, and Wilt was far more skilled than Kazaam.

-Superman-

Super(fluous)man:
You make some interesting points, underneath all the bluster. It is nice to see that the frontal lobes of your brain are in fact intact, even if I don’t agree with you. You may want to have your amygdala checked, however.

“Unfortunately, you do nothing to back up Russell as being the better player. You offer a lot of superfluous information, but that's it.”
--Wrong, my friend. In my opinion, you have a rather limited and rigid definition of “best,” and “greatest.” Most people understand that there are many “intangibles” that determine the greatness of a player, and that the stats only get you so far. The stats are deceiving because they miss so much. I think that this is a pretty obvious point.

“Anyone could drag up a million different "greatest player" quotes and awards for either player.”
--Good point. So with lots of people looking at the two players, and the statistics they generated, there’s no consensus. There's no simple, obvious, concrete answer. People who disagree with your view are idiots? Sorry to keep disagreeing with you. I realize how angry you get when this happens.

“Players voting for Russell means nothing other than he played on better teams. MVP awards more often than not go to players on REALLY GOOD TEAMS, it only stands to reason Russell got the one extra award. Plus, Wilt started in '59 and Russell in '57, so Wilt must have won a few of those "player votes" himself. Even today the MVP does not always go to the best player. Wilt did manage to win 4 MVP's of his own though, only one less than Russell, so somebody must have been voting for him too.”
--OK, Superman, here are the facts, just so you’ll know. When discussing Wilt vs. Russell, these sorts of things (facts) come in handy. The players decided the MVP up until ’64. They chose Russell 4x (including 3 while Wilt was playing) and Wilt 1x. After that, Russell won MVP 1x and Wilt 3x.

1955-56: Bob Pettit, St. Louis
1956-57: Bob Cousy, Boston
1957-58: Bill Russell, Boston
1958-59: Bob Pettit, St. Louis
1959-60: Wilt Chamberlain, Philadelphia
1960-61: Bill Russell, Boston
1961-62: Bill Russell, Boston
1962-63: Bill Russell, Boston
1963-64: Oscar Robertson, Cincinnati

1964-65: Bill Russell, Boston
1965-66: Wilt Chamberlain, Philadelphia
1966-67: Wilt Chamberlain, Philadelphia
1967-68: Wilt Chamberlain, Philadelphia

--To say that “Players voting for Russell means nothing other than he played on better teams” is a bit odd and dismissive, and there’s no stats or other data to back you up on this. The league was smaller then and everybody was familiar with everyone else because all teams played each other frequently. At any rate, look at some of the players who won MVP then (Oscar Robertson) and now (Karl Malone). They weren’t on great teams at the time.

“As far as Wilt was a jerk, etc., well, Russell was not exactly Mr. Nice Guy. Russell never signed autographs, saying "he owes the public nothing," he did not attend his own induction into the Hall of Fame or the Celtics ceremony retiring his number. Sounds to me like the guy was a dick. Again, that is superfluous - Barry Bonds is a dick and he's the best baseball player of his generation, so who cares?”
--Anybody who wants to win cares. There are lots of highly talented individuals who have toxic effects on their teams because they don’t understand or give a shit about the team concept. For instance, the current Lakers before Phil Jackson arrived. Ken Griffey when he was with the Mariners. Dennis Rodman, or Kobe on a bad day. If you are a dick, the best players won’t want to play with you. They’ll either sabotage your efforts or leave. Basketball is a team game. One’s ability to meld with a team is a huge determinant of success. Although there’s no statistic that reflects one’s skill at teamwork, we’re clearly talking about an important factor. This is one factor that distinguishes greats (like Michael Jordan & Magic Johnson) from individuals with superior talents (like Dominique Wilkins). At any rate, Bill Russell was the master in this area. Everybody knows this. Sure, he was difficult. But his coach and teammates loved him, and everybody in the league wanted to play with him. Ya gotta factor this in, even if there isn’t an appropriate stat to quantify this ability.

“Wilt did his part in his head to head matchups with Russell. Unfortuantely, Russell's four other guys ouplayed Wilt's four other guys. Russell's teams were VASTLY superior to Wilt's teams. The 1962 Celtics had SEVEN future hall of famers on their roster. You could plug Aardvark onto a team with 6 other hall of famers and win a championship every single year.”
--This doesn’t explain why Wilt lost to the aging Celts in the late ‘60s, when he was on the talent-laden, heavily-favored Lakers.
--Many of the Celtic players weren’t obviously great players when they were drafted. In many cases, it wasn’t their individual talents-—points, rebounds, assists--that got them so much attention. They are in the hall of fame because they worked exceptionally well together as a team, when it counted. Their individual statistics don’t reflect how great they were. Nor do the stats reflect how Russell's abilities allowed them to look better. Sorry, but that’s the bottom line. Fortunately, there are others on this board who know what I'm talking about.

