The case against Bill Russell as GOAT

[Pointguard]

Bill Russell was a great winner but lets look a little deeper. Greatest of All time might be a too high of designation. I’ll alphabetize so the counter arguments can be presented.

A. Russell did not possess an offensive game that could be compared to anybody in top 15 list. (A functional list of 20 players would be MJ, Wilt, Jabbar, Hakeem, Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, Magic, Bird, Oscar, West, Malone, Barkley, Moses Malone, Elgin Baylor, Dr J, D Robinson, Lebron, KG)
B. He averaged 15 ppg in the regular season in the fastest era of the game. This is stunning when you consider that his length and speed should have gotten him 5 or 6 baskets alone and then you figure he would get 4 or 5 points on the line. He never averaged over 19ppg. He averaged one point higher in the post season.
C. His shooting percentage was low, despite him playing it flat out safe. He only shot 44% and in films Wilt doesn’t pretend to go out more than 10feet to guard him. So 44% at close range exhibits no offensive game. He shot worse in the playoffs.

D. Someone give me evidence that he worked on his game. His foul shooting was bad 561 and it didn’t steady. His offense stayed average for that time. No post moves. In one recent clip posted on these boards provides 24 minutes of action of Bill and Wilt. Not one time does Russell put the ball down and look comfortable. He dribbles, with hard concentration and with the off hand ready to snatch the ball up. That should not be, while you are coming out of your prime???
E. Could you imagine scaling his game down? At 38 minutes per game he’s at 13ppg and 19. Then we add a generous number for pace would be 10 and 15. Factor in scouting reports, quicker help defenders, his weak right hand. 8ppg and 14 rebounds. And this is a nice scale.

F. Who are the other players in the top 50 that are so lopsided: All defense with little offense. Remind you even D Howard gets criticized for not being offensively developed and he was 20 and 14 at one time.
G. What players in the top 50 would not win consistently with 3 or 4 HOFers???

H. How easy did Russell have it? Russell was usually the 4th highest scorer on his team. On a 36 minute a game ratio he was a remarkable 8th highest scorer or lower on the team 9 out of his 13 years. Amazingly he is 12th once and 13th twice!!! He never ranked in the top 5 in the 36 minute a game ratio in his career. WOW.

I. He wasn’t expected to score at all at the end of games. When they talk about Killer instinct Russell wasn’t the type to deliver the blow like we so often see from MJ, or Kobe. I am sure the opposing team wanted Russell to shoot if he wasn’t 5 feet on the basket.
J. We are talking greatest of all time. Asking Bill Russell to look comfortable with the ball isn’t asking for too much if he’s in the GOAT conversation. Getting the ball in the basket is too much of a chore for him.
Discuss

[KG5MVP]

No one said he was GOAT in the first place.

[tommy3]

No one said he was GOAT in the first place.
Actually many say.

Can't agree more with the OP.

[Yung D-Will]

In before Julbar and G.O.A.T rape this thread

[Desperado]

IMO Kareem is the GOAT, but Russell also has a strong case. 11 rings and 5 MVPs speaks for its self.

Honestly assigning an arbitrary criteria that the top players must be an offensive threat is just naive. I guess this shows the prevailing stat hog mentality and double standards of today's fans. Magic averaged less than 20 PPG, is he worthy to be put in the top 10? John Stockton only averaged 13 PPG is he worthy to be included in the top 15-20?

People put way too much stock on an individuals scoring stats to determine their greatness, especially when such scoring stats (and stats in general) don't tell a complete picture of the player's contributions.

[Desperado]

Also its true that Russell had a poor FG% but you have to take into consideration the entire league back then had a poor FG%.

Why was this?

1. A high tempo offense. For example the average team in '65 (FGA's: 7987) shot about 1400 more shots than a team in '05 (FGA's: 6588)

2. There were less fouls calls. In '65 the average team had 2076 PF's per season. In '05, 1856 personal fouls were called. You have to keep in mind that 1400 more shots were attempted, yet only 200 less fouls called. The result? A lowering of the FG%.

In short, its tougher to score when the defender can hack you around without getting called for a foul.

Now that we got that out of the way, lets clear some things about Russell's lack of offensive skills.

Russell was an amazing rebounder averaging 22 rpg (16+ rpg when adjusted to today's pace and still higher than Rodman's average. He was a good ball handler for a big man, since he often runs the ball after rebounding to get a clear pass down court and start the fast break, and of course a great defender. He was also a great passer; he consistently ranked in the top 10 in assists and that is beyond what you would expect from a center. Not most guards could do that. His scoring was solid at 15ppg on 13 FGA's. Not exactly mind blowing numbers but then everyone on the 60's Celtics didn't have a mind blowing PPG.


Celtics had a structured offense where all 5 guys on the floor would have the opportunity to score. The leading scorer on the Celtics only averaged 22 points and there were 5-6 other guys scoring in double-digits. Bill or anyone else on the Celtics didn't need not to fully exert themselves on offense since the scoring was distributed. Russell had the same shooting percentage as the top two scorers (Jones and Havlicek) on the team. Understand that Red wanted Russell to stay focused more on his rebounding and outlet passing instead of his shooting.

Also back in college, when his coach wasn't pigeonholing him on a defensive and rebounding role, Bill was scoring 20ppg on 52 FG%.


Conclusion: The Reason for Russell's low PPG in the NBA was Russell was given very few opportunities to score (13 FGA)

Reason for Russell's low FG% in the NBA: The physical style of play of his era and the subsequent neglect of his offensive game to focus more on his defensive and rebounding role for the team.

[triangleoffense]

IMO Kareem is the GOAT, but Russell also has a strong case. 11 rings and 5 MVPs speaks for its self.

Honestly assigning an arbitrary criteria that the top players must be an offensive threat is just naive. I guess this shows the prevailing stat hog mentality and double standards of today's fans. Magic averaged less than 20 PPG, is he worthy to be put in the top 10? John Stockton only averaged 13 PPG is he worthy to be included in the top 15-20?

People put way too much stock on an individuals scoring stats to determine their greatness, especially when such scoring stats (and stats in general) don't tell a complete picture of the player's contributions.

Jordan has just as many accomplishments as Kareem does, and then some. And this is all with a weaker team, a lesser hall of fame player (Magic compared to Pippen), and with lesser 3rd/4th option players (Worthy/Cooper/McDoo compared to Rodman/Oakley/Kukoc) This is all for an organization that has never won a title before he came to town (way harder to bring a team that has never won a championship over the hump). This is all not considering that Kareem is at a more impact-full position (center) as far as playoff winning goes compared to Jordan's (guard).

Jordan also played way better defense on quicker, faster athletes. (See Gary Payton)

[ThaRegul8r]

Jordan has just as many accomplishments as Kareem does, and then some. And this is all with a weaker team, a lesser hall of fame player (Magic compared to Pippen), and with lesser 3rd/4th option players (Worthy/Cooper/McDoo compared to Rodman/Oakley/Kukoc)

He had a weaker team because with expansion he was facing weaker teams. You didn't have to face teams with lineups like Magic/Kareem/Worthy/Scott/Cooper, or Bird/McHale/Parish/DJ/Ainge/Walton, or Moses/J/Toney/Cheeks/Jones, so you didn't need that kind of team to win. Less teams = talent being more concentrated than spread out = stronger teams. Let's not neglect to mention that when talking about teams. That's why the Bulls don't stack up historically, but they were good enough to win in the era they played, which is all that matters. You can only beat who's in front of you. It's only in cross-era comparisons where this then becomes an issue.

[Papaya Petee]

There's like two guys on ISH who consider him in the GOAT discussion. Everyone else has him 5th at best...

[Yung D-Will]

There's like two guys on ISH who consider him in the GOAT discussion. Everyone else has him 5th at best...


What?

Where have you been? In fact the people who don't have Bill Russell in their top four are in the very Small minority here.

[SinJackal]

There's like two guys on ISH who consider him in the GOAT discussion. Everyone else has him 5th at best...

I have him 4th behind Wilt, Kareem, and MJ. A strong 4th at that, and I wouldn't debate anyone that had him 2nd or 3rd tbh.. High basketball IQ, changed the game, great rebounder, great defender. Scoring isn't everything. Let's not act like he was Dennis Rodman, the guy scored 15+ a game, not 2-4 a game, and averaged 20+ reb a game in almost every season.

The guy was great.

[Papaya Petee]

What?

Where have you been? In fact the people who don't have Bill Russell in their top four are in the very Small minority here.

Guess were a small minority then. No way in hell Bill Russell is a better basketball player then Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Bird, or Shaq.

Scoring the basketball is still the most pertinent thing in basketball, the team with more points wins the games, not the team with the most rebounds, blocked shots, or most outlet passes. Yes he's the GOAT winner, but not the GOAT player.


I have him 4th behind Wilt, Kareem, and MJ. A strong 4th at that, and I wouldn't debate anyone that had him 2nd or 3rd tbh.. High basketball IQ, changed the game, great rebounder, great defender. Scoring isn't everything. Let's not act like he was Dennis Rodman, the guy scored 15+ a game, not 2-4 a game, and averaged 20+ reb a game in almost every season.

The guy was great.

Was he a better individual player then Bird or Shaq too? More team success, but those two guys were individually more dominant then Russell.

[SinJackal]

Maybe so, but Russel was the ultimate "team player".

Is there nothing to be said for that?

[Papaya Petee]

Maybe so, but Russel was the ultimate "team player".

Is there nothing to be said for that?
Absolutely not, Russell is the GOAT winner and team player.

[Rendezvous32]

There's like two guys on ISH who consider him in the GOAT discussion. Everyone else has him 5th at best...
Quite clear you don't have much of a clue.

[ThaRegul8r]

Scoring the basketball is still the most pertinent thing in basketball, the team with more points wins the games

The team that holds the opposing team to fewer points than them wins.

[ThaRegul8r]

There's like two guys on ISH who consider him in the GOAT discussion. Everyone else has him 5th at best...

Herd mentality. It's like people take comfort in however many people think like them, because the number of people who believe something obviously equates with correctness. :rolleyes: Argumentum ad populum is one of the most common fallacies.

And like ISH—with the exception of an all-too-few—is some repository of basketball knowledge. :rolleyes:

[SinJackal]

The team that holds the opposing team to fewer points than them wins.

He'd rather own or cheer for the Warriors than the Spurs.

If your team only scores 90 points a game, that's better than scoring 100 a game if you give up only 85 points as opposed to 105. :facepalm

I guess he doesn't realize this.

[Papaya Petee]

He'd rather own or cheer for the Warriors than the Spurs.

If your team only scores 90 points a game, that's better than scoring 100 a game if you give up only 85 points as opposed to 105. :facepalm

I guess he doesn't realize this.
Did anyone say defense is not important :facepalm Holy shit.

The hardest thing to do in all of basketball is score. It's a proven fact. Players like Carmelo Anthony will always be better then players like Shane Battier.

Every aspect of basketball is important, just scoring is the most important. Russell had all the other things to become the GOAT, but he lacked scoring, which is extremely important, that's why players like Jordan, Wilt, or Kareem are considered better then him...

[iamgine]

[QUOTE=Pointguard]Bill Russell was a great winner but lets look a little deeper. Greatest of All time might be a too high of designation. I

[SinJackal]

Did anyone say defense is not important :facepalm Holy shit.

The hardest thing to do in all of basketball is score. It's a proven fact. Players like Carmelo Anthony will always be better then players like Shane Battier.

Every aspect of basketball is important, just scoring is the most important. Russell had all the other things to become the GOAT, but he lacked scoring, which is extremely important, that's why players like Jordan, Wilt, or Kareem are considered better then him...

You imply it by saying scoring is the most important aspect of basketball.

Yes, Carmello is better than Battier, so? You're bringing up a superstar player vs a borderline roleplayer.

Compare a star scorer to a player who plays great D' and still scores pretty well, and it's a more accurate comparison. Don't compare a superstar scorer to a guy who doesn't score much but plays good D'.

For example, Manu Ginobili vs Joe Johnson. JJ scores better, but Ginobili plays good D', leading many fans to rate Ginobili over JJ. Or a more fitting comparison, Ginobili vs Crawford. Both score really well and about the same PPG, but Ginobili blows him out of the water defensively, making him a far greater asset to have on the floor than Crawford is.

[jlauber]

I can understand those that did not grow up in the Russell era minimizing his career based on his offensive stats. Up until a year ago I was ripping him, myself, and I grew up in that era (although I have always had him in MY top-5.)

