How many Finals MVPs for Bill Russell if the Award was around at the time?

[Mr. Friscus]

Russell won MVPs because he was the best athlete on the best team.

This happens most of the time in the NBA.

Both are borderline retarded on offense. The man averaged 20 boards and never got over 20 points a game in a high pace era with a zillion shots. Shaq would have averaged 50 a game then.

Not if he started his career in 1957. You keep comparing generations without taking into account the advantages later ones had. Shaq had advanced training.

We can just stop. Ripping people out of their generations and comparing them straight up without considering advantages future generations had is just dishonest.

 

[Albuquerque Rams]

Ah, so I see...

So we make excuses for LeBron's "longevity" when it comes to him being the all-time leader in Turnovers "and" Missed Shots; however we praise him as the GOAT when it comes to "longevity" being the reason why he's the all-time Points Scored leader.

Gotcha!

LOL

SMH

Another example of Bron Stans being disingenuous double talkers.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

Id have to actually watch some games to understand how a dude can get 23 rebounds and yet only make 5 or 6 shots a game. You would think he'd get at least 3 or 4 per just on put backs. How many actual set plays did this dude score on a game? 2?

 

[Stakesarehigh]

This happens most of the time in the NBA.

Not if he started his career in 1957. You keep comparing generations without taking into account the advantages later ones had. Shaq had advanced training.

We can just stop. Ripping people out of their generations and comparing them straight up without considering advantages future generations had is just dishonest.

It's a lay up dude. If we were talking 3 point shooting we'd have a legit point. He wasn't a talented guy on offense. Very clearly.

What training is needed to make a shot 5 foot in with any kind of consistency when you are the most athletic player on the floor by a mile?

 

[Albuquerque Rams]

Additionally, Lebron has been the de-facto point guard on virtually every team he's been on. The more a player has the ball and runs the offense, the more turnovers he's going to have.

Of all players who averaged at least 5 APG and/or have a usage rating higher than 30%, Jordan is the only one with a turnover rate lower than 10%.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Wrong. I'm not part of any "younger circles". Russell doesn't have the stats. Sorry, but 44% from the field for a center is terrible. Russell wasn't even the best player at his own position. That was Wilt (who shot 54% from the field).

Wilt: 30.1 ppg. 22.9 rpg. 4.4 apg. 54% from the field 51.1% from the line.

Russell: 15.1 ppg. 22.5 rpg. 4.3 apg. 44% from the field 56.1% from the line.

You can't be the GOAT when you weren't even the best at your own position.

You're cherry-picking

NBA FINALS SERIES STATS:
1960-61: 18-29-5
1961-62: 23-27-6
1962-63: 20-26-6
1964-65: 18-25-6
1965-66: 24-25-4

Let's look at MJ stats:
90-91: 31-6-11
91-92: 35-4-6
92-93: 41-8-6
95-96: 27-5-4
96-97: 32-7-6
97-98: 33-4-2

Jordan more scoring, Russell insanely more boards, similar assists, Russell the superior defender often facing Wilt (who is a better player than SG Jordan faced). I can make a case for MJ over Russell, but your Ben Wallace stuff is just retarded. You lose all credibility.

 

[MAGA2024]

Dude just stop. You're just the latest ego-poster who finds some sort of filling of a void in your life by being chesty online. You took nobody to school, you just aren't on here to debate.. you have an agenda and will try to cowardly slither away when challenged. Your type is pathetic.

On the contrary my arguments and points are often lengthy, and always backed up with fact and substance.

Who is slithering, fool? I'm right here. I have backed-up everything I've written, and I always refute others' posts with truth... like earlier today when I had to school (yes SCHOOL) you on your claim that the 1991 Lakers were old.

Are you really that ignorant of NBA history that you didn't realize those Lakers' players were all still in their prime or younger... or did you have an agenda?

Take a walk, bub.