“They did not play in different era's, so we don't need to speculate on "what if" they had battled each other. They both battled each other in their PRIMES and Wilt KICKED HIS ASS.”
--Not in championship games. Wilt dominated in the regular season, but so what? Russell pulled things out in the clutch. Gotta factor that in, even though there’s no appropriate stat.

“Russell winning more championships means nothing, because like I said before, this is not Golf or Tennis. Basketball is a team game. Dennis Rodman is not better than Karl Malone or Charles Barkely, but Rodman won more championships ... Will Perdue has more titles than Patrick Ewing, but that does not make him better ... it only means he played for better teams.”
--With all this talk about “team” you are about 3 neuron spikes away from “getting it.” The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. As an individual “part,” Wilt was spectacular. But as a part within the “whole” team, he often didn’t deliver, and that is part of his legacy. Look at his history in championship series, and game sevens in particular. If you do, you’ll have to reassess your “Wilt Kicked His Ass” comment.

“Finally, for all you "Wilt was not a team guy" types, I'll leave you with this quote from your man Bill Russell from when he was player-coach of the Celtics … Russell could not carry Wilt's jock and he knew it.”
--Not exactly a damning quote, even out of context like it is here. Sure, Wilt was an OK team player, but nothing like Russell. GM's factor this sort of variable into the equation when drafting players, by the way.

“Let's say Wilt and Russell in their primes were available in the next NBA draft, who would be drafted #1? How would they break down by what GM's look for in players?…
Needless to say, I'd bet every single GM in the league would pick Wilt ahead of Russell.
Russell would not even play center in today's game - at 6'10" 220 he could not do it. At 220 he'd get pushed around by power forwards too. On the other hand, Wilt's size and game would still be as effective today as it was then. At 7'1" 275, the only player close to him in "size combined with athletic ability" would be Shaq, and Wilt was far more skilled than Kazaam.”

Hey. We agree on some things, almost. Wilt would probably fit better into today's game, at least until game 7 of the championships. The fact that Russell accomplished so much despite the fact that people underestimated him (then and now) adds to his greatness.

They'd all have their hands full with Kareem, though.

Well there ya have it.

Speaking of mediocrity:
The Philadelphia 76ers have to be the most mediocre franchise in NBA history. Sure, they have won a couple championships over the years--two great champions. But one theme pervades this storied team: never has anyone done so little with so much. Although the 76ers have had some great talent and some great teams. But they habitually squander their talent. Gotta feel sorry for Iverson.

Hope I haven't offended anyone.

I'd like to say you made some good points, espicially since you get longer and longer winded trying to defend your position, but you didn't. You just rehash the same things over and over.

Wilt was not only the better player, he was the best player of all time, bar none. You want greatness? Wilt changed the way the game is played. Rules were changed to stop Wilt from scoring, because the players couldn't. That is greatness.

Intangibles? Again, Wilt never fouled out of a game. He led the league in Assists one year. He completely changed his own game numerous times. At the end of his career he was known as a defensive genius.

Wilt was a winner. His teams won two championships. His teams lost in the finals 4 other times and the conference finals six other times. 12 of his 14 years, his teams went to at least the conference finals. Three of the times the Celtics beat Wilt's teams, the series was decided in Game Seven by either 1 or 2 points.

You must be a closet Celtics fan Dogster, because I've never seen anyone other than a Celtic fan pick Russell over Chamberlain. I've been having this same argument since I was a kid growing up in Connecticut where I was surrounded by Boston fans. I always win the argument, because Wilt won it for me before I was even born.

-Superman-

I ditto Superman's points. Put Wilt on those Celtic teams and he wins doubl-digit titles. Dogster: To respond to your previous point about Wilt being a Laker. You know and I know that Wilt will never truly be embraced as a Laker. I know he played for the Lakers but all Laker fans feel connected to Kareem and favor him as a player. You fit into that mold, especially considering the amount of titles Kareem helped the Lakers win while Magic was present.

Reading the Superman (Wilt)/Dogster (Russell) discussion reminds me of the classic Point/Counter Point debates with Chevy Chase and Jane Curtain.

I have to side with Wilt - his statistics are too gaudy to ignor. Kind of like when Fantasy Hockey Leagues didn't let anybody draft Gretzky as his stats were more than double the second best player for years and years. If Wilt hadn't started out with the Globetrotters and had played as long as Kareem did (physically he could have easily), his stats would be unreachable.