And, I'll be honest, I have looked at the numbers, and read many books on the subject, and I couldn't see a case for DiMaggio over Williams, either. Yet, talk to the generation that saw the two play (if you can still find anyone who actually saw them play.) In my limited experience, such as my own father, and his friends...to a man, they would have taken DiMaggio. Maybe the fact that DiMaggio played on nine World Series winners is the reason...I don't know. Incidently, I read Halborstam's book, 'The Summer of '49' (a GREAT read BTW), and while he doesn't come right out with it...I got the impression that, he too, would have taken Joe.

Anyway...that is for a discussion on another forum. My only point being that, DiMaggio won an MVP in a season in which Williams hit .406. Why? What did those people who actually WITNESSED that season see, that we can't from the numbers?

What does that have to do with this topic? Well, Russell was almost universally accepted by his teammates, his coach, his opposing players and coaches...his peers...and the media alike, as the greatest player of his era. I didn't agree with it then, and I still have a difficult time believing it now...except that, in a TEAM game, no one played better. How do I know that? He won with GREAT teams (as many as SEVEN other HOF players.) He won with very good teams, (e.g., the '65-66 Celtics, who finished one game behind Philly, and then blew them out in the playoffs.) And he won with, arguably, only a "good" team (his last year, a team that finished 4th and with a 48-34 record.)

And when I say that HE won, obviously it was his TEAM that won. BUT, what was interesting about all of those rings, was the fact, that, again, to a man, his teammates credited HIM for those titles. Don't get me wrong...without Sam Jones, they probably don't win at least two titles (two miraculous shots.) Without Hondo, they might not have won in '65 ("Havlicek stole the ball!)" And, of course, most ALL of his teammates contributed heavily. In fact, I have been on record as saying that S. Jones and Havlicek probably would have been among the league's best scorers had they played on other teams. However, neither would have the ten and eight rings that they have now.

I, and other's, have pointed out just how "clutch" Russell was. In his ten game seven's, he averaged 18 ppg and 29 rpg. He had a game seven in which he put up a 30-40 game. He had a clinching game six win in which he put up a 30-38 game. He had a Finals in which he averaged 18 ppg, 29 rpg, and shot a staggering .702 from the floor (yes, the same Russell that could not shoot.) He also had a Finals, in which he LED his team in scoring, at 23.6 ppg. Regul8r has posted many other GREAT games, and SERIES, as well, so hopefully he will throw them in here, as well.

However, Russell's true IMPACT was at the defensive end. And, unfortunately, we have no real way of measuring his overall impact. I can show you examples of him limiting Chamberlain's numbers. In Wilt's historic 61-62 season, he averaged 50.4 ppg on .506 shooting. In the regular season, and against Russell, he averaged 38 ppg on .471 shooting. But, even more importantly, in the playoffs, he held Wilt to 33 ppg. In Wilt's monumental '67 season, Chamberlain averaged 24.1 ppg on .683 shooting. In the regular season, he averaged 20.3 ppg on .549 shooting against Russell. In the post-season, in which Wilt played brilliantly, his numbers were still less... 21.6 ppg on .556 shooting. In Russell's last season, he held Wilt to 10.7 ppg in the Finals, in a year in which Chamberlain averaged 20.5.

And those are against arguably the greatest offensive player of all-time. On top of that, those are INDIVIDUAL defensive statistics. How about his effect on opposing TEAM's? His shot-blocking was only a small part of the story. It was his ability to get to mseemingly impossible shot attempts that INTIMIDATED opponents. Watch YouTube footage...players would hestitate, or not shoot at all, waiting for Russell to spring. He also "cheated" to the side of his teammates who were at an individual disadvantage, and covered for their weaknesses.

How about his relentless rebounding? How many times did his efforts limit opposing team's to ONE shot? And conversely, how many times did he tip the ball to a teammate at the offensive end, which gave them another opportunity? And how many points came from his quick outlet passes? And think about this...how many times were his teammates able to gamble more on defense, or take off earlier on the break, just knowing that Russell was back there? None of that shows up in the stats.

In 1980 the Professional Basketball Writers Association voted him as "The Greatest Player in the History of the NBA."

Why? What did Russell's peers and the media at the time see that, we can't some 30-40-50 years later?

BTW, the NBA Finals MVP Award is named in his honor.

[SinJackal]

I can understand those that did not grow up in the Russell era minimizing his career based on his offensive stats. Up until a year ago I was ripping him, myself, and I grew up in that era (although I have always had him in MY top-5.)

And, I'll be honest, I have looked at the numbers, and read many books on the subject, and I couldn't see a case for DiMaggio over Williams, either. Yet, talk to the generation that saw the two play (if you can still find anyone who actually saw them play.) In my limited experience, such as my own father, and his friends...to a man, they would have taken DiMaggio. Maybe the fact that DiMaggio played on nine World Series winners is the reason...I don't know. Incidently, I read Halborstam's book, 'The Summer of '49' (a GREAT read BTW), and while he doesn't come right out with it...I got the impression that, he too, would have taken Joe.

Anyway...that is for a discussion on another forum. My only point being that, DiMaggio won an MVP in a season in which Williams hit .406. Why? What did those people who actually WITNESSED that season see, that we can't from the numbers?

What does that have to do with this topic? Well, Russell was almost universally accepted by his teammates, his coach, his opposing players and coaches...his peers...and the media alike, as the greatest player of his era. I didn't agree with it then, and I still have a difficult time believing it now...except that, in a TEAM game, no one played better. How do I know that? He won with GREAT teams (as many as SEVEN other HOF players.) He won with very good teams, (e.g., the '65-66 Celtics, who finished one game behind Philly, and then blew them out in the playoffs.) And he won with, arguably, only a "good" team (his last year, a team that finished 4th and with a 48-34 record.)

And when I say that HE won, obviously it was his TEAM that won. BUT, what was interesting about all of those rings, was the fact, that, again, to a man, his teammates credited HIM for those titles. Don't get me wrong...without Sam Jones, they probably don't win at least two titles (two miraculous shots.) Without Hondo, they might not have won in '65 ("Havlicek stole the ball!)" And, of course, most ALL of his teammates contributed heavily. In fact, I have been on record as saying that S. Jones and Havlicek probably would have been among the league's best scorers had they played on other teams. However, neither would have the ten and eight rings that they have now.

I, and other's, have pointed out just how "clutch" Russell was. In his ten game seven's, he averaged 18 ppg and 29 rpg. He had a game seven in which he put up a 30-40 game. He had a clinching game six win in which he put up a 30-38 game. He had a Finals in which he averaged 18 ppg, 29 rpg, and shot a staggering .702 from the floor (yes, the same Russell that could not shoot.) He also had a Finals, in which he LED his team in scoring, at 23.6 ppg. Regul8r has posted many other GREAT games, and SERIES, as well, so hopefully he will throw them in here, as well.

However, Russell's true IMPACT was at the defensive end. And, unfortunately, we have no real way of measuring his overall impact. I can show you examples of him limiting Chamberlain's numbers. In Wilt's historic 61-62 season, he averaged 50.4 ppg on .506 shooting. In the regular season, and against Russell, he averaged 38 ppg on .471 shooting. But, even more importantly, in the playoffs, he held Wilt to 33 ppg. In Wilt's monumental '67 season, Chamberlain averaged 24.1 ppg on .683 shooting. In the regular season, he averaged 20.3 ppg on .549 shooting against Russell. In the post-season, in which Wilt played brilliantly, his numbers were still less... 21.6 ppg on .556 shooting. In Russell's last season, he held Wilt to 10.7 ppg in the Finals, in a year in which Chamberlain averaged 20.5.

And those are against arguably the greatest offensive player of all-time. On top of that, those are INDIVIDUAL defensive statistics. How about his effect on opposing TEAM's? His shot-blocking was only a small part of the story. It was his ability to get to mseemingly impossible shot attempts that INTIMIDATED opponents. Watch YouTube footage...players would hestitate, or not shoot at all, waiting for Russell to spring. He also "cheated" to the side of his teammates who were at an individual disadvantage, and covered for their weaknesses.

How about his relentless rebounding? How many times did his efforts limit opposing team's to ONE shot? And conversely, how many times did he tip the ball to a teammate at the offensive end, which gave them another opportunity? And how many points came from his quick outlet passes? And think about this...how many times were his teammates able to gamble more on defense, or take off earlier on the break, just knowing that Russell was back there? None of that shows up in the stats.

In 1980 the Professional Basketball Writers Association voted him as "The Greatest Player in the History of the NBA."

Why? What did Russell's peers and the media at the time see that, we can't some 30-40-50 years later?

BTW, the NBA Finals MVP Award is named in his honor.

Great post. I'm actually repping jlauber for the first time for that.

[97 bulls]

Did anyone say defense is not important :facepalm Holy shit.

The hardest thing to do in all of basketball is score. It's a proven fact. Players like Carmelo Anthony will always be better then players like Shane Battier.

Every aspect of basketball is important, just scoring is the most important. Russell had all the other things to become the GOAT, but he lacked scoring, which is extremely important, that's why players like Jordan, Wilt, or Kareem are considered better then him...
Actually, the hardest thing to do in basketball is play man defense. And your example of battier and anthony is a terrible one. Battiere is good at one thing and that's man defense. Anthony is a versitle offensive player. A guy that's comparable offensively to battier would be a guy that is a good shooter. Not scorer but a good shooter. Or a guy that can drive to the basket only. In essence, a one dimentioal player.

[Yung D-Will]

In before Julbar and G.O.A.T rape this thread
:eek:

[97 bulls]

You imply it by saying scoring is the most important aspect of basketball.

Yes, Carmello is better than Battier, so? You're bringing up a superstar player vs a borderline roleplayer.

Compare a star scorer to a player who plays great D' and still scores pretty well, and it's a more accurate comparison. Don't compare a superstar scorer to a guy who doesn't score much but plays good D'.

For example, Manu Ginobili vs Joe Johnson. JJ scores better, but Ginobili plays good D', leading many fans to rate Ginobili over JJ. Or a more fitting comparison, Ginobili vs Crawford. Both score really well and about the same PPG, but Ginobili blows him out of the water defensively, making him a far greater asset to have on the floor than Crawford is.
I would say you can compare a versitle defender to a great scorer. Like dikimbe mutombo. Id say he's the defensive equal to carmellos scoring ability.

[97 bulls]

I also often wonder why magic doesn't get knocked foe being a relatively terrible defender. Bill russel and magic johnson are the one the same level in my oipion. Its just that one plays offense great and the other plays defense great. Both won a hell of a lot.

[jlauber]

I also often wonder why magic doesn't get knocked foe being a relatively terrible defender. Bill russel and magic johnson are the one the same level in my oipion. Its just that one plays offense great and the other plays defense great. Both won a hell of a lot.

Because Magic was NOT a bad defender. Maybe not a great one, but the man was 6-8. He even led the NBA in steals a couple of years, too. And he was one of the best rebounding PG's in NBA history. And, when he got a defensive rebound, he was likely going coast-to-coast. Finally, he made his teammates much better, as well.

[Desperado]

What players in the top 50 would not win consistently with 3 or 4 HOFers

So your saying Russell only won because he had talented teammates?

- Boston had never even been to the Finals before Bill Russell. Despite having multiple HOF players and a HOF coach.

- During the 1962 season, Russell took himself out for 4 games and the Celtics lost 4 straight games even with Cousy, Sharman, Jones, Ramsey and other HoF's.

- In the 1969 season he took himself out for 5 games due to injury and Boston lost 5 straight games even with Hall of famers Jones, Hondo, Howell and Sanders

The occurrences that I mentioned are the worst losing streaks of the Russell-era Celtics. The latter is the worst losing streak of the Celtics since Red Auerbach took over the helm.

After he retired, Boston went from 48 wins to 34 and they didn't make the playoffs despite having several HOF players. An abysmal 14 game drop off. Compare that to Jordan who a lot of people consider the undisputed greatest and the most valuable player ever.

After Jordan retired in '93 the Bulls only had a 2 game drop off. (57 wins to 55). Hell, if it wasn't for one of the most controversial phantom foul calls ever, the Bulls would've been in the ECF. It would've been a huge blow to Jordan's prestige and importance seeing the team that he left behind reach the conference finals. And no the post-98 Bulls doesn't count since it was a virtual restructuring of the Bulls with Jordan, Pippen, Rodman and Phil Jackson all going out.

And the modest 48 wins that the Celtics garnered during the '69 season is the lowest number of wins that the Celtics have during the Russell -era and occurred only because Russell spent a lot of time on the injured list and/or recovering.

Boston with an "All-Star" cast like that should be able to shake off his departure and continue the dynasty, but they couldn't.

He has 5 rings without Cousy and 5 without Hondo and 2 without coach Auerbach. 3 without KC and Heinsohn, 2 of which came as a player/coach.


Bill made HOF players out of his teammates. He had a good cast because he was the one making them look good. He was the one constant in Boston's dynasty.

