Nalod wrote:jrodmc wrote:Nalod wrote:jrodmc wrote:No, some idiot on bleacherreport put Spree on the list.
Why do you think he was put on it?
I understand you don't think he should, but why would a writer include him?
Because the writer may have no clue what a good teammate should be? Because the writer has a private vendetta for atheletes who say stupid things to the press? Because the writer has a hard on for Allan Houston? How should I know?
All I know is Spree didn't put himself on the list. Literally or figuratively. Sheehit, even Marbles didn't put himself on the list. The list is the opinion of some goober who may possibly have never stood on a basketball court, let alone be part of a team.
And this is the same site that lists Bill Walton above Bill Russell on the greatest centers of all time list. Figure that one out.
Read the list and the writer (national) tells you. It not a local writer. If you care enough to defend him you need just look at the list and why some players are on it.
Trust me Marbles put himself on every list!
BTW, for who asked, the Dog ate most of his baby daughters ear. It was spree. Google it.
The list has JOrdan on it. Wanna know why? Read it.
The "Site" has Walton over Russell? I have seen arguements on the top 5 of all time and they all are compelling.
I guess there are many measurements. Winning? Russell! Stats? Wilt! Both? Kareem! Russell was considered a role player on his team than the focal point of the offense. I get the arguement. I would have Russell third. Forget Walton the douchbag announcer, but if you ever saw him play, or read up on his college play you might have a good arguement. A healthy Walton was a better player than Russell. Maybe the artcile goes there. But Russell's greatness also lies in him being a black man in a segregated America and for him to accomplish all he did (two NCAA's also!) puts him in an elite catagory. Iconic accomplishment for a player with NOT great stats.
For me I can't put him over Kareem and I can't put him over Wilt who was a statistic catagory killer. Russell is Iconic in his own place. He is the most winning player in history but not the best player on the court at times. Very compelling arguement at many angles.
Iconic accomplishment? 11 rings? The man invented defense. He averaged almost 20 rebounds a game for his CAREER. He made EVERYONE around him better. He took a franchise that couldn't get out of it's own way, and made it, singlehandedly (Please don't tell me about the fabulous supporting casts of Heinsohn and Cousy and Jones brothers) the Yankees of pro basketball. For the love of jesus, he coached it too. Could Kareem lay claim to any of that? He won rings with O and Magic. Can you seriously compare anyone Russell played with against those two? Give Kareem an edge for longevity, not greatness. Wilt played with the logo and Baylor, and as Russell himself has stated, did Wilt really make either one of them any better?
As for Walton, health is a large part of greatness. Russell is quoted as saying (mostly to tick off Wilt) that nothing less than a broken leg or back disqualifies you from playing. His career backed that up. Walton qualifies as a Coulda Shoulda Woulda.
For me, if stats are what you base greatness on, than walt bellamy should be above Russell. Which is as tenous a position as saying Wilt's better than Russell. Russell owned Wilt. Every single time that it mattered. That's greatness. Scoring 100 against Harvey Gallatin is not greatness. Are you a George McGinnis fan?
I still hate the way Boston treated him, in particular, and the way pasty white Amurhica did in general, but if you throw color out the window; would his career really have been that much less impressive had he been white?
7/22/2011 12:46 AM