Who is best athlete ever in Boston/New England?

[scout]

As far as Russell goes... he was the greatest in his era and did a lot to revolutionize the game. But he's an above average to all-star level player in today's game (if he were put in a time warp) rather than the greatest player ever.

If you put Garnett in a time machine and replaced Russell with him, the Celtics would have won about 99% of their games.

Russell would gobble up what you refer to as 'allstars' of today. The playground skill employed today would last about as long as that red head center from Yugoslavia.

 

[AzPatsFan]

No mention of Cy Young and his 511 career victories?

For comparison, the best pitcher in decades, Roger Clemens, has 350 or so wins in 24 years of pitching and he'd need 8 more 20 win seasons to sniff Young's record.

Does anyone else have an award named after them?

I agree. I was going to mention him along with Babe Ruth, but Ruth was still the choice. Cy Young should have been on the list as well.

I vote Babe Ruth, Bill Russell, Ted Williams, Tom Brady, Larry Bird, Cy Young and Bobby Orr and then John Havlicek.

 

[ColtinIraq]

While Wilt was all about garnering high-scoring records for his individual stats//

Really. I wonder how he lead the league in assists one year then.

 

[shakadave]

Robert Gordon Orr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv0-9Wi713o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSDw3tMa7ec&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1fMcTq8Esk&feature=related

Thank you for this. Thank you.

 

[primetime]

Russell would gobble up what you refer to as 'allstars' of today. The playground skill employed today would last about as long as that red head center from Yugoslavia.

Disagree entirely. Russell was a lanky 6'11" and didn't have the athletic prowess of most of today's players. In that era, only Wilt Chamberlain could match his height (the reason the two were so completely dominant). Shaquille O'Neal, for instance, probably weighs a time and a half what Russell did and could likely match him stride for stride. Not saying that Russell was not among the all-time greats (as I said, I'd pick him second if I could have anyone in the world on my basketball team, after Shaq), but I think that you have to look at how time has changed the scene of athletics.

It's just the simple evolution of the athlete, as people get bigger, stronger, faster on average. Or steroids and growth hormones, take your pick.

There were great offensive linemen in the 1960s and 1970s, but they weighed approximately 250 lbs. They would have been eaten alive by guys like Mike Wright and Dan Klecko, let alone Richard Seymour or Ty Warren.

 

[Deus Irae]

Babe Ruth is the greatest "athlete" in the history of major U.S. sports, so he's surely the greatest ever to be in Boston:

Top 10 in Slugging % 16 times, #1 13 times (Career SLG% .690, #1 in history)
Top 5 in OPS 16 times, #1 13 times (Career 1.164, #1 in history)
he has the 10th highest batting average in the history of the game
was 94-46 as a pitcher
Was in the top 10 in batting average 12 times
Was in the top 4 in OBP 16 times, and #1 overall 10 times (#2 in history)
had a .326 lifetime World Series batting average along with 15 home runs in 129 at bats

He's #3 on the home run list, despite being only #97 on the at bats list with 8398, compared to Aaron (#2 on at bats list with 12364) and Bonds (currently #29 on at bats list with 9847)


And just way too many more examples to post, so here's a link

http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ruthba01.shtml


I love other players who've been in this town. Williams, Russell, Bird, Orr and others were amazing players and certainly among the greatest to ever play their sports. I've always considered Russell to be probably the greatest player in NBA history, Bird to be the greatest non-center in NBA history, John Hannah to be the greatest offensive lineman in history, Orr to be the greatest defenseman in NFL history and Williams to be among the greatest pure hitters ever to play the game of baseball. I think that Brady may quite possibly reach "Greatest QB in NFL history" by the time his career is finished, as well. It's just that Ruth is so far above everyone else in my opinion that I can't even fathom the notion of someone else being ranked higher.

 

[Deus Irae]

Disagree entirely. Russell was a lanky 6'11" and didn't have the athletic prowess of most of today's players. In that era, only Wilt Chamberlain could match his height (the reason the two were so completely dominant). Shaquille O'Neal, for instance, probably weighs a time and a half what Russell did and could likely match him stride for stride. Not saying that Russell was not among the all-time greats (as I said, I'd pick him second if I could have anyone in the world on my basketball team, after Shaq), but I think that you have to look at how time has changed the scene of athletics.