[jlauber]

Incidently, I happen to respect Pointguard's opinions. In this case, I just happen to disagree. The same applies to ShaqAttack, as well. I may not always agree with him, or other's on this forum, but I will always respect him.

In fact, I have found myself agreeing and disagreeing with the opinions of many here. I think that is a good thing. Hopefully we are all learning something from these discussions. I know that I have. Otherwise, it would really be a big waste of time.

[jlauber]

So your saying Russell only won because he had talented teammates?

- Boston had never even been to the Finals before Bill Russell. Despite having multiple HOF players and a HOF coach.

- During the 1962 season, Russell took himself out for 4 games and the Celtics lost 4 straight games even with Cousy, Sharman, the Joneses, Ramsey and other HoF's.

- In the 1969 season he took himself out for 5 games due to injury and Boston lost 5 straight games even with Hall of famers Jones, Hondo, Howell and Sanders

The occurrences that I mentioned are the worst losing streaks of the Russell-era Celtics. The latter is the worst losing streak of the Celtics since Red Auerbach took over the helm.

After he retired, Boston went from 48 wins to 34 and they didn't make the playoffs despite having several HOF players. An abysmal 14 game drop off. Compare that to Jordan who a lot of people consider the undisputed greatest and the most valuable player ever.

After Jordan retired in '93 the Bulls only had a only a 2 game drop off. (57 wins to 55). Hell, if it wasn't for one of them most controversial phantom foul calls ever, the Bulls would've been in the ECF. It would've been a huge blow to Jordan's prestige and importance seeing the team that he left behind reach the conference finals. And no the post-98 Bulls doesn't count since it was a virtual restructuring of the Bulls with Jordan, Pippen, Rodman and Phil Jackson all going out.

And the modest 48 wins that the Celtics garnered during the '69 season is the lowest number of wins that the Celtics have during the Russell -era and occurred only because Russell spent a lot of time on the injured list and/or recovering.

Boston with an "All-Star" cast like that should be able to shake off his departure and continue the dynasty, but they couldn't.

He has 5 rings without Cousy and 5 without Hondo and 2 without coach Auerbach. 3 without KC and Heinsohn, 2 of which came as a player/coach.


Bill made HOF players out of his teammates. He had a good cast because he was the one making them look good. He was the one constant in Boston's dynasty.

Outstanding post!

:cheers:

[Pointguard]

IMO Kareem is the GOAT, but Russell also has a strong case. 11 rings and 5 MVPs speaks for its self.

Honestly assigning an arbitrary criteria that the top players must be an offensive threat is just naive. I guess this shows the prevailing stat hog mentality and double standards of today's fans. Magic averaged less than 20 PPG, is he worthy to be put in the top 10? John Stockton only averaged 13 PPG is he worthy to be included in the top 15-20?
You say Naive? I think that you eliminating Magic is naive. Bringing up Stockton is also Naive. They were primarily offensive players if you haven't noticed. You couldn't back up off of Stockton either. But to say guys with complete games (Duncan, Chamberlain, Hakeem) and similiar defensive games should concede that Russel is better is the argument.


People put way too much stock on an individuals scoring stats to determine their greatness, especially when such scoring stats (and stats in general) don't tell a complete picture of the player's contributions.
Read the whole post. Scoring is one item.

[97 bulls]

Because Magic was NOT a bad defender. Maybe not a great one, but the man was 6-8. He even led the NBA in steals a couple of years, too. And he was one of the best rebounding PG's in NBA history. And, when he got a defensive rebound, he was likely going coast-to-coast. Finally, he made his teammates much better, as well.
Magic WAS a bad defender. He got a lot of steals due to gamblng which put his defense out of position. I remember mychal thompson saying on the radio that magic was a bad defender.

[Papaya Petee]

You imply it by saying scoring is the most important aspect of basketball.

Yes, Carmello is better than Battier, so? You're bringing up a superstar player vs a borderline roleplayer.

Compare a star scorer to a player who plays great D' and still scores pretty well, and it's a more accurate comparison. Don't compare a superstar scorer to a guy who doesn't score much but plays good D'.

For example, Manu Ginobili vs Joe Johnson. JJ scores better, but Ginobili plays good D', leading many fans to rate Ginobili over JJ. Or a more fitting comparison, Ginobili vs Crawford. Both score really well and about the same PPG, but Ginobili blows him out of the water defensively, making him a far greater asset to have on the floor than Crawford is.

Yeah, too bad you're comparing basically even scorers. Johnson and Manu are. Russell isn't nowhere near the scorer that Jordan, Bird, Shaq, Kareem, Wilt, Kobe. etc. etc. are. However he has the defensive edge on his side.

Just like Battier is nowhere near the scorer is, and Carmelo is nowhere near the defender Battier is, who's the better player? Exactly.

[Pointguard]

Conclusion: The Reason for Russell's low PPG in the NBA was Russell was given very few opportunities to score (13 FGA)

Reason for Russell's low FG% in the NBA: The physical style of play of his era and the subsequent neglect of his offensive game to focus more on his defensive and rebounding role for the team.
Well said. It does speak of how much support he has in the same sweep. Nobody else in the top ten was a third and fourth option. So he's a different story.

[Pointguard]

Jordan has just as many accomplishments as Kareem does, and then some. And this is all with a weaker team, a lesser hall of fame player (Magic compared to Pippen), and with lesser 3rd/4th option players (Worthy/Cooper/McDoo compared to Rodman/Oakley/Kukoc) This is all for an organization that has never won a title before he came to town (way harder to bring a team that has never won a championship over the hump). This is all not considering that Kareem is at a more impact-full position (center) as far as playoff winning goes compared to Jordan's (guard).

Jordan also played way better defense on quicker, faster athletes. (See Gary Payton)
Ha!!! I thought I wrote this? Agreed!!!

[creamanshrimp]

if bill russel is the goat then ben wallace is the goat. ben wallace was a better player then russa

[SinJackal]

Yeah, too bad you're comparing basically even scorers. Johnson and Manu are. Russell isn't nowhere near the scorer that Jordan, Bird, Shaq, Kareem, Wilt, Kobe. etc. etc. are. However he has the defensive edge on his side.

Just like Battier is nowhere near the scorer is, and Carmelo is nowhere near the defender Battier is, who's the better player? Exactly.

JJ and Manu aren't even scorers unless you're talking about per minute. And regardless, even if they were "even scorers", it's a good example because the one who plays D' is better.

The point is that defense is clearly very important, and sets players apart from eachother. Again, Crawford vs Ginobili. Similar points per minute, and yet Ginobili blows him out of the water in impact because he plays great D'.

Obviously a superstar scorer with an all around game is better than an 8 PPG defender who's main purpose is just defense. Not a fair comparison.

Russel scored half as much as Wilt (overall), but as jlauber already said, held Wilt's scoring down when they played while doing his own thing. The points he takes away from Wilt should go towards his net total of scoring. Making a guy miss (for example) 3 shots more than usual drops the opposing team's scoring by 6 points total. In other words, his team would've needed 6 less points to win. . .as if he scored an 8 point basket for one of his FGs.

I realize that's a weird analogy, but that's basically the impact defense can have. That's why guys like Duncan, Howard, etc, are such important players. Putting the ball into the basket isn't the only way a player can put an impact on the game score.

[jlip]

The following is a list of quotes from players and coaches regarding how they saw Russell while he was playing. Keep in mind that these quotes were made DURING his career. They are not statements made 20 or 30 years after he retired by old guys trying to boost up the legacy of a player of their generation.

[I]

[ThaRegul8r]

[QUOTE=jlip]The following is a list of quotes from players and coaches regarding how they saw Russell while he was playing. Keep in mind that these quotes were made DURING his career. They are not statements made 20 or 30 years after he retired by old guys trying to boost up the legacy of a player of their generation.

[I]

[Pointguard]

However, Russell's true IMPACT was at the defensive end. And, unfortunately, we have no real way of measuring his overall impact. I can show you examples of him limiting Chamberlain's numbers. In Wilt's historic 61-62 season, he averaged 50.4 ppg on .506 shooting. In the regular season, and against Russell, he averaged 38 ppg on .471 shooting. But, even more importantly, in the playoffs, he held Wilt to 33 ppg. In Wilt's monumental '67 season, Chamberlain averaged 24.1 ppg on .683 shooting. In the regular season, he averaged 20.3 ppg on .549 shooting against Russell. In the post-season, in which Wilt played brilliantly, his numbers were still less... 21.6 ppg on .556 shooting. In Russell's last season, he held Wilt to 10.7 ppg in the Finals, in a year in which Chamberlain averaged 20.5. In the video provided by ShaqAttack it wasn't great defense that always held Chamberlain down. Chamberlain aparently had head issues. I seen other videos of Chamberlain and I can't believe it was the same guy. Chamberlain looked like Gilligan on Gilligan's island in that video. In fact both of them looked very ordinary.


In 1980 the Professional Basketball Writers Association voted him as "The Greatest Player in the History of the NBA."

Why? What did Russell's peers and the media at the time see that, we can't some 30-40-50 years later?

BTW, the NBA Finals MVP Award is named in his honor.
He should be on the Logo. I love his team play and defense. No questions there.

[Pointguard]

In before Julbar and G.O.A.T rape this thread

I did it for GOAT. Neither one seem like rapist tho.

[jlauber]

In the video provided by ShaqAttack it wasn't great defense that always held Chamberlain down. Chamberlain aparently had head issues. I seen other videos of Chamberlain and I can't believe it was the same guy. Chamberlain looked like Gilligan on Gilligan's island in that video. In fact both of them looked very ordinary.
He should be on the Logo. I love his team play and defense. No questions there.

To be fair to Wilt, Chamberlain had his share of dominating performances against Russell. And Wilt, for whatever reasons, was held to a higher standard than any other player in the history of the game.

In fact, I won't take the time to look it up, but I believe it was in a video interview, but even Cousy made the comment that, had Wilt played with even one-third of the intensity that Russell did, that he would have been unstoppable.

And, in Wilt's finest season, in 66-67, he absolutely buried Russell and the Celtics. Had Wilt played that way his entire career, I have no doubt that he would have had five, or more, rings.

And, I will even add this... many, at the time, compared Wilt's play in the 71-72 season, to a prime Russell. I would agree, except to say that, he played BETTER, that season, than Russell ever did. He was an "efficient" Russell that season. And he was also as "clutch" as he had ever been. In the big games, particularly in the clinching game six of the WCF's, and against Kareem, and then in the clinching game five of the Finals, he was at his best.

[Pointguard]

So your saying Russell only won because he had talented teammates?

- Boston had never even been to the Finals before Bill Russell. Despite having multiple HOF players and a HOF coach.

- During the 1962 season, Russell took himself out for 4 games and the Celtics lost 4 straight games even with Cousy, Sharman, the Joneses, Ramsey and other HoF's.
I Have NO QUESTION in my mind that if Jordan had three other players on his team that could outscore him over the course of the year, there is no way he looses more than 7 games a year. If he has 3 other Hall of Famers maybe he looses 5 games a year. The title would not be a question.



Boston with an "All-Star" cast like that should be able to shake off his departure and continue the dynasty, but they couldn't.

Bill made HOF players out of his teammates. He had a good cast because he was the one making them look good. He was the one constant in Boston's dynasty.
It was a two way street. They made him look good as well. He didn't have the burden of worrying about scoring which is unlike anybody else mentioned for GOAT.

[ThaRegul8r]

I Have NO QUESTION in my mind that if Jordan had three other players on his team that could outscore him over the course of the year, there is no way he looses more than 7 games a year.

:lol

Never on earth would Jordan allow one

[ThaRegul8r]

If he has 3 other Hall of Famers maybe he looses 5 games a year.

Pippen, Rodman and Parish in '96-97?

How many games they lose?

[jlauber]

Let me ask you this...

If Russell had averaged 25 ppg over his career, and only played on say, five title teams, would people think more highly of him?

[ThaRegul8r]

Let me ask you this...

If Russell had averaged 25 ppg over his career, and only played on say, five title teams, would people think more highly of him?

Yep.

[Poochymama]

Let me ask you this...

If Russell had averaged 25 ppg over his career, and only played on say, five title teams, would people think more highly of him?

Without a doubt, since winning has more to do with how good you're teammates are then how good you are.

[ThaRegul8r]

It was a two way street. They made him look good as well. He didn't have the burden of worrying about scoring which is unlike anybody else mentioned for GOAT.

Not like Jordan had people to take the defensive burden off him so he could conserve energy for offense, right? So he wouldn't have to focus on it like a Russell did? Or, to keep it to a historical peer at his position, a Jerry West? Think West wouldn't like the luxury of playing with someone who some call the greatest perimeter defender in NBA history?

