"How in the world could Curry be top 5? He's not even better than Durant"

[thedangerouskitchen]

If Pippen = Lebron (as TDK has stated before).....and Rodman = Russell (as Drunko just mentioned above).....then Michale Jeffrey Jordan did indeed have THE MOST HELP in NBA history.

How much fucking help did that quitter need?!?!?

According to you (and the other members of the BWGC) Jordan wasn't shit until Pippen came along and showed him how to win (lolol)... thus, your sentence should read: Pippen had the MOST HELP in NBA history.

[xer0]

Xero proving he's a basketball moron and Bush totally obliterating TDK. Some things never change.

You're a moron period. I don't agree with you and your arguments aren't as good as you think, actually they are pretty bad tbh.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Your inability to make intelligent arguments with data doesn't change the data. Bush uses data, even when he's trolling you to some extent. I use data.
You make absurd comments like Russell = Rodman which only proves you're an idiot. Emotionally intelligent people can be dispassionate when discussing a topic and not let their personal biases enter the debate. It doesn't matter what the topic is, you have zero ability to see beyond your biases. You have the emotional intelligence of a toddler, no offense to toddlers out there.

Fake stats that yield a "guess" are NOT facts, meatball. Learn the difference.

Russell has MORE in common with Rodman than any other player: Elite Defender, elite Rebounder, solid Passer, below-average Scorer/Offense, with the main difference being that Russell broke into the league when nobody played Defense, so his dominance / results are skewed.

Put him in the 80's and 90's and Russell = Dennis Rodman.

Fact.

Get mad.

A team's defensive rating is a fact TDK. It is how many points it gives up per 100 possessions. Things like TS% are facts TDK, based on a pre-set formula that has been tested using regression analysis that is obviously over your head. You only like these stats when they serve your argument, and then you gleefully bring them up. When they don't, they are "made up". Data is data. There is TONS of it available and sticking your head in the sand and just saying it is "made up" because it doesn't serve your purposes means you make evaluations on needlessly limited data.

Russell could score when it was needed. Russell did whatever was needed to make his team win. In the 1962 finals against the Lakers, in game 7, he scored 30 points and added 40 rebounds in a tight victory in the first of the classic Celtics/Lakers finals. Don't try to tell me that's Rodmanesque.

Russell had seasons where it is estimated he "AVERAGED" 8 blocks a season. He had seasons where it is estimated he AVERAGED 5 steals a season. Rodman never had a season with even 1 block or 1 steal per game. Trying to somehow equate the two is the stuff of idiots.

Like I have said many times and is painfully apparent to anyone with an IQ above room temperature, you have zero ability to see beyond your biases. You are literally a toddler in that respect. And what is worse, a ridiculous amount of how you perceive your self worth is tied to absolutely meaningless crap like the Bulls, MJ, the city of Chicago, Frank Zappa and so on and so forth. That is brutally unhealthy, but it is extremely unlikely you will ever change at this point in your life. Frankly, I feel sorry for you. I wouldn't wish that view of the world on anyone.

Russell's Defense stood out over everyone else because no one played Defense in the 50's / 60's... and back then teams averaged a staggering 100-110 FGA every game at a woeful 38% - 44% clip, which is why Rebounds were so plentiful, and why a "Defensive minded" player like Russell could average so many Blocks/Steals.

If you think Russell is averaging 8 / 5 in the 80's - 00's you're an even bigger fool than bush, for asserting that Steph is just as good a Scorer and Winner as MJ.

Now get madder.

[Bush4Ever.]

with the main difference being that Russell broke into the league when nobody played Defense, so his dominance / results are skewed.

To be serious for a moment, it's things like this that make you so tedious.

It's been illustrated to you (in multiple ways) before that Russell was not only miles above the league norm, but widely beyond Wilt himself, who was a turbo-athlete, exceptional defensively, and pretty much a modern athlete timemachined back to the 60s.