Saying this I place Magic and Bird both head and sholders above Jordan. I'm glad nobody has been piping in with Michael is the greatest banter. Just remember that Magic won a title his rookie year playing center with Kareem in the hospital and Jordan basically had dunk-fests with Orlando Woolridge the first few years of his career.

Final note: On ClubHombre.com Wilt has to be the winner - did Russell bed 20,000 women???

Jane you ignorant slut!

Harleyguy: Thanks for the heads-up above.

Superman, you ignorant slut. I finally read some of your other posts, thanks to Harleyguy's warning. Now I get it. You are obviously deranged. How pathetic! Gotta agree with you on just one thing--don't be a chickenshit; come to the aid of other mongers when they're being robbed/beat up. Doesn't matter if the victim is a Club Hombre internet alpha male wannabe. (like you).

Gotta agree that Magic and Bird were right up there (see my top 5 above). Magic especially. Magic is my all time favorite NBA player.

Ha ha. Thanks Dogster. That post was obviously your way of conceding the point ... in the manner of a 12 year old, but a concession nevertheless.

Maybe you would like to get together sometime and we can discuss your thoughts ...

-Superman-

Thanks for the charming invitation, s. Such a big gesture.

No, s. Not a concession. It is easy to refute your relentlessly repetitive and unimaginative opinions. Anyway, it isn’t your opinions, or Wilt, that I am sick of.

Just a couple of points.

Wilt spent one year with the Globetrotters and that was because he left college after his junior year. At that time the NBA rules wouldn't allow players in the league before their class graduated. Its true that he could have played more seasons and his stats would be unreachable, but that's a key part of the argument. Are the stats the only thing to use in judging the best player? I don't see comparing Wilt with Gretsky. Gretsky had several championships with the Oilers and, miracle of miracles, even led the Kings to the finals one year. However I do find that I might need to give Wilt the final edge because of the 20,000 women figure.

It is kind of interesting that no one here is putting Jordan at the top of the list. I also have to go with Magic and Bird.

Dogster’s Predictions:

First Round:
Ugly matchups all around:

(1) Sacramento beats (8) Utah. Ugly because veteran stars, like Stockton & Malone, have a tendency to find the fountain of youth in the playoffs.

(2) San Antonio beats (7) Seattle. Ugly because Payton is hot shit, and makes everyone look good. Vin Baker maybe wakes up. But really no match for S.A.

(3) L.A. Lakers beat (6) Portland. Ugly because should’a, would’a, could’a Portland is a worthy, talented, cocky, frustrated, underachieving foe. A warm-up for L.A.; time to turn the switch on.

(4) Dallas beats (5) Minnesota. Ugly because Minnesota can’t win a first round series, may be able to shake off mediocre Dallas. Does anybody care who wins this one?

(1) New Jersey beats (8) Indiana. Ugly because currently hot Indiana has experience, youth, chemistry to make a run of it. Byron S. is cool.

(2) Detroit beats (7) Toronto. Ugly because currently hot Toronto has experience, chemistry, ability to beat overachieving Detroit. Neither team goes far in playoffs.

(3) Philadelphia beats Boston (6). Ugly because any series with Boston is ugly. Watch this one. Critical first round matchup; either team could win big or fizzle. Gotta go with tough 76er team.

(4) Orlando beats Charlotte. Ugly because talented, sleeping oldsters on Orlando need to wake up against tough New Orleans… err… Charlotte team. Charlotte could go far and nobody cares.

The West: Most of the talent and experience. Of course, Lakers win, barring a fluke, major injury, or childish behavior.

The East: Dormant since the previous millennium. The X-factor is Iverson. Can he play full tilt? He doesn’t have the cumulative bruises he normally has this time of year. Any of the top four teams could lose in the first round. Winning more games during the regular season doesn’t mean too much. It'll be interesting to see if newbies New Jersey, Detroit, and Boston amount to anything. Don't bet the farm.

Of course, the only prediction that matters here involves the Lakers. Lakers 3-Peat. Either they live up to potential (likely) or something weird happens. The other teams are just tourists, wannabes, footnotes. There are really only 4 other teams that could make it interesting: Sacramento, San Antonio, Philadelphia (healthy), and Portland. And the Lakers will have to go through them…

Indiana beat NJ in game one. No surprise really. The Nets are overrated.

Philly could go either way ... out in round one or all the way to the finals. Iverson is just now returning from injury, and he never starts hot after long layoffs. The other Sixers are banged up as well ... Coleman has played hurt all year, McKie is playing hurt and so is Dikembe.