[Poochymama]

Let me ask you this...

If Russell had averaged 25 ppg over his career, and only played on say, five title teams, would people think more highly of him?

If Russell did this, I'd rank him above Wilt for sure as opposed to the other way around, as I have them now.

Think about it.

That's only 5 less ppg than Wilt, while being a much better defender than Wilt(even though Wilt was great) and winning more.

[jlauber]

Yep.

You might be right. Speaks rather poorly of the sport's public don't you think?
After all, the MAIN purpose of a sporting event, is to win. Russell's ENTIRE game was founded on winning, and not statistical achievements.

In fact, I don't think he would even care about this topic, one way, or the other. It didn't matter to him where he ranked on any list. What mattered to him was to find enough fingers for all those rings.

[Poochymama]

Not like Jordan had people to take the defensive burden off him so he could conserve energy for offense, right? So he wouldn't have to focus on it like a Russell did? Or, to keep it to a historical peer at his position, a Jerry West? Think West wouldn't like the luxury of playing with someone who some call the greatest perimeter defender in NBA history?

Except Jordan never even came close to conserving energy on the defensive end. Jordan was always one of the best defenders in the league and even won a DPOY.

While he may have had the opportunity to slack on defense, he never did, quite the opposite in fact.

[jlauber]

Without a doubt, since winning has more to do with how good you're teammates are then how good you are.

I do agree with you somewhat on this. If you have lousy teammates, in a TEAM game, chances are, you are not going to win, no matter how great the individual effort. I still marvel at MJ's 63 point OT playoff game, when he took a group of misfits, and nearly beat a Celtic team at the height of their greatness, and with FIVE HOFers.

Having said that, though, Russell won with a variety of teams, and teammates. He even won with teams that were not the most talented, nor were they the best in the league.

[Desperado]

Except Jordan never even came close to conserving energy on the defensive end. Jordan was always one of the best defenders in the league and even won a DPOY.

While he may have had the opportunity to slack on defense, he never did, quite the opposite in fact.

http://airjudden2.tripod.com/jordan/defense.htm

[Poochymama]

http://airjudden2.tripod.com/jordan/defense.htm


Lol, most retarded and biased article I've ever read. What's your point?

[ThaRegul8r]

Except Jordan never even came close to conserving energy on the defensive end. Jordan was always one of the best defenders in the league and even won a DPOY.

He didn't win anything until he got arguably the GOAT perimeter defender, am I right? Do I remember this correctly? Makes things a lot easier, which leaves more energy for offense.


While he may have had the opportunity to slack on defense, he never did, quite the opposite in fact.

Been over a decade since I last saw the game, but his last game as a Bull, he had 45 points on 15-for-35 shooting, and like 1 rebound and 1 assist, correct? Wasn't until the end when he was getting steals, because he was conserving energy. Of course there was the strip that set up the last shot. But of course, he's Michael Jordan, so offense is what everyone focuses on. But... 1 rebound and 1 assist? Haven't people criticized Kobe for having big-scoring games without low-to-no rebounds or assists? Good to have that luxury unlike other GOAT candidates, right? Playing with arguably the GOAT perimeter defender and one of the GOAT rebounders?

And don't even pretend for a minute: Michael Jordan is who he is for his offense—i.e., SCORING. If he didn't average 30 for his career, no one would be talking about him the way they do. You and everyone else value his offense first, and would take it over his defense 100/100 times. Defense is only a bonus. Everything which causes people to try to "be like Mike" would still be there without it.

[SinJackal]

http://airjudden2.tripod.com/jordan/defense.htm

Rofl@this newb who posts an article on a tripod site like it proves something.

I stopped reading after it said Jordan "got old" after 1988.

tripod site = automatic fail.

Going to post some random fan's opinon off some angelfire site next? :facepalm

[Desperado]

Rofl@this newb who posts an article on a tripod site like it proves something.

I stopped reading after it said Jordan "got old" after 1988.

tripod site = automatic fail.

Going to post some random fan's opinon off some angelfire site next? :facepalm


I never claimed that he got old after 1988. I had no problem with his first 6 defensive first team selections, however after that he was vastly overrated on defense.

[Pointguard]

It is also quite interesting that the OP cites Russell's lack of dominant scoring as the primary factor for keeping him out of the GOAT discussion.
I said that and several other things and you are choosing one small thing out of many. Who in the GOAT discussion had the luxury of consistingly being the 4th highest scorer? That whole perspective says a lot. Then you hear Russell say things like I would conserve myself for the end of the game. Wow, he was in limo while everybody else was in a hooptie.

I do not have to get quotes on Jordan. He played against most of the top 10. He is the primary reason they are not up for GOAT. I remember getting hyped and thinking yeah, Malone and Stockton were going to get him. They were demolished like everybody else.


The irony comes from the fact that 4 of Russell's 5 MVP's came during the combined careers of Pettit, Baylor, Wilt, Oscar and West. From 1961 to 1965 those five players put up some of the best scoring seasons in NBA history, but the PLAYERS, not the hype obsessed media, yet voted Russell the leagues MVP. If one is thinking rationally he has to ask himself, "What is it that the players who faced Russell anywhere from 8-13 times a season saw in him that would warrant them voting him MVP time and time again despite his lack of scoring that I can't see 40 years later?

I frequently wonder why people leave KG off of their top list. I believe he was outstanding with his defense and in some years he was the most complete players as well. So yeah, I can appreciate players that do something novel and win from defense. The people who like Russell on other boards, never stepped up and said Wow, KG's 08 year was spectacular. Then I know its all a Russell game and a front.

With that said, this does not excuse Russ not improving offensively. His FG% is not acceptable for a taller, fast player that played it safe. He should have developed his game to be able to do something with resolve with the ball. He's the one on the list that didn't even had to do that. That's suggest a lot more than I can explain here. But safe to say he didn't have to develop a skill with the ball. Nor did he choose to do as much, which I have a major problem with. Basketball is a skilled sport. It's one thing to dominate with the ball and quite another to say someone is dominating without it. That is mystical. The fact that he wasn't proficient and didn't have to be is definitely more definitive. Still you have to outscore the opponent.

I am not giving GOAT to a person who looks insecure navigating with the ball. Imagine Pele not being able to leg dribble. Ali being akward with boxing gloves. Gretsky uncomfortable with the stick. What part of the game have Duncan, KG, Hakeem, Jordan, Kobe, Lebron, D Robinson have neglected. Heck, the better question is what part of game do they have the luxury of not developing?


Finally Russell was not a dominant scorer but he was a great offensive player. Offense in the context of team basketball is not just about you scoring. I would venture to say that the leading scorer is not always the most important player to the TEAM's offense. Not only was Russell's defense the catalyst to the Celtics' fast break, he is one of the best passing big men in the history of the game. (Wilt, Walton, Sabonis, and Kareem are up there also.) K.C. Jones became the Celtic's pg once Cousy retired, but a lot of the half court offense was actually run through Russell. He led the Celtics in assists during the '65, '66, and '67 playoffs. He was .2 apg off the lead in '69. In his 1977 autobiography entitled, Hondo: Celtic Man in Motion, Havlicek had this to say about Russell's importance to the Celtics offense after he retired and the Celtics immediately went from champs to a losing team that missed the playoffs...[I]

Russell was impactful on BOTH SIDES of the ball.
Was he as good as he could have been? Do you think MJ didn't try to improve every aspect of his game?

[Pointguard]

Not like Jordan had people to take the defensive burden off him so he could conserve energy for offense, right? So he wouldn't have to focus on it like a Russell did? Or, to keep it to a historical peer at his position, a Jerry West? Think West wouldn't like the luxury of playing with someone who some call the greatest perimeter defender in NBA history?

Jordan, didn't take off on defense. Opposing coaches would strategize by not even having the ball on his side of the court. It actually made him more restless. He became a better help defender.

[Pointguard]

Pippen, Rodman and Parish in '96-97?

How many games they lose?

Parrish??? Rodman and Pippen helped MJ attain the highest wins in league history.

[ThaRegul8r]

Parrish???

Is Robert Parish not a Hall of Famer?

Did Robert Parish not play for the Chicago Bulls in the 1996-97 season?


If he has 3 other Hall of Famers maybe he looses 5 games a year.

Jordan had 3 other Hall of Famers. Whether or not you remembered he was on the Bulls doesn't change the fact that Jordan played with 3 other Hall of Famers. Did they lose 5 games?

[Poochymama]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]





And don't even pretend for a minute: Michael Jordan is who he is for his offense

[Pointguard]

Is Robert Parish not a Hall of Famer?

Did Robert Parish not play for the Chicago Bulls in the 1996-97 season?

Jordan had 3 other Hall of Famers. Whether or not you remembered he was on the Bulls doesn't change the fact that Jordan played with 3 other Hall of Famers. Did they lose 5 games?
I honestly forgot that. But, half of season for Parrish with hughe disqualifiers (43 games) and 9 minutes per at 43 years old and would have retired if he had not gone to the Bulls. But they still had one of the best records ever. Dennis Rodman misses 26 games. 67 games to injury and useless games at the end of injury riddled season which might cover 9looses. Both Rodman and Parrish were playing center so... The argument is still open.

[Pointguard]

Except Jordan never even came close to conserving energy on the defensive end. Jordan was always one of the best defenders in the league and even won a DPOY.

While he may have had the opportunity to slack on defense, he never did, quite the opposite in fact.

Look at any game and Jordan was intense on both sides of the ball. Look at that recent clip here of Bill Russell vs Wilt. Russell was no where near as intense.

[Pointguard]

Great offense beats great defense - at least in Jordan's case.

[triangleoffense]

I can understand those that did not grow up in the Russell era minimizing his career based on his offensive stats. Up until a year ago I was ripping him, myself, and I grew up in that era (although I have always had him in MY top-5.)

And, I'll be honest, I have looked at the numbers, and read many books on the subject, and I couldn't see a case for DiMaggio over Williams, either. Yet, talk to the generation that saw the two play (if you can still find anyone who actually saw them play.) In my limited experience, such as my own father, and his friends...to a man, they would have taken DiMaggio. Maybe the fact that DiMaggio played on nine World Series winners is the reason...I don't know. Incidently, I read Halborstam's book, 'The Summer of '49' (a GREAT read BTW), and while he doesn't come right out with it...I got the impression that, he too, would have taken Joe.

Anyway...that is for a discussion on another forum. My only point being that, DiMaggio won an MVP in a season in which Williams hit .406. Why? What did those people who actually WITNESSED that season see, that we can't from the numbers?

What does that have to do with this topic? Well, Russell was almost universally accepted by his teammates, his coach, his opposing players and coaches...his peers...and the media alike, as the greatest player of his era. I didn't agree with it then, and I still have a difficult time believing it now...except that, in a TEAM game, no one played better. How do I know that? He won with GREAT teams (as many as SEVEN other HOF players.) He won with very good teams, (e.g., the '65-66 Celtics, who finished one game behind Philly, and then blew them out in the playoffs.) And he won with, arguably, only a "good" team (his last year, a team that finished 4th and with a 48-34 record.)

And when I say that HE won, obviously it was his TEAM that won. BUT, what was interesting about all of those rings, was the fact, that, again, to a man, his teammates credited HIM for those titles. Don't get me wrong...without Sam Jones, they probably don't win at least two titles (two miraculous shots.) Without Hondo, they might not have won in '65 ("Havlicek stole the ball!)" And, of course, most ALL of his teammates contributed heavily. In fact, I have been on record as saying that S. Jones and Havlicek probably would have been among the league's best scorers had they played on other teams. However, neither would have the ten and eight rings that they have now.

I, and other's, have pointed out just how "clutch" Russell was. In his ten game seven's, he averaged 18 ppg and 29 rpg. He had a game seven in which he put up a 30-40 game. He had a clinching game six win in which he put up a 30-38 game. He had a Finals in which he averaged 18 ppg, 29 rpg, and shot a staggering .702 from the floor (yes, the same Russell that could not shoot.) He also had a Finals, in which he LED his team in scoring, at 23.6 ppg. Regul8r has posted many other GREAT games, and SERIES, as well, so hopefully he will throw them in here, as well.

However, Russell's true IMPACT was at the defensive end. And, unfortunately, we have no real way of measuring his overall impact. I can show you examples of him limiting Chamberlain's numbers. In Wilt's historic 61-62 season, he averaged 50.4 ppg on .506 shooting. In the regular season, and against Russell, he averaged 38 ppg on .471 shooting. But, even more importantly, in the playoffs, he held Wilt to 33 ppg. In Wilt's monumental '67 season, Chamberlain averaged 24.1 ppg on .683 shooting. In the regular season, he averaged 20.3 ppg on .549 shooting against Russell. In the post-season, in which Wilt played brilliantly, his numbers were still less... 21.6 ppg on .556 shooting. In Russell's last season, he held Wilt to 10.7 ppg in the Finals, in a year in which Chamberlain averaged 20.5.

