Comments on: On George Steinbrenner http://kenshouler.com/2010/07/on-george-steinbrenner/ wordsworth writing & editing Sun, 06 Feb 2011 16:18:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Ken http://kenshouler.com/2010/07/on-george-steinbrenner/comment-page-1/#comment-13 Ken Sun, 06 Feb 2011 16:18:08 +0000 http://kenshouler.com/?p=98#comment-13 Hello Robert, I know who person X is, number two is in points plus rebounds, since I pointed out his ppg and rebounds in my 1996 book on the 50 greatest--Bob Pettit. I would have liked more ten more slots to play with for Cigar Aficionado, and he would have been in my top 15. But you offer far more than two thoughts, despite your introductory claim. I will reply to as many as I can. I saw all the people play that you mentioned (excepting Mikan and Pettit) and Jordan exceeded them all. You must be picking Russell because of his having played on 11 title winners, since no other reason justifies the claim. If we follow that abstruse logic about titles (which nearly everyone parrots, especially numbskulls who populate sports radio shows), then both Jones boys -- Sam and KC -- are also better than Jordan since they won more titles. This isn't ordinary nonsense, but nonsense on stilts, as Jeremy Bentham might say. I think we call that a reductio ad absurdum argment against the conclusion that "the best = the athlete with the most titles." I know people who wouldn't put Russell in the top ten, based on his unimpressive individual stats. Jordan had no weaknesses on the court, while Russell had several, included a 14pt scoring avg and a 44% FG pct. Yes, his Celtics (AKA the Traveling All Stars) won 11 of 13 titles, all occuring in a distant time, some years with as few as eight teams in the circuit and a single round of playoffs. Regardless, in no wise was he Jordan's equal, or Chamberlain's either. If you prize titles so much, then why mention Chamberlain's PPG (which you value), given that he only won two titles? Jordan was the best of his time, Russell wasn't even that--not with Wilt around. In fact, Harvey Pollock showed that in the 100+ games they played head-to-head, Chamberlain averaged 30 to Russ's 15 and outrebounded him, too. I don't consider Wilt a Laker either, since he played more than 60 percent of his years on other teams and posted his most impressive records as a Warrior and a Sixer. So six Lakers and Celts are in the top ten, not seven. ... Barry was truly great, though not better than Bird, who was a greater passer (perhaps the greatest passing forward of all-time), and a better rebounder and perimeter shooter than Barry, note the disparate FG percentages of the two. I don't think Dirk is Bird's equal either, though he is a first ballot Hall of Famer, in my estimation. Ruth was the best player of his era and the most dominant player of all-time. Yes, greater and best are distinctive terms, but this may be a case of a distinction without a difference. If you mean "best" as in "more athletic" or some vague thing of that sort, then I believe that you will find any number of people with a greater "Athletic Quotient" -- i.e. who run faster, jump higher, etc. But no one of those people dominate to the degree that Ruth did. The only player who dominated the statistical legacy in team sports as much as Ruth was Gretzky in hockey. best, Ken Hello Robert,
I know who person X is, number two is in points plus rebounds, since I pointed out his ppg and rebounds in my 1996 book on the 50 greatest–Bob Pettit. I would have liked more ten more slots to play with for Cigar Aficionado, and he would have been in my top 15.
But you offer far more than two thoughts, despite your introductory claim. I will reply to as many as I can.
I saw all the people play that you mentioned (excepting Mikan and Pettit) and Jordan exceeded them all. You must be picking Russell because of his having played on 11 title winners, since no other reason justifies the claim. If we follow that abstruse logic about titles (which nearly everyone parrots, especially numbskulls who populate sports radio shows), then both Jones boys — Sam and KC — are also better than Jordan since they won more titles. This isn’t ordinary nonsense, but nonsense on stilts, as Jeremy Bentham might say. I think we call that a reductio ad absurdum argment against the conclusion that “the best = the athlete with the most titles.” I know people who wouldn’t put Russell in the top ten, based on his unimpressive individual stats.
Jordan had no weaknesses on the court, while Russell had several, included a 14pt scoring avg and a 44% FG pct. Yes, his Celtics (AKA the Traveling All Stars) won 11 of 13 titles, all occuring in a distant time, some years with as few as eight teams in the circuit and a single round of playoffs. Regardless, in no wise was he Jordan’s equal, or Chamberlain’s either. If you prize titles so much, then why mention Chamberlain’s PPG (which you value), given that he only won two titles? Jordan was the best of his time, Russell wasn’t even that–not with Wilt around. In fact, Harvey Pollock showed that in the 100+ games they played head-to-head, Chamberlain averaged 30 to Russ’s 15 and outrebounded him, too.
I don’t consider Wilt a Laker either, since he played more than 60 percent of his years on other teams and posted his most impressive records as a Warrior and a Sixer. So six Lakers and Celts are in the top ten, not seven. … Barry was truly great, though not better than Bird, who was a greater passer (perhaps the greatest passing forward of all-time), and a better rebounder and perimeter shooter than Barry, note the disparate FG percentages of the two. I don’t think Dirk is Bird’s equal either, though he is a first ballot Hall of Famer, in my estimation.
Ruth was the best player of his era and the most dominant player of all-time. Yes, greater and best are distinctive terms, but this may be a case of a distinction without a difference. If you mean “best” as in “more athletic” or some vague thing of that sort, then I believe that you will find any number of people with a greater “Athletic Quotient” — i.e. who run faster, jump higher, etc. But no one of those people dominate to the degree that Ruth did. The only player who dominated the statistical legacy in team sports as much as Ruth was Gretzky in hockey.