It's just the simple evolution of the athlete, as people get bigger, stronger, faster on average. Or steroids and growth hormones, take your pick.

There were great offensive linemen in the 1960s and 1970s, but they weighed approximately 250 lbs. They would have been eaten alive by guys like Mike Wright and Dan Klecko, let alone Richard Seymour or Ty Warren.

This is a debate that'll never be fairly resolved. For example, just imagine Babe Ruth having been raised with modern nutrition, weight training and the like. Players like the Gordy Howe and Nolan Ryan of the world show us that the gap between eras isn't really as big as most people make it out to be, after all, as they successfully bridge eras.

Could Ted Williams hit the split fingered fastball? Could Bob Gibson thrive in a league that doesn't allow pitchers to dust hitters? On the converse, Could Barry Bonds survive in a league that didn't use helmets and had pitchers drilling hitters time and again, and could a player like Tony Gwynn handle the spitball? In football, how would Randy Moss handle being smacked around up and down the field by a Michael Haynes, or the modern players handle the antics of a Conrad Dobler? Would Gretsky have survived in the 60's or early 70's NHL?

It's questions like these that mean we'll always be able to say "what if?", and never know for sure. It's why these debates are always so much fun and neverending.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

Disagree entirely. Russell was a lanky 6'11" and didn't have the athletic prowess of most of today's players. In that era, only Wilt Chamberlain could match his height (the reason the two were so completely dominant). Shaquille O'Neal, for instance, probably weighs a time and a half what Russell did and could likely match him stride for stride. Not saying that Russell was not among the all-time greats (as I said, I'd pick him second if I could have anyone in the world on my basketball team, after Shaq), but I think that you have to look at how time has changed the scene of athletics.

It's just the simple evolution of the athlete, as people get bigger, stronger, faster on average. Or steroids and growth hormones, take your pick.

There were great offensive linemen in the 1960s and 1970s, but they weighed approximately 250 lbs. They would have been eaten alive by guys like Mike Wright and Dan Klecko, let alone Richard Seymour or Ty Warren.

Size matters much more in football than the other sports. The difference in basketball is that ball handling skills have evolved so much over the years, and kids today start with moves that hardly existed 40-50 years ago.

If you compare players from different eras, you have to allow for the changes in the game and project that earlier player as if he had grown up in the later era. If you do that with Russell, he would be the #1 player of this or any era.

A lot of it had to do with his base athleticism - a 6'10" guy who would win track events in running and jumping. He was also an intellectual who studied the game and his opponents, and a warrior who took his sports seriously, took no prisoners, and had a major chip on his shoulder. He was Jim Brown on a basketball court.

Shaq over Russell? You must be kidding. Chamberlain was taller and stronger than Shaq, and had better skills to boot, and we know how Russell matched up against Chamberlain. Shaq also has so many flaws in his game, and Russell would have exploited every one of them.

 

[40yrpatsfan]

1. Bobby Orr
2. Ted Williams
3. Bill Russell
4. Tom Brady
5. Larry Bird

We are lucky to have a selection like this to debate about!!!

Yes, we are. You could legitimately claim that each of these guys was the best at their position all time, or in some cases even the best at their sport all time. I really don't see any way to rank these guys one behind the other, but I do see different things when I think of them:

Orr = prodigy
Williams = perfectionist
Russell = lion
Brady = assassin
Bird = wizard

 

[patsfan13]

Disagree entirely. Russell was a lanky 6'11" and didn't have the athletic prowess of most of today's players. In that era, only Wilt Chamberlain could match his height (the reason the two were so completely dominant). Shaquille O'Neal, for instance, probably weighs a time and a half what Russell did and could likely match him stride for stride. Not saying that Russell was not among the all-time greats (as I said, I'd pick him second if I could have anyone in the world on my basketball team, after Shaq), but I think that you have to look at how time has changed the scene of athletics.

It's just the simple evolution of the athlete, as people get bigger, stronger, faster on average. Or steroids and growth hormones, take your pick.

There were great offensive linemen in the 1960s and 1970s, but they weighed approximately 250 lbs. They would have been eaten alive by guys like Mike Wright and Dan Klecko, let alone Richard Seymour or Ty Warren.