"Muh era" can speak to some degree why Russell was miles beyond the average player of 60s...but it sure as hell can't explain why Russell was also *miles* beyond Wilt as a defensive force (see page 1).

[xer0]

I've already heard of of these anti wilt drivel arguments and not a single one has come close to making me rethink my position.

Bill Russel isnt CLOSE to wilt as a basketball player, never was.

Honestly he's not even the most impactful big, I'd take Ben Wallace over Russel anytime, way better defender, much stronger, better athlete and one of the best defensive leaders of all time if not the best. Wilt is in another class as a player bc he's not a liability at one end of the floor like Russel would be if he didn't have a hall of fame roster relative to the other teams.

Bill Russell was his era's Dennis Rodman.

Fans like bush and grizz rely on "fake stats" to make outrageous claims (like claiming Russ was a better BB player than Wilt, or that Steph is just as good a Scorer, Rebounder and Winner as was MJ).

It's quite comical, actually.

Allen Iverson would have busted Curry's ass as would Isiah Thomas. Dudes a product of this weak as shit era.

Draymond green is another bum, guys like rodman and Wallace would've had him for lunch. They're prisoners of the current era. In 20 years people will start calling some of these guys they defend so vehemently overrated (they'd be right). The 80s and 90s are the golden era of the NBA and it'll NEVER be as good as back then.

[Bush4Ever.]

Russell's Defense stood out over everyone else because no one played Defense in the 50's / 60's... and back then teams averaged a staggering 100-110 FGA every game at a woeful 38% - 44% clip, which is why Rebounds were so plentiful, and why a "Defensive minded" player like Russell could average so many Blocks/Steals.

If you think Russell is averaging 8 / 5 in the 80's - 00's you're an even bigger fool than bush, for asserting that Steph is just as good a Scorer and Winner as MJ.

Now get madder.

It's certainly true Russell wouldn't average 20-25 boards a game with 8-10 blocks in 2024, but I find it pretty funny how you suddenly and by pure coincidence understand the point of adjusting for pace/possessions and similar things when it comes to bashing Russell's rebounding/block totals but "coincidentally" forget the exact same point when it comes time to compare Curry and Jordan on rebounds+assists.

If this is a bit, that's actually pretty funny, so good stuff. I don't think it is though.

[thedangerouskitchen]

with the main difference being that Russell broke into the league when nobody played Defense, so his dominance / results are skewed.

To be serious for a moment, it's things like this that make you so tedious.

It's been illustrated to you (in multiple ways) before that Russell was not only miles above the league norm, but widely beyond Wilt himself, who was a turbo-athlete, exceptional defensively, and pretty much a modern athlete timemachined back to the 60s.

"Muh era" can speak to some degree why Russell was miles beyond the average player of 60s...but it sure as hell can't explain why Russell was also *miles* beyond Wilt as a defensive force (see page 1).

Too easy...

Wilt carried his teams' Offenses while Russell had elite Scorers around him. Thus, Russell didn't have to worry about Scoring, and could focus his energy on Defense. Much like Rodman.

Wilt didn't have that luxury.

[Bush4Ever.]

Too easy...

Wilt carried his teams' Offenses while Russell had elite Scorers around him. Thus, Russell didn't have to worry about Scoring, and could focus his energt on Defense. Much like Rodman.

Wilt didn't have that luxury.

Turbo athlete Wilt didn't have the energy to play two sides of the game, even when he greatly reduced his personal offense in the late 60s into the 1970s (he averaged 18 ppg his last five years in the league).

Interesting. Tell me more.

Go away and tell me why he also widely outpaced legendary defensive player Nate Thurmond in the mid/late 60s, who had a similar scoring+passing burden to Russell from 1965-1969 (19 and 3 vs. 15 and 4)?

I'd give that that effort a C-. Not *too* bad given your mental illness and limited means, but taking about two minutes to refute doesn't bode well.

Anything else?

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

I've already heard of of these anti wilt drivel arguments and not a single one has come close to making me rethink my position.

Bill Russel isnt CLOSE to wilt as a basketball player, never was.