best,

Ken

]]> By: Robert Hyman http://kenshouler.com/2010/07/on-george-steinbrenner/comment-page-1/#comment-12 Robert Hyman Fri, 04 Feb 2011 18:25:53 +0000 http://kenshouler.com/?p=98#comment-12 Kenneth. Good morning. Robert Hyman here in Dallas, Texas. Looking through a recent issue of Cigar Aficionado, and I see where you list the NBA's ten Greatest players. Two thoughts come to mind. Don't terribly disagree with you, though certainly Russell has to come before Jordan. Took Jordan six years to win a title. Actually took him that long to realize what team play was about. Russell ALWAYS new. Therein lies one of your two errors, respectfully said. There is a difference between BEST and GREATEST. Best means simply how good you are. Greatest means how you compared with other players of your era. Example: No question who the GREATEST baseball player of all time was. Babe Ruth. No argument. Hitting massive amounts of home runs in a dead ball era, when no one else could come close to that. Also a great pitcher. No one questions that he was the best of his era. But is he the BEST player ever? Perhaps not. I believe you see my point. Your list might be okay for ten best. Certainly not the best for ten greatest. Was Magic Johnson better than George Mikan? Maybe. But he certainly was not GREATER. There is also a little too much emphasis on winning championships on your list. Yes, Larry Bird was great. But to say he was a better player than Rick Barry is a bit much. No way Bird is as good as Barry, who also by the way won a championship playing with Nobody! Yes, he was a bit of a jerk, but no way Bird had the talent of Barry. Sounds glamorous to put Bird and Magic in there, but no way are they among the ten greatest. You are way off on that. Well, not way off, but they aren't there. Also something is out of whack when seven out of the ten greatest players are either Celtics or Lakers. The above being said, Magic and Bird have to come off that list. At best they are in the top ten best players, but not top ten greatest. First off, let's take Magic off, and substitute...without question...player x here. OF ALL THE PLAYERS THAT HAVE EVER PLAYED IN THE NBA, WILT CHAMBERLAIN RANKS NUMBER ONE in average scoring plus average rebounding added together. His points per game plus his rebounds per game equal a certain number. So...do you have any idea who is number two ALL TIME NBA IN POINTS PER GAME PLUS REBOUNDS PER GAME? You left him off. So let's substitute player x for Magic. Any idea who player x is? For example, if Wilt averaged 30 ppg for his career, and 16 rebounds a game, his total would be 46. He ranks number one (those are not his exact numbers). So tell me..who ranks number two to Wilt in this category? No googling! Let's easily put in player x for Magic. Let's also take out Larry Bird, who was a fabulous player. But he is not as good as Dirk. Put Dirk on the Celtics and they NEVER lose to the Lakers. But Rick Barry was better than either one. Put those two in there and you are about right. And no one takes the top spot except for Russell. Not saying Russell was Better than Jordan. But he most certainly was GREATER. By the way...do you know who player x is? He without question (not even close) has to be in the top ten GREATEST? How does he play in today's era? I am sure he's do fine. Want to tell me who it is? Other than the above, nice article. Warmest Regards, Robert Hyman Kenneth. Good morning. Robert Hyman here in Dallas, Texas. Looking through a recent issue of Cigar Aficionado, and I see where you list the NBA’s ten Greatest players. Two thoughts come to mind.
Don’t terribly disagree with you, though certainly Russell has to come before Jordan. Took Jordan six years to win a title. Actually took him that long to realize what team play was about. Russell ALWAYS new. Therein lies one of your two errors, respectfully said.