The long rest between the end of the season and the 4 day rest between games 1 and 2 should help them though. It's all about Iverson though.

-Superman-

Anything is possible in the East. There just isn't that much difference from 1 thru 8. And there ain't a team in the East that can stay with any of the top 4 from the West. Should be fun anyway.

I'd like to see the Lakers get knocked off. No real reason why. I just never have liked Shaq-ball very much. Portland might do it, but when Pippen is your stable element, thats not a good chemistry. Hmmmm .. Lakers in 5 over Orlando. Somebody can pelt the big dummy with a hotdog for leaving town.

How often do you pick up a paper and find that the SuperSonics manhandled the Spurs in the paint?...But the Supes got it done with Rashard Lewis and Vin Baker banging away down low...

Yes, the Spurs were without David Robinson but all I heard over the weekend out of the San Antonio camp was that they didnt need Robinson...that Malik Rose could easily fill in and that perhaps they could play just as well if not better without Robinson...

Payton and Co. proved otherwise...Fetching San Antonio sat at the free throw line the entire night (31-42) and that still wasnt enough...

Great win for the Supes...As big a win as we´ve had in 4 or 5 years...

YoungBrig

YB:
Yeah, I gotta agree - a huge win for them.

The Spurs won't win much w/o Robinson. He's been terribly underrated in recent years, the subject of considerable unwarranted criticism.

With Vin Baker playing more to his potential, and Gary Payton connecting well with his teammates, Seattle is in a position to do further damage. Payton's game is as hot as ever, and he's improved his managerial style. Without a healthy Robinson, the teams are fairly equal. I still see the Spurs limping through to victory in this series. But as I said before... ugly. (Same with most of the other series).

Huge wins for Orlando and Utah tonight, too. More ugly, as predicted.

Dogster’s Playoff Predictions: Update

Basically, I think my predictions will hold, despite various surprises. Some notes:

“(1) Sacramento beats (8) Utah. Ugly because veteran stars, like Stockton & Malone, have a tendency to find the fountain of youth in the playoffs.” Currently: 2-1 Sac. Well, S&M found the “fountain,” but wobbly Sacramento seems to have the upper hand. If you want to know why Sacramento will never, ever win an NBA championship, watch this series. If Chris Webber ever develops a “killer instinct,” things will get more interesting. I’m not holding my breath.

“(2) San Antonio beats (7) Seattle. Ugly because Payton is hot shit, and makes everyone look good. Vin Baker maybe wakes up. But really no match for S.A.” Currently 2-1 S.A. Uglier because David Robinson is injured.

“(3) L.A. Lakers beat (6) Portland. Ugly because should’a, would’a, could’a Portland is a worthy, talented, cocky, frustrated, underachieving foe. A warm-up for L.A.; time to turn the switch on.” Currently 2-0, LAL. As I write, this game has just started. The dimmer switch is on, barely, but enough. Portland is done. They can’t stop Shaq. Lakers rock. Lakers roll.

“(4) Dallas beats (5) Minnesota. Ugly because Minnesota can’t win a first round series, may be able to shake off mediocre Dallas. Does anybody care who wins this one?” Currently: 3-0 Dal. They’ve just swept the Timberwolves. Kind’ve sad. Dallas is looking tougher than I thought they would, to be honest.

“(1) New Jersey beats (8) Indiana. Ugly because currently hot Indiana has experience, youth, chemistry to make a run of it. Byron S. is cool.” Currently: 2-1 New Jersey. Well, the experience (Miller) and youth (O’Neal, etc) have shown up. The final game(s) will be hard fought, but no suprises here.

“(2) Detroit beats (7) Toronto. Ugly because currently hot Toronto has experience, chemistry, ability to beat overachieving Detroit. Neither team goes far in playoffs.” Currently: 2-1 Detroit. No surprises here.

“(3) Philadelphia beats Boston (6). Ugly because any series with Boston is ugly. Watch this one. Critical first round matchup; either team could win big or fizzle. Gotta go with tough 76er team.” Currently 2-1 Boston. Both teams are living up to potential, making all sorts of successful adjustments. Verrry tough. Iverson is clearly back. I still think they’ll pull it out. I’d like to see the Celtics nosedive ASAP, but would also love to see them eventually lose to the Lakers…

(4) “Orlando beats Charlotte. Ugly because talented, sleeping oldsters on Orlando need to wake up against tough New Orleans… err… Charlotte team. Charlotte could go far and nobody cares.” No surprises here. It is hard to know who will win these, cuz it doesn’t matter.