Honestly he's not even the most impactful big, I'd take Ben Wallace over Russel anytime, way better defender, much stronger, better athlete and one of the best defensive leaders of all time if not the best. Wilt is in another class as a player bc he's not a liability at one end of the floor like Russel would be if he didn't have a hall of fame roster relative to the other teams.

Bill Russell was his era's Dennis Rodman.

Fans like bush and grizz rely on "fake stats" to make outrageous claims (like claiming Russ was a better BB player than Wilt, or that Steph is just as good a Scorer, Rebounder and Winner as was MJ).

It's quite comical, actually.

Allen Iverson would have busted Curry's ass as would Isiah Thomas. Dudes a product of this weak as shit era.

Draymond green is another bum, guys like rodman and Wallace would've had him for lunch. They're prisoners of the current era. In 20 years people will start calling some of these guys they defend so vehemently overrated (they'd be right). The 80s and 90s are the golden era of the NBA and it'll NEVER be as good as back then.

Proving yourself an idiot once again. Iverson isn't worth one fine hair on Curry's ass. He was the epitome of the high volume, usually inefficient scorer. He often froze teammates out and his game was never conducive to winning basketball. Even Isiah is miles behind Curry. You just exclaiming otherwise doesn't make it so. The data just proves otherwise.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Xero proving he's a basketball moron and Bush totally obliterating TDK. Some things never change.

You're a moron period. I don't agree with you and your arguments aren't as good as you think, actually they are pretty bad tbh.

I use data and make arguments. You make bombastic statements with zero data to support them. If you want to be taken seriously, actually address the arguments presented that are counter to your opinion. Saying you aren't convinced by them is not addressing an argument.
It's putting your head in the sand. Bush, rob and I have made consistent arguments with data. You've done nothing more than make bombastic statements.

[xer0]

I don't agree with you, curry is a product of a shitty, no defense era of the NBA, he'd be a spot up shooter in the golden era.

I don't care about any of your data, you can't compare stats from completely different eras, I could just as easily say Isiah and Iverson would destroy currys numbers since defense in the NBA is a dead concept. They were better basketball players than curry.

[Bush4Ever.]

I honestly wonder how much the politics and racial....energy and player empowerment of the current NBA impacts how certain people evaluate the actual goings-on within the lines of the court.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

I don't agree with you, curry is a product of a shitty, no defense era of the NBA, he'd be a spot up shooter in the golden era.

I don't care about any of your data, you can't compare stats from completely different eras, I could just as easily say Isiah and Iverson would destroy currys numbers since defense in the NBA is a dead concept. They were better basketball players than curry.

Tons of these stats are era adjusted. The real reason you won't address the arguments is because you can't. You can't see beyond your myopic biases and therefore just dismiss all evidence that runs contrary to your belief system. Nothing to be proud of young man.

Nobody in the history of the game has been defended as aggressively from the 3 point line as Curry. Suggesting he'd be a spot up shooter in a prior era like you did earlier makes you sound really, really stupid.

[xer0]

I don't agree with you, curry is a product of a shitty, no defense era of the NBA, he'd be a spot up shooter in the golden era.

I don't care about any of your data, you can't compare stats from completely different eras, I could just as easily say Isiah and Iverson would destroy currys numbers since defense in the NBA is a dead concept. They were better basketball players than curry.

Tons of these stats are era adjusted. The real reason you won't address the arguments is because you can't. You can't see beyond your myopic biases and therefore just dismiss all evidence that runs contrary to your belief system. Nothing to be proud of young man.

Nobody in the history of the game has been defended as aggressively from the 3 point line as Curry. Suggesting he'd be a spot up shooter in a prior era like you did earlier makes you sound really, really stupid.

Era adjusted stats are biased bullshit stats used to prop up the current thing and shit on the past thing, because it's sooo courageous and popular to do. I go off what my eyes see, and curry is an outstanding shooter and that's about it, nothing else stands out about him. Iverson and Thomas are two of the best small guards I've ever seen and I stand by that.

