Who is your all-time basketball "Mount Rushmore?"

[Capt. Tuttle]

Clearly it's Bill Walton, Robert Horry, Vlade Divac and Detlef Schrempf.

Walton might have been the best ever, but for injuries.
Wilt
Earl Manigualt (sp?)
Kareem
LeBron

 

[Trueblue25]

Bill Russell, Larry Bird, John Havlicek and Paul Pierce.

 

[br801]

This Mount Rushmore stuff is ridiculous. Just selecting one guy (or even two) for each position on the court is tough enough.

All I know for sure is that Wilt belongs on there somewhere.

 

[RF2044]

Russell is 5th for me - I wanted to have a balanced list with a guy from the 60s/70s, 80s, 90s, and today. I think Kareem was the superior player.

The Celtics were obviously an incredible dynasty, but there were only 10 teams in the NBA then with no free agency. It's not an apples to apples comparison with winning titles today.

Wouldn't that actually make it TOUGHER to win a title? Talent wouldn't be spread out / diluted across many teams--the best players would be on those 10 teams, making things theoretically more competitive.

 

[Knicks411]

God, having to pick 4 is so brutal.
MJ, Russell, Kareem, Magic. Lebron will be up there when he retires.

Since someone brought up baseball
Ruth, Mays, Bonds, and Wagner. If I want to avoid the flamewar of having Bonds in there, swap Ted Williams for him. Or, wait 15 years and put Mike Trout on there.

 

[Eric15]

Wouldn't that actually make it TOUGHER to win a title? Talent wouldn't be spread out / diluted across many teams--the best players would be on those 10 teams, making things theoretically more competitive.

But in this instance, talent wasn't spread out, it was concentrated on the Celtics. Russell/Cousy/Havlicek/Sam Jones were probably amongst the top 10-12 players in the NBA.

 

[mark79]

Russell, MJ, Wilt, then

Kareem/Oscar/Magic

 

[Knicks411]

But in this instance, talent wasn't spread out, it was concentrated on the Celtics. Russell/Cousy/Havlicek/Sam Jones were probably amongst the top 10-12 players in the NBA.

Aurebach was probably just so far ahead of the rest in the league in terms of scouting/talent evaluation that it was ridiculous. Either way, 11 titles in 13 years is just absurd

 

[RF2044]

But in this instance, talent wasn't spread out, it was concentrated on the Celtics. Russell/Cousy/Havlicek/Sam Jones were probably amongst the top 10-12 players in the NBA.

That isn't remotely accurate.

I think the "smaller league" argument for teams being weaker is a losing one.

 

[Knicks411]

That isn't remotely accurate.

I think the "smaller league" argument for teams being weaker is a losing one.

Which part, Cousy/Russell/Hondo/Sam Jones not being among the top 10-12 players in the league? I think it's pretty close, though it is misleading a little, since Hondo and Cousy had one year of crossover, and Hondo wasn't one of the 10-12 best players in the league as a rookie. Jones made 3 all league second teams in the middle of the decade.

The smaller league meant each team was individually stronger than they would be in a larger league. (Though the player pool back then was a lot smaller than it was now, but no matter). Fewer playoff rounds might lead you to think it would be easier for a great team to win a title then, but not many great teams lose in the first 2 rounds of the playoffs now, so probably not.

Was looking at some old playoff results; for most of the 60's 6 of the 9 teams made the playoffs. And people think too many teams make the playoffs now; damn.

 

[44Warrior]

Bing, Pearl, Carmelo and Jim Boeheim

Bing - SU great and NBA HOFer
Pearl - Best recruit ever, because he launched SU basketball from a regional power to a national power.
Carmelo- National Championship.
Jimmy B - Would SU be where it is today without him? I think not.

 

[Eric15]

That isn't remotely accurate.

Ugh, I can live with myself for making arguments that are somewhat inaccurate, but not even remotely? Now I feel like an idiot.

 

[Knicks411]

Something I was just thinking about; an argument that it might have been easier to win a string of titles in the 60's is the shorter playoff rounds. For many of their titles, the Celtics were playing 2 playoff rounds. Now, teams are playing twice as many. That's less of an issue over one season, but more of a thing that would build up over the course of the run. Maybe the Celtics would have had a harder time winning titles 9/10/11 if they were consistently playing 4 series a spring. Then again, maybe not, since they were seemingly playing the Lakers in the finals every year, so the Lakers may have been just as tired. But to move this to current time, it's definitely a storyline with the Heat, with them looking to play in the finals for the 4th straight year, and all 3 of the previous trips being against different opponents.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

All I know is that David Stern's secret lair would be built under this so call basketball Rushmore.

