Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by nodepression on Jun 24, 2011 16:32:45 GMT -5
I've been reading the Book of Basketball and Simmons devoted a pretty big chapter to Russell vs Wilt. Pretty much Wilt was a stat hog who would go limp whenever he got to 4 fouls for fear of fouling out for the first time (he never fouled out in his entire career.) He would change his game to the detriment of his team in order to get bigger stats (assists being a good example one year after fending off selfish charges for years) and got traded twice in his prime for basically nothing. Dude was soft.
I've been reading the Book of Basketball and Simmons devoted a pretty big chapter to Russell vs Wilt. Pretty much Wilt was a stat hog who would go limp whenever he got to 4 fouls for fear of fouling out for the first time (he never fouled out in his entire career.) He would change his game to the detriment of his team in order to get bigger stats (assists being a good example one year after fending off selfish charges for years) and got traded twice in his prime for basically nothing. Dude was soft.
Alright, he's not a team player. That is what you meant by soft. Yeah, no argument there. Dude had a huge ego, i remember in the 70's he claimed he slept with 1000 women.
He didn't get 100 points in a game by being a team player either. Surprising stat is that his team still lost that game.
Add in lane violation rules also ( i think that is what is called) whatever it's the rule that governs how long a player can be in the paint at one time.
Last Edit: Jun 24, 2011 18:35:27 GMT -5 by Jury - Back to Top
I've been reading the Book of Basketball and Simmons devoted a pretty big chapter to Russell vs Wilt. Pretty much Wilt was a stat hog who would go limp whenever he got to 4 fouls for fear of fouling out for the first time (he never fouled out in his entire career.) He would change his game to the detriment of his team in order to get bigger stats (assists being a good example one year after fending off selfish charges for years) and got traded twice in his prime for basically nothing. Dude was soft.
I don't think you could use Bill Simmons as a quality argument when debating the greatness of Chamberlain. Sure he is a good writer, but he is also one of the most opinionated guys in sports journalism and notorious as being an "opinion stated as fact" guy. Being the huge Boston homer that he is, he is obviously going to say Russell is way better than Wilt, who spent a chunk of his career with the Lakers.
And I don't consider being a ball hog, a bad teammate and changing your game to compensate for foul trouble as being "soft." He played through more double and triple teams and was subjected to more hard/dirty fouls than, maybe, any player ever. Point being, you don't end up with a reputation for being one of the most dominant players ever by playing soft.
Russel was great. There is no disputing 11 championships. But for the record, Kareem was better than both of them.
I've been reading the Book of Basketball and Simmons devoted a pretty big chapter to Russell vs Wilt. Pretty much Wilt was a stat hog who would go limp whenever he got to 4 fouls for fear of fouling out for the first time (he never fouled out in his entire career.) He would change his game to the detriment of his team in order to get bigger stats (assists being a good example one year after fending off selfish charges for years) and got traded twice in his prime for basically nothing. Dude was soft.
You're citing Bill Simmons for your basis? There isn't a more biased person against Wilt/Kobe/Magic than Bill Simmons. It's downright ridiculous.
What you're saying he doesn't like the Lakers and would be unfairly biased against anybody who played for them?
Well I kind of see this, but he's very pro-magic throughout the book and Wilt didn't bleed Purple and Gold or anything.
He's pro-Magic to a degree but constantly undermines him in reference to his killer instinct and clutch ability. He won't put Magic's winning ability on the level of MJ and Bird. I feel he is fooled by the smile. I've read it and sensed it plenty of times in his article sover the years, and undertones in the book.