 

[tlance]

You're cherry-picking

NBA FINALS SERIES STATS:
1960-61: 18-29-5
1961-62: 23-27-6
1962-63: 20-26-6
1964-65: 18-25-6
1965-66: 24-25-4

Let's look at MJ stats:
90-91: 31-6-11
91-92: 35-4-6
92-93: 41-8-6
95-96: 27-5-4
96-97: 32-7-6
97-98: 33-4-2

Jordan more scoring, Russell insanely more boards, similar assists, Russell the superior defender often facing Wilt (who is a better player than SG Jordan faced). I can make a case for MJ over Russell, but your Ben Wallace stuff is just retarded. You lose all credibility.

He used career stats.

You used stats from 5 specifically chosen Finals’ series.

And you accuse him of cherry picking?

 

[MAGA2024]

Of all players who averaged at least 5 APG and/or have a usage rating higher than 30%, Jordan is the only one with a turnover rate lower than 10%.

Sounds like some GOAT level skill right there.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

On the contrary my arguments and points are often lengthy, and always backed up with fact and substance.

Who is slithering, fool? I'm right here. I have backed-up everything I've written, and I always refute others' posts with truth... like earlier today when I had to school (yes SCHOOL) you on your claim that the 1991 Lakers were old.

Are you really that ignorant of NBA history that you didn't realize those Lakers' players were all still in their prime or younger... or did you have an agenda?

Take a walk, bub.

Name anyone who says that Lakers team was in their prime. Again, I'm addressing context that back then, if you were 30+ you were past your prime. You don't seem to know this.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

He used career stats.

You used stats from 5 specifically chosen Finals’ series.

And you accuse him of cherry picking?

Sorry, when you're in 11 finals, you'll have less stellar years than when you're just in 6. It's fair to compare Russell's best 6 to Jordan's only 6.

 

[trojanfan12]

You're cherry-picking

NBA FINALS SERIES STATS:
1960-61: 18-29-5
1961-62: 23-27-6
1962-63: 20-26-6
1964-65: 18-25-6
1965-66: 24-25-4

Let's look at MJ stats:
90-91: 31-6-11
91-92: 35-4-6
92-93: 41-8-6
95-96: 27-5-4
96-97: 32-7-6
97-98: 33-4-2

Jordan more scoring, Russell insanely more boards, similar assists, Russell the superior defender often facing Wilt (who is a better player than SG Jordan faced). I can make a case for MJ over Russell, but your Ben Wallace stuff is just retarded. You lose all credibility.

lol

No, I posted career stats and MJ wasn't in my post. If anyone is cherry picking it was you trying to only use finals numbers.

And for someone who likes to talk about being an "honest debater" you seem to really struggle with that. I stated that Russell wasn't even the best player at his own position and compared him to Wilt.

Also, I never once mentioned Ben Wallace, so I'd suggest you start using the "honest debate" you claim to.

 

[MAGA2024]

You're cherry-picking

NBA FINALS SERIES STATS:
1960-61: 18-29-5
1961-62: 23-27-6
1962-63: 20-26-6
1964-65: 18-25-6
1965-66: 24-25-4

Let's look at MJ stats:
90-91: 31-6-11
91-92: 35-4-6
92-93: 41-8-6
95-96: 27-5-4
96-97: 32-7-6
97-98: 33-4-2

Jordan more scoring, Russell insanely more boards, similar assists, Russell the superior defender often facing Wilt (who is a better player than SG Jordan faced). I can make a case for MJ over Russell, but your Ben Wallace stuff is just retarded. You lose all credibility.

Not for nothing but how come you rounded all of Jordan's First 3-Peat numbers DOWN?

No one rounds down unless they have an agenda... amirite??

Should be:

91: 31/7/11
92: 36/5/7
93: 41/9/6

Those numbers look so much nicer, and BTW, in Russell's day teams also attempted 100 shots a game, so there were dozens more opportunities for Russell to rack up Reb., Ast, Pts, etc.

The better way is to check his numbers against his peers. Doing that he's still probably the Top 1-2 Rebounder and Playmaker among Centers... PPG no idea BUT that's a much better way to prove your point than comparing Russell's Finals numbers to a GUARD who played 30 years later.

 

[msgkings322]

To be fair it's a good thing Bill was meh offensively, if he had been Wilt on the offensive side you may as well as just handed the Celtics the title every year.