 

[RF2044]

Which part, Cousy/Russell/Hondo/Sam Jones not being among the top 10-12 players in the league? I think it's pretty close, though it is misleading a little, since Hondo and Cousy had one year of crossover, and Hondo wasn't one of the 10-12 best players in the league as a rookie. Jones made 3 all league second teams in the middle of the decade.

The smaller league meant each team was individually stronger than they would be in a larger league. (Though the player pool back then was a lot smaller than it was now, but no matter). Fewer playoff rounds might lead you to think it would be easier for a great team to win a title then, but not many great teams lose in the first 2 rounds of the playoffs now, so probably not.

Was looking at some old playoff results; for most of the 60's 6 of the 9 teams made the playoffs. And people think too many teams make the playoffs now; damn.

No, the other sentence of his two-sentence post you didn't cover above. :noidea: "Talent wasn't spread out, and was concentrated on the Celtics"

 

[RF2044]

Ugh, I can live with myself for making arguments that are somewhat inaccurate, but not even remotely? Now I feel like an idiot.

It doesn't sound like you are that familiar with the NBA of the late '60s--which is fine, not knocking you for that. But to make the statement that the talent was concentrated on one team isn't factual.

Several elite of the elite all-time NBA greats came from that era, and weren't playing on the Celtics.

 

[NineOneSeven]

You all should check out the "book of basketball" by bill simmons. TONS of incredible stats of hundreds of players. Great stuff.

 

[br801]

You all should check out the "book of basketball" by bill simmons. TONS of incredible stats of hundreds of players. Great stuff.

Or spend some time here.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/

It's a good way to get an idea of how the game has been played across different eras, and a good way to learn about past greats and put their accomplishments in perspective.

 

[Timonen]

Wilt
Russell
MJ
Magic

But the more interesting "funny looking" mt rushmore would be:
-Paul Mokeski
-Kurt Nimphius
-Muresan
-Michael Cage (though open to tyrone hill, chuck nevitt and a few others for this last spot)

 

[UnderHisOwnPower]

There is not a mountain big enough, but with this group, I never lose a game:

Wilt - C
Rusell - PF
MJ - SG
O - PG
LeBron - SF
Bench - Kareem and Steph Curry

 

[Knicks411]

Or spend some time here.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/

It's a good way to get an idea of how the game has been played across different eras, and a good way to learn about past greats and put their accomplishments in perspective.

Yeah i definitely spent a ton of time on that website for posting in this thread so far. I saw they recently estimated pace factors going back to like 1950 now. It's crazy how different the game was, as an example, in 1963 the Celtics averaged 119 points per game, which wasn't even first in the league. (It was third) But their estimated possessions per game was 127, which means they averaged about .93 points per possession, which, believe it or not, was last in the league. Of course, the league average was .96 points per possession. League average now is about 1.06.

RF, ok, I follow you now. The Celtics didn't have all of the great players in the 60's (Robertson, West, Baylor, Wilt, etc) but they probably had a greater concentration of really good players than anyone else, which might have had something to do with why they won every year. Obviously they had Russell, who was one of (fill in your small number here) players ever, Cousy made first team all league 10 years in a row, (though he retired after like title #5, which is one of those things that blew my mind when I first saw it; as a kid growing up hearing about those teams you kind of just assume all those guys were about the same age and were together for the whole run, which is of course ridiculous, but something that makes sense as kid) Havlicek was one of the best guys in the league, Sam Jones, Heinsohn, etc. Which is a testament to Red, who was miles ahead of the competition at that time.

 

[LennX6]

Bill Russell, Bill Russell, Bill Russell, Bill Russell.

Cheers,
Neil

Russell, Wilt, Dr. J and Jordan.

 

[Alsacs]

Jordan, Russell, Magic are locks. My fourth is either Kobe or Bird until Lebron has the titles.

 

[Doc5120]

Kareem, MJ, The Big O and Lebron

 

[moqui]

basketball, or NBA?

Basketball is a global game, second only to futbol in popularity, and I'd guess these four are the people most responsible for that popularity today

Michael Jordan
Oscar Schmidt
Yao Ming
Aleksandr Gomelski (Russian national coach who showed the world this was not just a US dominated game)