Jack McCallum revises NBA's all-time top 50 | Syracusefan.com

Jack McCallum revises NBA's all-time top 50

Not sure why that's funny.

He's a one-dimensional player and generally not a guy I'd want to build a team around like the other guys on that list. I don't care enough about him or this list to argue the point though.
 
He's a one-dimensional player and generally not a guy I'd want to build a team around like the other guys on that list. I don't care enough about him or this list to argue the point though.

53rd all time in win shares, 11th of active players.

Took some piss poor Magic teams to the playoffs, he was a hell of a player and I have to assume that you don't watch or didn't watch a whole lot of NBA basketball.
 
53rd all time in win shares, 11th of active players.

Took some piss poor Magic teams to the playoffs, he was a hell of a player and I have to assume that you don't watch or didn't watch a whole lot of NBA basketball.

I watch plenty of NBA basketball. So you're making an ass of yourself by assuming.
 
Howard's peak value was higher than Carmelo. He has had issues in recent years and the deterioration in his game has been more than Melo's, Fairly close between the two really.

Personally I think Gary Payton should be above Carmelo. I tend to favour elite 2 way players.
 
There were like 6 teams in the league. And they all sucked.
How many ncaa teams were there? He won the title the two years in played college ball. Then won 11 of 13 nba titles. I was alive for those. it was no easy feat. the celts drafted last every year. they played with a ball and everything. And there were 8 teams in the league. The Big east had 7 when it started. I guess winning that league meant nothing as well.
 
He's a one-dimensional player and generally not a guy I'd want to build a team around like the other guys on that list. I don't care enough about him or this list to argue the point though.

He's fallen off hard, but he carried an otherwise very mediocre Magic team to the finals. There was a time where he was a beast.

He rubs me the wrong way so I'm not much of a fan of his, but have to give credit where it's due. Not sure about top 50 of all time though...I'd have to see who was left off.
 
44% shooter for his career. Get out.

upload_2016-2-9_23-3-41.png
\\

I am not sure if this is a point for Russell or not.

- 44$ was actually quite good back then. So that is a positive.

- But if 44% was quite good, how can we accept anyone from that era as an All Time Great. They played fast pace as well which lends itself to easier baskets. Why could no one shoot decent FG%? Were the basketballs deformed? The free throw shooting was not that bad. Maybe a basketball historian can explain it to me.
 
View attachment 55399\\

I am not sure if this is a point for Russell or not.

- 44$ was actually quite good back then. So that is a positive.

- But if 44% was quite good, how can we accept anyone from that era as an All Time Great. They played fast pace as well which lends itself to easier baskets. Why could no one shoot decent FG%? Were the basketballs deformed? The free throw shooting was not that bad. Maybe a basketball historian can explain it to me.

Kids those days spent too much time playing rock 'em sock 'em robot! Should've been out working on their jump shot! Back when Sidat-Singh was a kid, they used to never come in the house from sun up to sun down AND would drink straight out of the garden hose!
 
Bill Russell might be the most overrated player of all time.

That is just so completely wrong. And I hated the Celtics back then. Freaking HATED them. But it's about winning games and championships, not personal stats. Russell got that, and so did the guys he played with. I'm sure I can guess the 2 reasons why: 1.) Boston acquired the right players to play with 2.) Bill Russell, who set the tone. They were magnificent, and he was their undisputed leader. And I still detest them.
 
Last edited:
Surprised that Ray Allen didn't get a mention in the article. Not that he necessarily should have been on the list, but I thought he'd be mentioned as one of the guys that didn't make the cut. I was pleasantly surprised Bing made it.
 
View attachment 55399\\

I am not sure if this is a point for Russell or not.

- 44$ was actually quite good back then. So that is a positive.

- But if 44% was quite good, how can we accept anyone from that era as an All Time Great. They played fast pace as well which lends itself to easier baskets. Why could no one shoot decent FG%? Were the basketballs deformed? The free throw shooting was not that bad. Maybe a basketball historian can explain it to me.

I think teams just pretty much jacked up the first shot they had, hence all the misses.
 