Uh. They kinda did. 11 in 13 years LOL. Because they were 2x more super relative to their era than any super team ever. And these guys try to act like Russell won rings just because he was so good himself. Rings are a team thing not individual. We go through the same arguments every time. Robert Horry was not greater than Karl Malone. Bill Russell was not greater than LeBron or KAJ or MJ or about 15 other players at least

 

[Mr. Friscus]

lol

No, I posted career stats and MJ wasn't in my post. If anyone is cherry picking it was you trying to only use finals numbers.

And for someone who likes to talk about being an "honest debater" you seem to really struggle with that. I stated that Russell wasn't even the best player at his own position and compared him to Wilt.

Also, I never once mentioned Ben Wallace, so I'd suggest you start using the "honest debate" you claim to.

Sorry for the Ben Wallace reference, I mixed you up with someone else. Full Disclosure, it's my bourbon night. LMAO

 

[trojanfan12]

Sorry for the Ben Wallace reference, I mixed you up with someone else. Full Disclosure, it's my bourbon night. LMAO

What bourbon are you drinking?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

What bourbon are you drinking?

The bottom shelf, cheapest shit you can buy. I've trained myself to do so to save money LOL.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

The bottom shelf, cheapest shit you can buy. I've trained myself to do so to save money LOL.

 

[MAGA2024]

Name anyone who says that Lakers team was in their prime. Again, I'm addressing context that back then, if you were 30+ you were past your prime. You don't seem to know this.

No one in the Laker's rotation was over 30 except for Magic... and all he did in 91 was finish 1st Team All NBA and runner-up in MVP (behind Jordan). Terry Teagle was 30, and all the other rotation guys were between 22-29 years old.

You said the 91 Lakers were old. They were not, you are wrong. In fact a quick gander at both teams' 8-man Finals rotations and it sure looks like the Bulls were the older team:

Magic - 31 / Cartwright - 33
Teagle - 30 / Hodges - 30
Worthy - 29 / Paxon - 30
Perkins - 29 / Levingston - 30
Scott - 29 / Jordan - 27
AC Green - 27 / Pippen - 25
Divac - 22 / Grant - 25
Campbell - 22 / Perdue - 25

That Lakers core was still a Championship-battle tested unit. They finished with the 3rd best record in the NBA (knocking off the top seed Blazers in the WCF) and they had a Top 5 Offense and a Top 5 Defense led by Magic and Worthy (All NBA / All-Star).

No they weren't "peak Showtime" Lakers but the 91 squad was still legit, and they damn sure weren't old.

Class dismissed.

lol




;

four (4) players were

 

[Mr. Friscus]

No one in the Laker's rotation was over 30 except for Magic... and all he did in 91 was finish 1st Team All NBA and runner-up in MVP (behind Jordan). Terry Teagle was 30, and all the other rotation guys were between 22-29 years old.

You said the 91 Lakers were old. They were not, you are wrong. In fact a quick gander at both teams' 8-man Finals rotations and it sure looks like the Bulls were the older team:

Magic - 31 / Cartwright - 33
Teagle - 30 / Hodges - 30
Worthy - 29 / Paxon - 30
Perkins - 29 / Levingston - 30
Scott - 29 / Jordan - 27
AC Green - 27 / Pippen - 25
Divac - 22 / Grant - 25
Campbell - 22 / Perdue - 25

That Lakers core was still a Championship-battle tested unit. They finished with the 3rd best record in the NBA (knocking off the top seed Blazers in the WCF) and they had a Top 5 Offense and a Top 5 Defense led by Magic and Worthy (All NBA / All-Star).

No they weren't "peak Showtime" Lakers but the 91 squad was still legit, and they damn sure weren't old.

Class dismissed.

lol




;

four (4) players were

I'm willing to say they weren't completely washed, but they were on their way out. Nobody at the time thought the Lakers were what they were in the 80's. It was seen as their last horrah. I don't think you were there and know what you're talking about. I think you're a newbie who is trying to put together things without context.

It was like the 1969 Celtics, except the Celtics actually beat a much better team (With Jerry West, Wilt, and Elgin Baylor), led by a guy (Bill Russell) who you discredit because you have no context of history, but I digress.