And those are against arguably the greatest offensive player of all-time. On top of that, those are INDIVIDUAL defensive statistics. How about his effect on opposing TEAM's? His shot-blocking was only a small part of the story. It was his ability to get to mseemingly impossible shot attempts that INTIMIDATED opponents. Watch YouTube footage...players would hestitate, or not shoot at all, waiting for Russell to spring. He also "cheated" to the side of his teammates who were at an individual disadvantage, and covered for their weaknesses.

How about his relentless rebounding? How many times did his efforts limit opposing team's to ONE shot? And conversely, how many times did he tip the ball to a teammate at the offensive end, which gave them another opportunity? And how many points came from his quick outlet passes? And think about this...how many times were his teammates able to gamble more on defense, or take off earlier on the break, just knowing that Russell was back there? None of that shows up in the stats.

In 1980 the Professional Basketball Writers Association voted him as "The Greatest Player in the History of the NBA."

Why? What did Russell's peers and the media at the time see that, we can't some 30-40-50 years later?

BTW, the NBA Finals MVP Award is named in his honor.

No one is denying any of those things but having him #1, to me, is an insult to Jordan that all that he has done. Jordan's resume is spotless, with all the accomplishments that you could want for a player, individually and as a team, on his resume. We could probably debate this topic to death but the main reasons why I'll always have Jordan at #1 is because of

1. the era he played in
2. the fact that he dominated as a guard, without an all-star center
3. impeccable resume (everything from MVP, FMVP, to DPOY)
4. his legendary moments on the biggest stage, televised to tenfold as many people as Russell's game 7's vs the Lakers/Philly.

[Pointguard]

In a game to 51 points One on One against Russell. Of course this is guess work and subjective.

Jordan. Russell gets 7 points on broken plays. If there is a bet Jordan can hold him to under 5.

Wilt. Russell gets 32 because Wilt feels for him and goes thru head issues.

Duncan. Russ gets 19

Shaq. Non descript

Akeem the apex of skill vs the skilled challenged. 15 points. Akeem's tradition is not to humiliate.

I really think the divide is that gigantic. Even if we give Russell Mutombo's defense and Rodman's rebounding he's not way past Akeem and D Rob on either account. Shaq would destroy him and his mystical ways. And he has nowhere near their offense. Yeah he steps up like Gin in the playoffs but that's it.

[Pointguard]

No one is denying any of those things but having him #1, to me, is an insult to Jordan that all that he has done. Jordan's resume is spotless, with all the accomplishments that you could want for a player, individually and as a team, on his resume. We could probably debate this topic to death but the main reasons why I'll always have Jordan at #1 is because of

1. the era he played in2. the fact that he dominated as a guard, without an all-star center
3. impeccable resume (everything from MVP, FMVP, to DPOY)
4. his legendary moments on the biggest stage, televised to tenfold as many people as Russell's game 7's vs the Lakers/Philly.

You are so right.
The age he played in was the golden age of centers. Noway does Russell guard Shaq and I seriously doubt that Hakeem would be phased.

[Pointguard]

One other element I will bring up here is this mystical way in which Russell makes his teammates better. The Celtics of Russ's era were better than most other teams because of their definitive structure - this is why Russ didn't worry about developing a scoring game. This wasn't a situation where Russell was freelancing and taking over games from the point center position similiar to Kidd or Magic. He did have some good to great assist years but they were methodical and because they had good dependable shooters the inside out game was an option they used on offense.

Words were used very different back then. I think the poster Jlip said this as well that they said Russell had this killer instinct - not to deliver the last blow but to show up to the game and play harder. Russell making other players better is a bit mystical to me as well.

[jlauber]

In a game to 51 points One on One against Russell. Of course this is guess work and subjective.

Jordan. Russell gets 7 points on broken plays. If there is a bet Jordan can hold him to under 5.

Wilt. Russell gets 32 because Wilt feels for him and goes thru head issues.

Duncan. Russ gets 19

Shaq. Non descript

Akeem the apex of skill vs the skilled challenged. 15 points. Akeem's tradition is not to humiliate.

I really think the divide is that gigantic. Even if we give Russell Mutombo's defense and Rodman's rebounding he's not way past Akeem and D Rob on either account. Shaq would destroy him and his mystical ways. And he has nowhere near their offense. Yeah he steps up like Gin in the playoffs but that's it.

Russell's game was not about individual play, but TEAM play. I won't argue your analysis above, in one-on-one battles, but I think if you gave all of those players the same exact teammates, (and assuming they were competent players) Russell would find a way to get the most out his teammates, and he would also find a way to exploit the weaknesses of his opposing teams.

[magnax1]

Russell's game was not about individual play, but TEAM play. I won't argue your analysis above, in one-on-one battles, but I think if you gave all of those players the same exact teammates, Russell would find a way to get the most out his teammates, and he would also find a way to exploit the weaknesses of his opposing teams.
I completely agree. The only spot in the game Russell falls short in is the capability to carry a team against a better opponent. Russell wouldn't even be able to score 55 to take control of a series against a much superior team. Russell always made the rest of his team mates run at 110%, and I think thats why it is more fair to compare him to Magic Johnson, or other great point guards then it is to compare him to Wilt, Jordan, or Kareem.

[jlauber]

I completely agree. The only spot in the game Russell falls short in is the capability to carry a team against a better opponent. Russell wouldn't even be able to score 55 to take control of a series against a much superior team. Russell always made the rest of his team mates run at 110%, and I think thats why it is more fair to compare him to Magic Johnson, or other great point guards then it is to compare him to Wilt, Jordan, or Kareem.

I agree with much of this...although as other's have pointed out, Russell did have some impressive offensive games in the post-season. Still, while I think he would make QUALITY teammates better than Wilt would have, I don't think he would have done nearly as well as Wilt did with some of those earlier rosters that Chamberlain was saddled with.

[Pointguard]

Russell's game was not about individual play, but TEAM play. I won't argue your analysis above, in one-on-one battles, but I think if you gave all of those players the same exact teammates, (and assuming they were competent players) Russell would find a way to get the most out his teammates, and he would also find a way to exploit the weaknesses of his opposing teams.

Now you have scouts and 5 coaches who do the masterminding for exploitation. Russell would have to find a way to get more out of his teammates because his scoring would be like half of these guys scoring.

Actually I was just showing how far I think the divide is on both sides of the ball. Even if we say Russell is unquestionably the best defender ever, I doubt and many on this board doubt he would have an answer for MJ, Shaq or Hakeem.

[jlauber]

Now you have scouts and 5 coaches who do the masterminding for exploitation. Russell would have to find a way to get more out of his teammates because his scoring would be like half of these guys scoring.

Actually I was just showing how far I think the divide is on both sides of the ball. Even if we say Russell is unquestionably the best defender ever, I doubt and many on this board doubt he would have an answer for MJ, Shaq or Hakeem.

I have said it before, and I will reiterate it again...I think you are one of the best posters on this board. I happen to agree with many of your points, but I think you are severely under-rating Russell's overall impact.

Regarding Shaq and Olajuwon...

With Shaq, it would depend on the rules of the day. In Shaq's dominating 00's, there is no doubt that he would need help. In Russell's 60's, Shaq would not have been allowed to just run over and through opponents (take a look at the footage I posted of Shaq vs. Motumbo in the '01 Finals...if you can't find, just do a search on YouTube.) I really think Shaq's offense would have been very limited in the 60's...although his defense and rebounding would have been exceptional.

As for Hakeem, I just don't see him abusing Russell. Olajuwon's game was more about finesse and not brute power. Russell was cat-like quick, and he was a world-ranked high-jumper. In addition, I believe I read where his wingspan was greater than Kareem's. If anything, I really believe Russell probably would have given Hakeem more problems, defensively at least, than either Robinson or Ewing.

[Pointguard]

I completely agree. The only spot in the game Russell falls short in is the capability to carry a team against a better opponent. Russell wouldn't even be able to score 55 to take control of a series against a much superior team. Russell always made the rest of his team mates run at 110%, and I think thats why it is more fair to compare him to Magic Johnson, or other great point guards then it is to compare him to Wilt, Jordan, or Kareem.

There is no real premise in which you can say that Russell motivated his players more than that nutcase Jordan (My GOAT tho). Jordan's players overachieved as well and never had HOF talent. His teammates always said Jordan expects a lot from them. Obviously we see more of Jordan so we see him going at his players and educating them. At most only a couple of us might have seen that of Russell as I didn't see it in the clips I saw of playoff action.

To say Russell is why his team ran 110% is a not known for sure and will not be known. Red had a thing for drafting self motivated players all the way to Bird and Len Bias.

[Pointguard]

I have said it before, and I will reiterate it again...I think you are one of the best posters on this board. I happen to agree with many of your points, but I think you are severely under-rating Russell's overall impact.

Regarding Shaq and Olajuwon...

With Shaq, it would depend on the rules of the day. In Shaq's dominating 00's, there is no doubt that he would need help. In Russell's 60's, Shaq would not have been allowed to just run over and through opponents (take a look at the footage I posted of Shaq vs. Motumbo in the '01 Finals...if you can't find, just do a search on YouTube.) I really think Shaq's offense would have been very limited in the 60's...although his defense and rebounding would have been exceptional.

As for Hakeem, I just don't see him abusing Russell. Olajuwon's game was more about finesse and not brute power. Russell was cat-like quick, and he was a world-ranked high-jumper. In addition, I believe I read where his wingspan was greater than Kareem's. If anything, I really believe Russell probably would have given Hakeem more problems, defensively at least, than either Robinson or Ewing.

Same on the respect Jluader. I might disagree on small points but I always see your logic. I think Hakeem was very much similiar to Russell defensively. There was one year when Hakeem was blocking shots like crazy. He wasn't as good on the boards but very much on the job. The reason I said Hakeem wouldn't be phased because he walked thru the valley of the centers unscathed. He went thru every body type and defense that year. Something had to be said about going thru the elite like that. But I see your point.

[tpols]

Bill Russell was a great winner but lets look a little deeper. Greatest of All time might be a too high of designation. I’ll alphabetize so the counter arguments can be presented.

A. Russell did not possess an offensive game that could be compared to anybody in top 15 list. (A functional list of 20 players would be MJ, Wilt, Jabbar, Hakeem, Duncan, Kobe, Shaq, Magic, Bird, Oscar, West, Malone, Barkley, Moses Malone, Elgin Baylor, Dr J, D Robinson, Lebron, KG)
B. He averaged 15 ppg in the regular season in the fastest era of the game. This is stunning when you consider that his length and speed should have gotten him 5 or 6 baskets alone and then you figure he would get 4 or 5 points on the line. He never averaged over 19ppg. He averaged one point higher in the post season.
C. His shooting percentage was low, despite him playing it flat out safe. He only shot 44% and in films Wilt doesn’t pretend to go out more than 10feet to guard him. So 44% at close range exhibits no offensive game. He shot worse in the playoffs.

D. Someone give me evidence that he worked on his game. His foul shooting was bad 561 and it didn’t steady. His offense stayed average for that time. No post moves. In one recent clip posted on these boards provides 24 minutes of action of Bill and Wilt. Not one time does Russell put the ball down and look comfortable. He dribbles, with hard concentration and with the off hand ready to snatch the ball up. That should not be, while you are coming out of your prime???
E. Could you imagine scaling his game down? At 38 minutes per game he’s at 13ppg and 19. Then we add a generous number for pace would be 10 and 15. Factor in scouting reports, quicker help defenders, his weak right hand. 8ppg and 14 rebounds. And this is a nice scale.

F. Who are the other players in the top 50 that are so lopsided: All defense with little offense. Remind you even D Howard gets criticized for not being offensively developed and he was 20 and 14 at one time.

All right so A. through F. talks about, in order, him having a bad offensive game, averaging 15 ppg in his seasons, shooting low percentages while playing offense, him having no post moves, poor foul shooting (compared to wilt and shaq the arguably goat centers lol), bad offensive scaling, and his offense again.


G. What players in the top 50 would not win consistently with 3 or 4 HOFers???

H. How easy did Russell have it? Russell was usually the 4th highest scorer on his team. On a 36 minute a game ratio he was a remarkable 8th highest scorer or lower on the team 9 out of his 13 years. Amazingly he is 12th once and 13th twice!!! He never ranked in the top 5 in the 36 minute a game ratio in his career. WOW.