There is a difference between BEST and GREATEST. Best means simply how good you are. Greatest means how you compared with other players of your era.
Example: No question who the GREATEST baseball player of all time was. Babe Ruth. No argument. Hitting massive amounts of home runs in a dead ball era, when no one else could come close to that. Also a great pitcher. No one questions that he was the best of his era. But is he the BEST player ever? Perhaps not. I believe you see my point.
Your list might be okay for ten best. Certainly not the best for ten greatest. Was Magic Johnson better than George Mikan? Maybe. But he certainly was not GREATER.
There is also a little too much emphasis on winning championships on your list. Yes, Larry Bird was great. But to say he was a better player than Rick Barry is a bit much. No way Bird is as good as Barry, who also by the way won a championship playing with Nobody! Yes, he was a bit of a jerk, but no way Bird had the talent of Barry. Sounds glamorous to put Bird and Magic in there, but no way are they among the ten greatest. You are way off on that. Well, not way off, but they aren’t there. Also something is out of whack when seven out of the ten greatest players are either Celtics or Lakers.
The above being said, Magic and Bird have to come off that list. At best they are in the top ten best players, but not top ten greatest. First off, let’s take Magic off, and substitute…without question…player x here. OF ALL THE PLAYERS THAT HAVE EVER PLAYED IN THE NBA, WILT CHAMBERLAIN RANKS NUMBER ONE in average scoring plus average rebounding added together. His points per game plus his rebounds per game equal a certain number. So…do you have any idea who is number two ALL TIME NBA IN POINTS PER GAME PLUS REBOUNDS PER GAME? You left him off. So let’s substitute player x for Magic. Any idea who player x is? For example, if Wilt averaged 30 ppg for his career, and 16 rebounds a game, his total would be 46. He ranks number one (those are not his exact numbers). So tell me..who ranks number two to Wilt in this category? No googling!
Let’s easily put in player x for Magic. Let’s also take out Larry Bird, who was a fabulous player. But he is not as good as Dirk. Put Dirk on the Celtics and they NEVER lose to the Lakers. But Rick Barry was better than either one. Put those two in there and you are about right. And no one takes the top spot except for Russell. Not saying Russell was Better than Jordan. But he most certainly was GREATER.

By the way…do you know who player x is? He without question (not even close) has to be in the top ten GREATEST? How does he play in today’s era? I am sure he’s do fine. Want to tell me who it is?

Other than the above, nice article.

Warmest Regards,
Robert Hyman

]]> By: Rose Marie Melendez http://kenshouler.com/2010/07/on-george-steinbrenner/comment-page-1/#comment-6 Rose Marie Melendez Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:07:53 +0000 http://kenshouler.com/?p=98#comment-6 But your last line says it all--he brought them back to success. Before him they languished for a decade, unable to win a pennant. With Steinbrenner in charge they won two World Series, two pennants, and a division title in first nine years. That's a very strong showing. Yankee fans were starved for another world championship, since they hadn't won one since 1962. -- R Melendez But your last line says it all–he brought them back to success. Before him they languished for a decade, unable to win a pennant. With Steinbrenner in charge they won two World Series, two pennants, and a division title in first nine years. That’s a very strong showing. Yankee fans were starved for another world championship, since they hadn’t won one since 1962.
– R Melendez

]]>