That is just so completely wrong. And I hated the Celtics back then. Freaking HATED them. But it's about winning games and championships, not personal stats. Russell got that, and so did the guys he played with. I'm sure I can guess the 2 reasons why: 1.) Boston acquired the right players to play with 2.) Bill Russell, who set the tone. They were magnificent, and he was their undisputed leader. And I still detest them.


Originally basketball was a purely team sport, with the players doing maneuvers like "the weave" to to try to get to the basket, (Naismith's first concept had the players on a grid and they were not allowed out of their 'box': the had to pass it from one box to another until the ball got close enough to the basket for someone to shoot, (this could accommodate an entire gym class in one game).

Then, as the game loosened up and the natural talent of the players came out. It became obvious that some players were a good deal better than others and they became 'stars'. The idea was to get a star player and if the other team didn't have one, you would win. If they did, it would be your star trying to out-score their star. The Celtic Era, without the Celtics would have been the height of that with Chamberlain, Robertson, Baylor and West, Pettit or later Barry dominating.

But the Celtics used Russell to change the game. His great talents were defense and rebounding. So the Celtics built their team around defense and then used their defense to ignite the offense on the fast break. They didn't care who scored- just hit the open man. Everybody scored 15-20 points per game. They scored more than anybody else and played the best defense in the league and basically just ran all those teams who were trying to get the ball to their star in the half court game right off the court.

Check out the team stats- and the winning percentage- on Basketball Reference.com:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1957.html
Keep clicking on "next season" to go through Russell's career, which ended in 1969. He was only with the Celtics for the second half of the 1956-57 season as he was helping our Olympic team bring home the Gold in the Melbourne Olympics, which was played in November as that's summertime in the southern hemisphere.

Bill's teams won the California state high school championship in his junior and senior years. Freshmen were not eligible in college. In his sophomore year, San Francisco went 14-7. His junior and senior years they went 57-1 and won two national championships. Then he got the gold medal in Melbourne and joined the Celtics, who had never won anything and they won 11 NBA titles in 13 years. They didn't win in 1958 because Russell had injured his ankle and they were beaten by the 1967 Philadelphia 76ers, one of the greatest teams of all time, (they went 79-16, including the playoffs). They were supposed to displace the Celtics but Boston won the next two titles, the last over a Lakers team that had Chamberlain, Baylor and West, the ultimate attempt to overwhelm the Celtics with star players, which failed. The year after he retired, the Celtics went 34-48 without Russell, whose teams had won the ultimate championship they could have won 18 times in 21 seasons, (counting the Olympics as a 'season').

Bill Russell was the greatest winner in the history of team sports and his teams won because of him.


(And I wasn't a Celtics fan,e either. I rooted for Wilt and the Sixers.)
 
Last edited:
.

Bill's teams won the California state high school championship in his junior and senior years. Freshmen were not eligible in college. In his sophomore year, San Francisco went 14-7. His junior and senior years they went 57-1 and won two national championships. Then he got the gold medal in Melbourne and joined the Celtics, who had never won anything and they won 11 NBA titles in 13 years. They didn't win in 1958 because Russell had injured his ankle and they were beaten by the 1967 Philadelphia 76ers, one of the greatest teams of all time, (they went 79-16, including the playoffs). They were supposed to displace the Celtics but Boston won the next two titles, the last over a Lakers team that had Chamberlain, Baylor and West, the ultimate attempt to overwhelm the Celtics with star players, which failed. The year after he retired, the Celtics went 34-48 without Russell, whose teams had won the ultimate championship they could have won 18 times in 21 seasons, (counting the Olympics as a 'season').

Bill Russell was the greatest winner in the history of teams sports and his teams won because of him.


(And I wasn't a Celtics fan,e either. I rooted for Wilt and the Sixers.)

But other than that, did he really accomplish anything? :)
 

Forum statistics

Threads
170,411
Messages
4,890,217
Members
5,996
Latest member
meierscreek

Online statistics

Members online
271
Guests online
1,618
Total visitors
1,889


...
Top Bottom