I. He wasn’t expected to score at all at the end of games. When they talk about Killer instinct Russell wasn’t the type to deliver the blow like we so often see from MJ, or Kobe. I am sure the opposing team wanted Russell to shoot if he wasn’t 5 feet on the basket.
J. We are talking greatest of all time. Asking Bill Russell to look comfortable with the ball isn’t asking for too much if he’s in the GOAT conversation. Getting the ball in the basket is too much of a chore for him.
Discuss
G. is actually the ONLY post where you don't talk about his offensive game. You're just using his offensive game and spinning it in multiple angles to detract from him.

Russel played against an arguably GOAT athlete/center and beat him every single time. Russel didn't outscore him always but he always made it extremely tough for him and his team to score.

Think of it this way.

Most people have duncan over kobe in their goat lists yet kobe is twice the scorer, a clutcher player, and a much better overall offensive player. But duncan anchored a top defense in the league for a whole decade (much like russel) and it's the overall impact that counts. Defense plus offense is how you judge a player. Bill Russel anchored that team better than any big man has ever anchored a team. Some of his defensive/ rebounding games in the finals and playoffs could have had just as much impact on his team winning as jordan dropping 50, or shaq going for 45.

[momo]

No way in hell Bill Russell is a better basketball player then Jordan, Kareem, Wilt, Bird, or Shaq.



This is what always gets my goat in these goat arguments. "Better basketball player" is one sort of list. GOAT lists have the word great or greatest as the operative word. It is not the same thing.

Here is a rhetorical question as an example.

Was Stephan Marburry a better basketball player than George Mikan? Many people would say yes.

Is Stephan Marburry higher than George Mikan on your goat list? Most people say hell **** no.

[Pointguard]

All right so A. through F. talks about, in order, him having a bad offensive game, averaging 15 ppg in his seasons, shooting low percentages while playing offense, him having no post moves, poor foul shooting (compared to wilt and shaq the arguably goat centers lol), bad offensive scaling, and his offense again.

G. is actually the ONLY post where you don't talk about his offensive game. You're just using his offensive game and spinning it in multiple angles to detract from him.

Russel played against an arguably GOAT athlete/center and beat him every single time. Russel didn't outscore him always but he always made it extremely tough for him and his team to score.

Think of it this way.

Most people have duncan over kobe in their goat lists yet kobe is twice the scorer, a clutcher player, and a much better overall offensive player. But duncan anchored a top defense in the league for a whole decade (much like russel) and it's the overall impact that counts. Defense plus offense is how you judge a player. Bill Russel anchored that team better than any big man has ever anchored a team. Some of his defensive/ rebounding games in the finals and playoffs could have had just as much impact on his team winning as jordan dropping 50, or shaq going for 45.
Thanks Tpols, Regular, Jlip and Jlauder for elevating the argument in an organized wise manner and with solid critique. I am really with you in the defense + offense in the end is how you judge a player. And I agree that defensively you can have an impact of a 45 point game. I actually thought KG in 08 had a 45ppg impact because his defense was extra ordinary. And those people who have Russeell ranked high, if they are sincere should have been throwing the accolades at KG.

Here is KG anchoring a defense from a command tower and getting team shifts down to a tee and he was doing this with not so good defensive pieces in Allen and Pierce and a newbie in Rondo. Garnett was totally taking star players out of their element on the individual side and from team defense side. Here was a chance for those in Russells camp to say here is a guy like Russell in the same type of uniform that makes defense central to the game. But the Russell fans didn't hype Garnett and they still don't. So I don't really believe these Russell fans have this defense is so overwhelming you don't need offense mentality. There should be no thoughts of comparing KG to Barkley or Malone if Russell is in your top 5 GOAT list. Mutombo should also be talked about more often.

On Russell beating Wilt everytime I offer this: He didn't even feel compelled to develop his scoring to do it.

I will further the argument on the defensive side.

[ThaRegul8r]

I actually thought KG in 08 had a 45ppg impact because his defense was extra ordinary. And those people who have Russeell ranked high, if they are sincere should have been throwing the accolades at KG.

Here is KG anchoring a defense from a command tower and getting team shifts down to a tee and he was doing this with not so good defensive pieces in Allen and Pierce and a newbie in Rondo. Garnett was totally taking star players out of their element on the individual side and from team defense side. Here was a chance for those in Russells camp to say here is a guy like Russell in the same type of uniform that makes defense central to the game. But the Russell fans didn't hype Garnett and they still don't.

Speaking strictly for myself, I felt that Garnett was the 2007-08 MVP then, and I still maintain that now.


The Numbers: Kevin Garnett is "Snuffing Them Out"

Ahh, the great MVP debate.

There are simply stellar arguments -- that you can back up with amazing statistics, for Chris Paul and LeBron James. Years and years go by without anyone having statistics like theirs.

Kobe Bryant has a lot going for him. He has the kind of great numbers he has often had. But now he also has the reality that he's the focal point of one of the very best teams in the league, and in the eyes of just about all those who see him play regularly, he's capable of more amazing things than any other player in the game.

Then there is Kevin Garnett. His arrival turned one of the worst teams in the league into one of the best teams in recent history. You have to consider him on that basis alone.

But poor Garnett -- probably more than the other candidates -- suffers from a very real flaw of conventional basketball statistics: they don't measure defense beyond steals, blocks, and defensive rebounds. So when it's time to tally up his contributions with some numbers, his numbers look smaller than the other candidates, and a lot of what he does best is missed.

Or, it was missed, until Celtic owner Wyc Grousbeck leaked some internal Celtics numbers on the radio in Boston last week.

At about the 6:30 mark of this interview on WEEI's Dale and Holley show, Grousbeck says:

Players that KG is guarding are shooting 13.1% below the league average at their position. So he's guarding power forwards, and they're shooting 52% league-wide, or whatever it is. Guys that he's guarding are shooting 39% all year. That's just KG, one on one, against his man, when he's on the court.

LeBron's guys are shooting 2% below the league average for their position. Kobe's are 3% below. Chris Paul's are 4% below. And KG is keeping people 13% below. In other words, he's snuffing them out.

The Celtics are one of the league's most sophisticated teams when it comes to using statistics. A Celtics staffer verified for me that these numbers sound right. Assuming these numbers accurate, I guess we have two things: a nice new set of statistics to support a Kevin Garnett MVP candidacy, and some insight into some ways teams are measuring defensive contributions.
(http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/4666/the-numbers-kevin-garnett-is-snuffing-them-out)

[jlauber]

Thanks Tpols, Regular, Jlip and Jlauder for elevating the argument in an organized wise manner and with solid critique. I am really with you in the defense + offense in the end is how you judge a player. And I agree that defensively you can have an impact of a 45 point game. I actually thought KG in 08 had a 45ppg impact because his defense was extra ordinary. And those people who have Russeell ranked high, if they are sincere should have been throwing the accolades at KG.

Here is KG anchoring a defense from a command tower and getting team shifts down to a tee and he was doing this with not so good defensive pieces in Allen and Pierce and a newbie in Rondo. Garnett was totally taking star players out of their element on the individual side and from team defense side. Here was a chance for those in Russells camp to say here is a guy like Russell in the same type of uniform that makes defense central to the game. But the Russell fans didn't hype Garnett and they still don't. So I don't really believe these Russell fans have this defense is so overwhelming you don't need offense mentality. There should be no thoughts of comparing KG to Barkley or Malone if Russell is in your top 5 GOAT list. Mutombo should also be talked about more often.

On Russell beating Wilt everytime I offer this: He didn't even feel compelled to develop his scoring to do it.

I will further the argument on the defensive side.

Pointguard,

Most all of these discussions are opinions. However, I respect those that at least back up their arguments with either stats, facts, or logic. Anyone can pop in and say "so-and-so is better than so-and-so", and leave it at that. Normally I won't even acknowledge a post like that. Why bother?

In any case, I do understand those that did not see Russell play, who simply have a difficult time accepting his overall impact on the game. He is a very rare player (much like Bart Starr BTW), who's impact cannot be measured by stats alone.

Yet, when he was almost universally accepted by his peers and the media, alike, as the greatest player of his era, there just has to be something to it. And, he had some great teammates, Havlicek and Sam Jones among them, who put up solid scoring seasons, (and both of whom could have scored more somewhere else), that would tell you the same thing.

Anyway...I may not always agree with your opinion, (nor do I expect you to always agree with mine), but I do respect it.

[Pointguard]

K. The premises on Russells defensive greatness are not always fair or correct. Russell is given a free pass on being the best defensive player ever.

1. Those Celtics weren't called lock down despite:
2. There were no great penetrators at this time.
3. There were a few guys that were dribbling decent with their off hand.
4. There were no blurs like there are now.
5. There was no three point game to stretch the defense.
6. Nobody had that type of range with good accuracy.
7. Teams had shooting percentages against the whole league as low as 350%
8. When you watch the videos you don't see the greatness.

His block numbers were great but most accounts have Chamberlain, a direct contemporary, as more accomplished. Chamberlain was also superior on the boards but both numbers are inflated. What is amazing is that you rarely hear that Chamberlain was great defensively? Why? Because it robs Russell of his thunder?

If Chamberlain is not great defensively then we should ride the assumption that Russ's numbers are not great within themselves - a byproduct of the times where non great defensive guys can attain them. If Russ's numbers are great then Wilt has to be GOAT. I mean he outscored Russell one year by 31ppg.

Ok, number 7 is subjective but we have shared several videos here and if you see it I will work with you. But point them out. We can not say Russell defense is better than Mutombo's because people are telling you to accept that premise. As above I state that KG's defense wasn't calculable by stats so I know that all of Russells contributions are statistically marked, but videos should reveal it. Whenever these videos become available yall are going to feel dupped. If they were great, believe me, Boston would have had other great defensive teams before the arrival of Garnett.

L. Since Russell is up for GOAT his defense would have to be unapproachably better than any in the top twenty without question given that his offense in a minute by minute ratio was never top six on his own team over 13 regular seasons.

K. Not all of these Celtic teams were only about their defense.

[ThaRegul8r]

Read these:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=6205
http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7239
http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7276

[G.O.A.T]

You're half way through the alphabet and you've yet to make one semi-valid point.

Read the counter arguments and try to understand them.

[ThaRegul8r]

You're half way through the alphabet and you've yet to make one semi-valid point.

Several things are clearly off due to a lack of understanding.

Russell's Celtics certainly won by defense, as the provided links will show. People think they were an offensive juggernaut, which is an illusion created by the fact that they played at a fast pace.

To state that they weren't "lock down" clearly illustrates a lack of knowledge. Particularly after Bob Cousy retired, they most certainly were, with K.C. Jones and Satch Sanders backed by Russell, the GOAT defender. In 1964, the first year post-Cousy, they shut down the Cincinnati Royals and league MVP Oscar Robertson in what was called "the best sustained defense ever put up by a pro team." Cincinnati was the highest scoring team in the league at 114.7 points per game, and had won the season series win Boston after taking them to the limit the previous year, and were thought to be the "team of the future" that would dethrone Boston. Boston held them to 93.2 points per game (-21.5), beat them in five, and Cincinnati scored 100 points only once. Then they convincingly beat San Francisco in the Finals in five. With defense. In the '65 Finals, Lakers coach Fred Schaus said, “This is the greatest team I ever saw. That Boston four-man defensive press and then to find Russell waiting for you under the basket — that’s a helluva sight.” So to state that the Celtics "weren't called lockdown" is clearly made from ignorance. There's no other way I can say it.

[Pointguard]

Pointguard,
Most all of these discussions are opinions. However, I respect those that at least back up their arguments with either stats, facts, or logic. Anyone can pop in and say "so-and-so is better than so-and-so", and leave it at that. Normally I won't even acknowledge a post like that. Why bother?
Wow, I say please refute the facts below but yall don't even see them because you are programed not to. That's how far it is with yall in your determination to make him GOAT.

Ok. There is a fact in every statement below. You are free to call me out and they should be easy to argue as I have designated them. At least my premises for opinion are right there. We take way too much for granted with Russell and to grant him GOAT status without any critical analysis just shouldn't be from real fans of the game in the information and video era.

B. He averaged 15 ppg in the regular season in the fastest era of the game. This is stunning when you consider that his length and speed should have gotten him 5 or 6 baskets alone and then you figure he would get 4 or 5 points on the line. He never averaged over 19ppg in the regular season. He averaged one point higher in the post season.
C. His shooting percentage was low, despite him playing it flat out safe. He only shot 44% and in films [B]Wilt doesn

[Pointguard]

You're half way through the alphabet and you've yet to make one semi-valid point.

Read the counter arguments and try to understand them.

I most certainly have addressed the heavy hitters. I never said he wasn't great. Which I think yall all are misinterpreting.