[PhutureDynasty]

Russell Stans are insufferable

They make fun of Kobe fans for throwing "MUH RANGZ" thinking in your face, and then turn around and say...

"Russell was a winner!"

"11 RANGZ!"

At least be consistent in your arguments, sheesh...

Russell Stans dodgin' this ^ post like the plague.

[Bush4Ever.]

Era adjusted stats are biased bullshit stats used to prop up the current thing and shit on the past thing, because it's sooo courageous and popular to do.

What are you talking about?

This is almost the exact opposite of the truth.

Era-adjustment is needed so that more modern players don't get artificial boosts for things they have no control over like science/tech/analytics, or older players don't get penalized for not having 50 years of ballers to learn from, etc...

You can't equalize everything, but you can do loads better than nothing. "How well did he perform compared to his peers?" is pretty much the standard question most people use to evaluate sports greatness, while curving to some degree based on the depth and talent of the league at the time. That's why Larry Bird is considered a great shooter, despite hitting percentages and total 3s/game that would be somewhat unimpressive today (his playoff 3s definitely would be considered modest). Because he was so far ahead of his peers (see 3pt+) in terms of distance shooting.

It's no different than considering Newton a great scientist/math guy even though virtually every practicing physicist or mathematician knows more science/math than him in absolute terms.

[Bush4Ever.]

Era-adjustment can bump a given era up or down depending on the circumstances and thing being measured.

The old-old school generally saw rebounding totals that were bumped up to some degree because of environment, while shooting percentages were bumped downwards.

So any smart analyst would curve (however they did it) rebounding totals downward and FG percentages upward.

The "eye test" is *loaded* with cognitive biases that impact analysis, especially when most fans don't watch games like a scout, with an intentional eye for scouting, rewinding plays to watch x2 or 3, etc...

[xer0]

Not everything is quantifiable, which is why I consider stats a useful reference to give some added insight but i will never use strict stats to formulate my opinions without using my eyes and personal analysis, as stats are flawed and can be manipulated in disengenuous ways. I don't waver on any of my takes in this thread and none of the stats I've read here or anywhere else have convinced me to change my mind on the Russel wilt argument, curry being a product of this era, Iverson and Isiah Thomas being underrated by number crunchers etc.

[Bush4Ever.]

Not everything is quantifiable, which is why I consider stats a useful reference to give some added insight but i will never use strict stats to formulate my opinions without using my eyes and personal analysis, as stats are flawed and can be manipulated in disengenuous ways. I don't waver on any of my takes in this thread and none of the stats I've read here or anywhere else have convinced me to change my mind on the Russel wilt argument, curry being a product of this era, Iverson and Isiah Thomas being underrated by number crunchers etc.

And what eye test avoids this?

What basketball skill does Iverson have that Curry lacks?

Edit: And people have offered more information than quantitative information to validate Russell > Wilt. Traditional scouting of the era (generally) believed it. Jerry West (expert testimony) believed it. In 1980 Russell (not Wilt) was voted as the GOAT by basketball writers (some of whom saw him play in real time). Basketball PLAYERS of the era voted Russell MVP five times (Wilt four times). And so on...

The higher end analytics of today essentially triangulate around the general conclusion of people seeing the thing in the era in real time. Sometimes there isn't a correlation among the different types of methods of evaluation, but in this case there is a meaningful strong one.

[PhutureDynasty]

Not everything is quantifiable, which is why I consider stats a useful reference to give some added insight but i will never use strict stats to formulate my opinions without using my eyes and personal analysis, as stats are flawed and can be manipulated in disengenuous ways. I don't waver on any of my takes in this thread and none of the stats I've read here or anywhere else have convinced me to change my mind on the Russel wilt argument, curry being a product of this era, Iverson and Isiah Thomas being underrated by number crunchers etc.

And what eye test avoids this?

What basketball skill does Iverson have that Curry lacks?

Iverson's stepover game was much better.

Ask the Clippers head coach.