Actually there were guys like Nate Thurmond, Abdul Jabbar, Zelmo Beeaty and Bob Lanier who were better than any contempoary centers beside O'Neil and Duncan.

Duncan is comparable to Beatty in terms of athleticism and not close to Russell and he seems to have done OK.

BTW Oscar Robertson would eat up any Guard playing the game today.

 

[scout]

Disagree entirely. Russell was a lanky 6'11" and didn't have the athletic prowess of most of today's players. In that era, only Wilt Chamberlain could match his height (the reason the two were so completely dominant). Shaquille O'Neal, for instance, probably weighs a time and a half what Russell did and could likely match him stride for stride. Not saying that Russell was not among the all-time greats (as I said, I'd pick him second if I could have anyone in the world on my basketball team, after Shaq), but I think that you have to look at how time has changed the scene of athletics.

It's just the simple evolution of the athlete, as people get bigger, stronger, faster on average. Or steroids and growth hormones, take your pick.

There were great offensive linemen in the 1960s and 1970s, but they weighed approximately 250 lbs. They would have been eaten alive by guys like Mike Wright and Dan Klecko, let alone Richard Seymour or Ty Warren.

Actually, there are a number of players today who are comparable to Russell's 6'10" and 220 lbs. Kobe Bryant 6'6"/220, Lamar Odom 6'" 230, Amare Stoudemire 6"10" 245, Ben Wallace 6'9" 240 to name a few, they seem to do ok. This ain't football, his size is comparable to today's athlete.

"didn't have the athletic prowless of most of today's players"
Russell:
Averaged 22.5 rebounds per game.
Led the league in rebounding 4 times
Had 51 rebounds in one game,49 in two others.

He was the most prolific shot blocker the NBA had ever seen. He would probably hold blocked shot record today had they kept track when he played.
You would pick him second to Shaq? Ever see Dave Cowens run up and down the floor with Jabbar 20 feet behind him? Ever see Cowans in the paint manhandling the immensely bigger Jabber. As good as Cowens was, he wasn't in the same league as Russell. Chamberlain was 7'1" 275 compared to Shaq's 7'1" 330, Russell held his own against Wilt, and was always victorious. What makes you think that Shaq would even beat Wilt, let alone Russell. Those were not the only dominant big men that played (they also had real rims as opposed to peach baskets). Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, Elgin Baylor, etc. Yes, most of today's players are better, bigger, and stronger, but do not trivialize the great players of yesterday and automatically give them a pass. Russell got into many players heads and played a mental game that today's player would not fathom AND he was as athletically gifted as any athlete of today.

 

[primetime]

Actually, there are a number of players today who are comparable to Russell's 6'10" and 220 lbs. Kobe Bryant 6'6"/220, Lamar Odom 6'" 230, Amare Stoudemire 6"10" 245, Ben Wallace 6'9" 240 to name a few, they seem to do ok. This ain't football, his size is comparable to today's athlete.

Those were not the only dominant big men that played (they also had real rims as opposed to peach baskets). Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, Elgin Baylor, etc. Yes, most of today's players are better, bigger, and stronger, but do not trivialize the great players of yesterday and automatically give them a pass. Russell got into many players heads and played a mental game that today's player would not fathom AND he was as athletically gifted as any athlete of today.

In the first part, you're comparing his size to small forwards and power forwards, which is what most of the big men back then (except for perhaps Wilt) would have played in today's game. Russell was incredible, yes, and that's why I'd put him behind Shaq. Being #2 in all-time greats doesn't make you a bad player (I'd put Jordan, Magic, and a few others perhaps ahead of him AND Shaq as all-around players, but if I had to build a team...)

 

[Pats Fan in Indy]

As far as popularity is concerned, nobody will ever be able to top Larry Bird for the next 50 years, until it is almost completely forgotten that he ever existed.

 

[kriskanos]

Ruth played for the Yankees for a very long time, I dont count him or Clemens or Boggs.