[ThaRegul8r]

I have somewhere to be, but I find it rather amusing that the only posts which contained evidence was skipped over and otherwise ignored. That shows me that this is solely about an agenda rather than furthering one's knowledge. Obviously what I presented was not known, but nary a word about any of these FACTS. I'm willing to talk to those who are willing to learn, but if there's anything I know, it's that there's no point in attempting a discussion with someone's whose mind is already made up. It's called "invincible ignorance."

[Poochymama]

I have somewhere to be, but I find it rather amusing that the only posts which contained evidence was skipped over and otherwise ignored. That shows me that this is solely about an agenda rather than furthering one's knowledge. Obviously what I presented was not known, but nary a word about any of these FACTS. I'm willing to talk to those who are willing to learn, but if there's anything I know, it's that there's no point in attempting a discussion with someone's whose mind is already made up. It's called "invincible ignorance."

How do you know you're point of view is right? Perhaps it is you who needs to learn?

[jlauber]

[QUOTE=Pointguard]Wow, I say please refute the facts below but yall don't even see them because you are programed not to. That's how far it is with yall in your determination to make him GOAT.

Ok. There is a fact in every statement below. You are free to call me out and they should be easy to argue as I have designated them. At least my premises for opinion are right there. We take way too much for granted with Russell and to grant him GOAT status without any critical analysis just shouldn't be from real fans of the game in the information and video era.

B. He averaged 15 ppg in the regular season in the fastest era of the game. This is stunning when you consider that his length and speed should have gotten him 5 or 6 baskets alone and then you figure he would get 4 or 5 points on the line. He never averaged over 19ppg in the regular season. He averaged one point higher in the post season.
C. His shooting percentage was low, despite him playing it flat out safe. He only shot 44% and in films [B]Wilt doesn

[Pointguard]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Several things are clearly off due to a lack of understanding.

Russell's Celtics certainly won by defense, as the provided links will show. People think they were an offensive juggernaut, which is an illusion created by the fact that they played at a fast pace.

To state that they weren't "lock down" clearly illustrates a lack of knowledge. Particularly after Bob Cousy retired, they most certainly were, with K.C. Jones and Satch Sanders backed by Russell, the GOAT defender. In 1964, the first year post-Cousy, they shut down the Cincinnati Royals and league MVP Oscar Robertson in what was called "the best sustained defense ever put up by a pro team." Cincinnati was the highest scoring team in the league at 114.7 points per game, and had won the season series win Boston after taking them to the limit the previous year, and were thought to be the "team of the future" that would dethrone Boston. Boston held them to 93.2 points per game (-21.5), beat them in five, and Cincinnati scored 100 points only once. Then they convincingly beat San Francisco in the Finals in five. With defense. In the '65 Finals, Lakers coach Fred Schaus said,

[Pointguard]

I have somewhere to be, but I find it rather amusing that the only posts which contained evidence was skipped over and otherwise ignored. That shows me that this is solely about an agenda rather than furthering one's knowledge. Obviously what I presented was not known, but nary a word about any of these FACTS. I'm willing to talk to those who are willing to learn, but if there's anything I know, it's that there's no point in attempting a discussion with someone's whose mind is already made up. It's called "invincible ignorance."
As Poochymama already said you can't say that your perspective is right just because you have it. Take your choice of many many points I provided. If I have not answered a post bring it to light its because I can't do links here at work but I promise to entertain all thoughts. I think several things I said are up for interpretation. But we do accept too many precepts in regards to Russell.

[Pointguard]

Pointguard,

Once again, individually, I don't think anyone would take Russell over Wilt. But, one of Russell's greatest attributes was to elevate the play of his teammates. You need look no further in the seasons before he arrived, the games he missed during his 13 years, and the season after he retired.

No one here has defended Wilt, more than myself, but even I have to acknowledge that Russell's 7-1 edge, as close as so many of those series were, is just hard to believe was due to luck, injuries, bad coaching, poor officiating, etc, etc...year-after-year. Having said that, though, they do prove that the difference between Russell and Wilt, was razor-thin. Furthermore, when Wilt played like he did in '67 and '72, IMHO, he was BETTER than Russell ever was. AND, I will also add, that, give Russell and Wilt equally inept rosters, and I believe Wilt would win those series easily. BUT, give them both average to quality rosters, and unless Wilt is playing at his very BEST ('67 and '72) Russell will take his rosters to more wins.

Anyway, Russell's 11 rings just HAVE to count for something. Here again, he won with great rosters, which is NOT always easy to do (history is littered with teams that SHOULD have won, and didn't.) He won with very good, but not great, rosters (e.g. the 65-66 Celtics.) And he won with a 4th place 48-34 team. 11 titles in 13 seasons (and in one losing post-season he played injured.) What more could ANYONE ELSE have done? I have mentioned it before, but Wilt did not win titles with his 65-66, 67-68, and 68-69 teams, There were legitimate excuses, but that is one of Russell's edges...he never needed any. Kareem played on several teams that SHOULD have won ('72, '73, '74, '81, and '84), as well as other talented teams, like his '77 team that had the best record in the league. True, much of it was not his fault, but here again, Russell won with worse teams. Even MJ did not win in the late 80's, and in '95. I just think that Russell would have won with those talented teams.

In any case, if we are going by offensive statistics, then Russell and his Celtic TEAMs had no business winning anything close to 11 titles.

But, having said all of that, I want to make sure that you understand that I DO RESPECT your opinions here.

Russell is GREAT, LOL, he's in my top ten! I have Wilt no later than 3 and this is amazing considering... . You are so right on Russell intangible of win influence. I even believe he has some hokus pokus even. A true winner!

I am learning people here. You and Pooch were one of the first I come to respect. For the sake of this important debate I have swallowed things that I will not once these threads die down. Its more important that fans talk about some things that have been taken for granted for a long time without analysing them. Btw, I hope all of my conclusions are not right. But I do have Russell in high regards.

I am fair with all who are fair with me. For the folks that hollar he's ignorant or call out idiot there are ways to deal with them. I did not meet them at their level. I presented ground for them to step up their game. I was taken back by a couple but I should have not overestimated them.

[ThaRegul8r]

Several things are clearly off due to a lack of understanding.

Russell's Celtics certainly won by defense, as the provided links will show. People think they were an offensive juggernaut, which is an illusion created by the fact that they played at a fast pace.

To state that they weren't "lock down" clearly illustrates a lack of knowledge. Particularly after Bob Cousy retired, they most certainly were, with K.C. Jones and Satch Sanders backed by Russell, the GOAT defender. In 1964, the first year post-Cousy, they shut down the Cincinnati Royals and league MVP Oscar Robertson in what was called "the best sustained defense ever put up by a pro team." Cincinnati was the highest scoring team in the league at 114.7 points per game, and had won the season series win Boston after taking them to the limit the previous year, and were thought to be the "team of the future" that would dethrone Boston. Boston held them to 93.2 points per game (-21.5), beat them in five, and Cincinnati scored 100 points only once. Then they convincingly beat San Francisco in the Finals in five. With defense. In the '65 Finals, Lakers coach Fred Schaus said, “This is the greatest team I ever saw. That Boston four-man defensive press and then to find Russell waiting for you under the basket — that’s a helluva sight.” So to state that the Celtics "weren't called lockdown" is clearly made from ignorance. There's no other way I can say it.

Wow, 93ppg against a team and that's lock down??? This is another testiment to the times. You can accomplish this with slowing a jack rabbit team down. I can't believe that's your bragging point.

:facepalm

114 to 93 is. But apparently you lack understanding about a basic point. So follow along with me.

Do you know anything about pace?

Obviously not.

When talking about another era, you look at raw ppg totals and think "that's bad defense." That's because you're not considering pace.

Teams that play at a fast pace typically have high-scoring games. Teams that play at a slow pace typically have low-scoring games. But that's not an indicator of defense.

This is why you look at points per 100 possessions, or defensive efficiency to get a more accurate assessment of how well teams play defense. Points per 100 possessions is independent of pace. 100 possessions is 100 possessions, whether you play at a slow pace or a fast pace. It thus controls for pace and allows for comparisons.

The 1963-64 Celtics that I mentioned allowed 105.1 points per game. You might look at that and think that's not good defense, but when you look at their defensive efficiency, they allowed 84.2 points per 100 possessions in the regular and postseason COMBINED. 84.2 points per 100 possessions is most assuredly "lock down defense," in ANY era.

Now, if you can't understand this basic point, then I'm afraid that no constructive discussion can be had. Again, I have presented FACTS to you. If you ignore this in favor of presenting your uninformed and biased opinion, then it will confirm that you're only interested in furthering an agenda. If you did not know this, there is no shame in admitting it. Everyone is ignorant about something, but ignorance can be remedied.

[jlauber]

:facepalm

114 to 93 is. But apparently you lack understanding about a basic point. So follow along with me.

Do you know anything about pace?

Obviously not.

When talking about another era, you look at raw ppg totals and think "that's bad defense." That's because you're not considering pace.

Teams that play at a fast pace typically have high-scoring games. Teams that play at a slow pace typically have low-scoring games. But that's not an indicator of defense.

This is why you look at points per 100 possessions, or defensive efficiency to get a more accurate assessment of how well teams play defense. Points per 100 possessions is independent of pace. 100 possessions is 100 possessions, whether you play at a slow pace or a fast pace. It thus controls for pace and allows for comparisons.

The 1963-64 Celtics that I mentioned allowed 105.1 points per game. You might look at that and think that's not good defense, but when you look at their defensive efficiency, they allowed 84.2 points per 100 possessions in the regular and postseason COMBINED. 84.2 points per 100 possessions is most assuredly "lock down defense," in ANY era.

Now, if you can't understand this basic point, then I'm afraid that no constructive discussion can be had. Again, I have presented FACTS to you. If you ignore this in favor of presenting your uninformed and biased opinion, then it will confirm that you're only interested in furthering an agenda. If you did not know this, there is no shame in admitting it. Everyone is ignorant about something, but ignorance can be remedied.

Until you posted these links earlier, I myself, had never seen them before. And, furthermore, I have NO PROBLEM admitting it. One of the reasons that I frequent this forum is the education that I have received.

There is another poster here, Julizaver, who looked up every H2H matchup between Kareem and Wilt. I had a rough idea what the numbers were, but his research confirmed what I had believed.

And, while I seldom agree with Fatal9, he posted the H2H games between Kareem and Hakeem in the '85-86 season (games of 35, 42, and 46 points.) Here again, I thought that Kareem had outplayed him back then, but I could find nothing anywhere which would confirm it. Then, later, he posted a game in which Kareem just crushed Ewing (40 points, and held Patrick to 2-16 shooting.)

Those are just a couple that come to mind, and there have been other's...but it is poster's like yourself, that make this worth the time.


But back to the OP. I have posted this earlier in the thread, but one of the biggest problems with ranking Russell, is the fact that there really has been no way of quantifying his impact on the game. However, this analysis, and your other links, really give us a better indication.

Clearly, we already KNEW that Boston's offense was the not the reason. In fact, the Celtics had SEASON's of coming in LAST in FG% (e.g. 62-63), and yet, still ran away with the title.

Thanks again for these facts. Hopefully I am not the only one here who is benefitting from the effort.

[G.O.A.T]

@ Regulator, Mannix, Jlauber, etc.

I don't see any reason in keeping point guard of your ignore list, he's proven he'd rather be right in his own mind than learn anything. I gave him a second chance on your word Jlauber, but he's proven to be just another stubborn ignorant troll.

[G.O.A.T]

How do you know you're point of view is right? Perhaps it is you who needs to learn?

you need to learn the same lesson. It's not about who is right, it's about understanding opposing or alternative view points. If you can't understand the other sides point or perspective, you can never make a salient point of your own.

[jlauber]

@ Regulator, Mannix, Jlauber, etc.

I don't see any reason in keeping point guard of your ignore list, he's proven he'd rather be right in his own mind than learn anything. I gave him a second chance on your word Jlauber, but he's proven to be just another stubborn ignorant troll.

I will give pointguard and poochymama credit. They at least make an effort to back up their opinions. That is all I ever ask from a poster.

Having said, though, G.O.A.T. is one of the main reasons MY take on the Russell-Wilt debate has changed. After reading his well-thought-out posts on the topic (and some other posters here as well), I have come to believe that Russell was the best ever.

And, getting an education on a subject is a GOOD thing. Once again, any idiot can pop into a thread and make a statement like "Jones is WAY better than Smith"...and leave it at that. I generally won't bother to take the time to reply.

In any case, I, myself, appreciate the knowledge of other quality posters here, and I enjoy the discussions. Hopefully we all make the effort to keep an open mind, and actually learn something here. There is no shame in changing our opinions.