 

[Bostonian1962]

Yes, we are. You could legitimately claim that each of these guys was the best at their position all time, or in some cases even the best at their sport all time. I really don't see any way to rank these guys one behind the other, but I do see different things when I think of them:

Orr = prodigy
Williams = perfectionist
Russell = lion
Brady = assassin
Bird = wizard

I really like your descriptive words for each player. They really fit.

If I can add on. As far as the types of people they are to the fans away from the game. Let me give it a try:

Orr - Very modest. Humble. Always has enough time for the fans. Supposedly is a perfect gentleman. It's interesting, because the 4 arguably best NHL players of all time, Orr, Gretsky, Howe, and Lemeiux are all super nice to the fans. I have two personalized autographs from him. Love the guy.

Williams - Was ornery in his youth. But, while a bit gruff, seemed to mellow some as he got older.

Russell - Not the nicest guy in the world. Would not sign autographs. Only started signing at all, for money, over the last couple of years. Met him at Maui Airport. Not very nice.

Brady - He's not a bad guy, but a bit aloof from the fans. He's Tommy Hollywood, dating the models and actresses. His teammates love him. Went to the Lions - Pats game in Detroit a few years ago, and after the game he was going through the tunnel, and tons of Pats fans were chearing him. He would not even acknowlege anybody, like most other players did.

Bird - Not Mr. Friendly, but I went to the Celtics Rookie camp in Marshfield, MA when he was a rookie. I must have a half dozen autographs from him. He's always signs, and while not all smiles, seemed decent enough. It's just that his personality is what it is.

I know none of this has to do with the question itself, but felt not touching on this part of them. Others may have some good antecdotes.

 

[kriskanos]

I voted Tom but I wish someone would give Yaz a little love. Also Rocky Marciano was the greatest in his sport of all time and never lost a heavyweight fight.

 

[kriskanos]

Thank you,thank you

 

[upstater1]

New York top players:

Walt Frazier
Willis Reed
Bill Bradley
Phil Esposito
Mark Messier
Brian Leetch
Mike Bossy
Pat Lafontaine
Bryan Trottier
Denis Potvin
Billy Smith
Clark Gillies
Gary Carter
Tom Seaver
John Franco
Mike Piazza
Babe Ruth
Lou Gehrig
Joe DiMaggio
Mickey Mantle
Yogi Berra
Roger Maris
Thurman Munson
Whitey Ford
Reggie Jackson
Ron Guidry
Don Mattingly
Derek Jeter


Pretty interesting. Out of 28 great players in New York history, three players are black, and one is mixed race.

I never realized until doing this study that New York is an incredibly racist town. When I have town, I'll do this idiotic exercise again, to unveil the other racist towns in our midst.

 

[RayClay]

You mocking me? You need to be raped if you are.

Fred Lynn not on the list of greatest athletes?

Bill Rodgers, the marathon runner? Bet you forgot about him, huh?

Good retort. You really proved your point with that logical dispassionate post.

 

[primetime]

New York top players:

Walt Frazier
Willis Reed
Bill Bradley
Phil Esposito
Mark Messier
Brian Leetch
Mike Bossy
Pat Lafontaine
Bryan Trottier
Denis Potvin
Billy Smith
Clark Gillies
Gary Carter
Tom Seaver
John Franco
Mike Piazza
Babe Ruth
Lou Gehrig
Joe DiMaggio
Mickey Mantle
Yogi Berra
Roger Maris
Thurman Munson
Whitey Ford
Reggie Jackson
Ron Guidry
Don Mattingly
Derek Jeter


Pretty interesting. Out of 28 great players in New York history, three players are black, and one is mixed race.

I never realized until doing this study that New York is an incredibly racist town. When I have town, I'll do this idiotic exercise again, to unveil the other racist towns in our midst.

Um... Phil Esposito for New York? That's like claiming Babe Ruth for Boston or Bobby Orr for Chicago. Lalalalalafontaine played in Buffalo. I'd associate Mark Messier with Edmonton more than New York (since Bostonian1962 claimed the top 4 players in history are very humble and great to the fans, let's not include Messier in that bunch... uptight scummy jerk)

You did, however, forget these guys... Jackie Robinson (Brooklyn) and Willie Mays (he played his best years when the Giants were still in New York), as well as Monte Irvin, a baseball hall of famer. And Patrick Ewing, don't forget him.