[Poochymama]

you need to learn the same lesson. It's not about who is right, it's about understanding opposing or alternative view points. If you can't understand the other sides point or perspective, you can never make a salient point of your own.

That's exactly what you're not getting. I've listened to both sides and in my opinion, both sides have brought up valid points. Pointguard has listened to your alternate viewpoints and he has put up counter arguments for most of them, just as you and Reg have done the same for him.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you're viewpoints doesn't mean he/she hasn't listened to them. The same thing you are telling him, and now me, could very well be said about you. From his perspective, maybe it's you who refuses to understand opposing viewpoints. I'm not saying that's true, but by the same token you can't say that he refuses to listen to "your" viewpoints. He doesn't agree with your viewpoints, but that's completely different than not understanding you're viewpoints.

This is debate, not everyone is going to agree with you. It's silly to think otherwise or say someone is wrong/not understanding opposing viewpoints, just because he/she doesn't agree with your points. Putting someone on ignore and telling others to follow suit is stupid considering both sides are still engaging in logical debate and refuting each others points.

You're acting as if Bill Russell is the undisputed GOAT, when the FACT is he's not. Sure there is a strong case for him as the GOAT, but in the end it boils down to opinion, not fact. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean he/she is wrong. If it did, he could say that you're wrong simply because you don't agree with him.

I've read all the arguments brought up in this thread, and while there have been many good points brought up by both sides, I am still not convinced Bill is the GOAT. I'm not saying I can't change my mind, but as of this point, it hasn't happened. Now you can go ahead and put me on ignore because I don't think Bill is the GOAT or whatever, but doesn't that seem a bit goofy?

[jlauber]

That's exactly what you're not getting. I've listened to both sides and in my opinion, both sides have brought up valid points. Pointguard has listened to your alternate viewpoints and he has put up counter arguments for most of them, just as you and Reg have done the same for him.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you're viewpoints doesn't mean he/she hasn't listened to them. The same thing you are telling him, and now me, could very well be said about you. From his perspective, maybe it's you who refuses to understand opposing viewpoints. I'm not saying that's true, but by the same token you can't say that he refuses to listen to "your" viewpoints. He doesn't agree with your viewpoints, but that's completely different than not understanding you're viewpoints.

This is debate, not everyone is going to agree with you. It's silly to think otherwise or say someone is wrong/not understanding opposing viewpoints, just because he/she doesn't agree with your points. Putting someone on ignore and telling others to follow suit is stupid considering both sides are still engaging in logical debate and refuting each others points.

You're acting as if Bill Russell is the undisputed GOAT, when the FACT is he's not. Sure there is a strong case for him as the GOAT, but in the end it boils down to opinion, not fact. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean he/she is wrong. If it did, he could say that you're wrong simply because you don't agree with him.

I've read all the arguments brought up in this thread, and while there have been many good points brought up by both sides, I am still not convinced Bill is the GOAT. I'm not saying I can't change my mind, but as of this point, it hasn't happened. Now you can go ahead and put me on ignore because I don't think Bill is the GOAT or whatever, but doesn't that seem a bit goofy?

Ultimately we all have our own opinions. Mine is no more right than your's. My main goal here is to learn and to perhaps teach a little, as well. As far as I am concerned, I appreciate any insightful dialogue. If we don't agree, at least we can be respectful. That is all I ask. But, once again, we should ALL be a little more open-minded. And I will admit that there have been times that I have not. I will certainly make a better effort, though.

[G.O.A.T]

That's exactly what you're not getting. I've listened to both sides and in my opinion, both sides have brought up valid points. Pointguard has listened to your alternate viewpoints and he has put up counter arguments for most of them, just as you and Reg have done the same for him.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you're viewpoints doesn't mean he/she hasn't listened to them. The same thing you are telling him, and now me, could very well be said about you. From his perspective, maybe it's you who refuses to understand opposing viewpoints. I'm not saying that's true, but by the same token you can't say that he refuses to listen to "your" viewpoints. He doesn't agree with your viewpoints, but that's completely different than not understanding you're viewpoints.

This is debate, not everyone is going to agree with you. It's silly to think otherwise or say someone is wrong/not understanding opposing viewpoints, just because he/she doesn't agree with your points. Putting someone on ignore and telling others to follow suit is stupid considering both sides are still engaging in logical debate and refuting each others points.

You're acting as if Bill Russell is the undisputed GOAT, when the FACT is he's not. Sure there is a strong case for him as the GOAT, but in the end it boils down to opinion, not fact. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean he/she is wrong. If it did, he could say that you're wrong simply because you don't agree with him.

I've read all the arguments brought up in this thread, and while there have been many good points brought up by both sides, I am still not convinced Bill is the GOAT. I'm not saying I can't change my mind, but as of this point, it hasn't happened. Now you can go ahead and put me on ignore because I don't think Bill is the GOAT or whatever, but doesn't that seem a bit goofy?

First of all a credit to you for writing such a thoughtful post, I'm not sure I'd have been as nice to me, still I can't say as though I am feeling anymore understood.

It has nothing to do with agreeing with me or anyone changing their mind. It has nothing to do with anyone thinking Russell is the Greatest Player ever.

It's that I don't see any evidence that point guard understands or anyone else who disagrees with him's point.

I understand that his argument is based on the fact that Russell's offensive statistics are very average compared to the other elite stars. I understand that in watching the limited film we have of Russell that he doesn't show any particular skill that is clearly elite the way Jordan does with his hang time or Shaq does with his size etc. I understand that he thinks winning has more to do with teammates than the play of any individual.

He says things like "Russell gets a free pass as the greatest defensive player of all-time" Then he is told how many people who played with and against him have that view, he is shown multiple statistical studies that indicate why Russell's impact was so great, he is told by JLauber that a study was done that showed Russell's defense to have the impact of Jordan's offense and his response..."Russell gets a free pass as the greatest defensive player of all-time" A clear lacking of comprehension.

He continuously suggests that Russell was lazy and did not work on his game, then stories are shared about Russell obsession with understanding every position on the floor and learning the tendencies of each player in the league. Still with out any acknowledgment of this he says his shooting, dribbling etc never improved. Than he is asked why Russell would bother to improve those skills while he is busy winning championships? His response is to talk about how LeBron James has improved his game every year. Does that not tell you he doesn't get it?

[Pointguard]

:facepalm

114 to 93 is. But apparently you lack understanding about a basic point. So follow along with me.

Do you know anything about pace?

Obviously not.

When talking about another era, you look at raw ppg totals and think "that's bad defense." That's because you're not considering pace.

Teams that play at a fast pace typically have high-scoring games. Teams that play at a slow pace typically have low-scoring games. But that's not an indicator of defense.

This is why you look at points per 100 possessions, or defensive efficiency to get a more accurate assessment of how well teams play defense. Points per 100 possessions is independent of pace. 100 possessions is 100 possessions, whether you play at a slow pace or a fast pace. It thus controls for pace and allows for comparisons.

The 1963-64 Celtics that I mentioned allowed 105.1 points per game. You might look at that and think that's not good defense, but when you look at their defensive efficiency, they allowed 84.2 points per 100 possessions in the regular and postseason COMBINED. 84.2 points per 100 possessions is most assuredly "lock down defense," in ANY era.

Now, if you can't understand this basic point, then I'm afraid that no constructive discussion can be had. Again, I have presented FACTS to you. If you ignore this in favor of presenting your uninformed and biased opinion, then it will confirm that you're only interested in furthering an agenda. If you did not know this, there is no shame in admitting it. Everyone is ignorant about something, but ignorance can be remedied.

Pace is applicable because I used it to show Russell as an 8ppg and 14rebound guy. So I have to concede some of the point you made.

If you are lock down you slow the pace down. Is that not a resource to use??? Not every game was subject to break neck speed and I have proof that teams used it. Was there a 14 second clock at that time? Cincinatti preferred a faster pace than the Celtics. Is it not common sense to slow the game down? Would 05 Detroit play 25 more possessions a game with Pheonix? Slow down was most definitely a tactic that was used back then.

Funny thing is I have 22 facts down and you are stuck on one and non existent on others.

[Pointguard]

That's exactly what you're not getting. I've listened to both sides and in my opinion, both sides have brought up valid points. Pointguard has listened to your alternate viewpoints and he has put up counter arguments for most of them, just as you and Reg have done the same for him.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you're viewpoints doesn't mean he/she hasn't listened to them. The same thing you are telling him, and now me, could very well be said about you. From his perspective, maybe it's you who refuses to understand opposing viewpoints. I'm not saying that's true, but by the same token you can't say that he refuses to listen to "your" viewpoints. He doesn't agree with your viewpoints, but that's completely different than not understanding you're viewpoints.

This is debate, not everyone is going to agree with you. It's silly to think otherwise or say someone is wrong/not understanding opposing viewpoints, just because he/she doesn't agree with your points. Putting someone on ignore and telling others to follow suit is stupid considering both sides are still engaging in logical debate and refuting each others points.

You're acting as if Bill Russell is the undisputed GOAT, when the FACT is he's not. Sure there is a strong case for him as the GOAT, but in the end it boils down to opinion, not fact. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean he/she is wrong. If it did, he could say that you're wrong simply because you don't agree with him.

I've read all the arguments brought up in this thread, and while there have been many good points brought up by both sides, I am still not convinced Bill is the GOAT. I'm not saying I can't change my mind, but as of this point, it hasn't happened. Now you can go ahead and put me on ignore because I don't think Bill is the GOAT or whatever, but doesn't that seem a bit goofy?

:applause: :applause: :applause: Yes, Great Post!!! :applause: :applause: :applause:

[ThaRegul8r]

Pace is applicable because I used it to show Russell as an 8ppg and 14rebound guy.

No you didn't. You just said he would be. You didn't SHOW anything, used NO proof to support this outlandish claim, nor did you explain the methodology you used by which you arrived at those numbers. (Because you didn't use any. You just pulled them out of your behind.) I gave you PROOF. I provided empirical evidence. I didn't expect you—nor do I expect anyone—to merely take my word on it. You ignored the evidence I provided—while you continue to give nothing more than uninformed, biased opinion, yet, inexplicably, you expect to be taken seriously.


Funny thing is I have 22 facts down and you are stuck on one and non existent on others.

You have yet to address the evidence I presented. You deliberately ignored it, because you had to read my post before you got to GOAT's post that you responded to. I presented evidence which showed that the very premise you were based everything on was false, which thus nullifies anything that came from a false premise. Take a logic class if you don't understand this.


If you are lock down you slow the pace down. Is that not a resource to use???

Evidently, you're incapable of even understanding what a source is and how to use it in a debate/discussion to support a contention. YOU are not a source. YOUR WORD ALONE means nothing. Just as MY word alone means nothing. I have repeatedly and consistently said—on this very forum no less—that one should never take anything anyone says solely on face value. I presented evidence to support what I said, which you—or anyone else—could have checked for yourself. Others chose to do so. You ignored it.


Not every game was subject to break neck speed and I have proof that teams used it.

You have yet to provide objective proof of anything. You've done nothing but give your biased and woefully uninformed, erroneous opinion.


Cincinatti preferred a faster pace than the Celtics. Is it not common sense to slow the game down?

You've completely failed to understand anything I said—speaking words without even knowing what they mean. You don't know anything about the Royals, or what pace they preferred. Furthermore, you have yet to provide anything of substance. I gave you the benefit of a doubt, but now I see that you are not interested in having a serious discussion. I shall not waste any more words with you, but will save them for people who are interested in a serious discussion. Good day.

[Pointguard]

First of all a credit to you for writing such a thoughtful post, I'm not sure I'd have been as nice to me, still I can't say as though I am feeling anymore understood.

I will say this much, the second you start saying stupid and idiot you loose people. I don't mind what you think, but fair enough if you ain't smarter than me, you are going to be taxed. Since we are moving toward dialog I will break it up some.

It's that I don't see any evidence that point guard understands or anyone else who disagrees with him's point.

I have agreed with 4 opposing views on this post and I think one on yours. You and Regular have both broken down and resorted to name calling. And now you are trying to recruit people to ignore me. Jlauder has been the example that I am not blocking opposing views out as well.


I understand that his argument is based on the fact that Russell's offensive statistics are very average compared to the other elite stars. I understand that in watching the limited film we have of Russell that he doesn't show any particular skill that is clearly elite the way Jordan does with his hang time or Shaq does with his size etc. I understand that he thinks winning has more to do with teammates than the play of any individual.
Alright now.


He says things like "Russell gets a free pass as the greatest defensive player of all-time" Then he is told how many people who played with and against him have that view, he is shown multiple statistical studies that indicate why Russell's impact was so great, he is told by JLauber that a study was done that showed Russell's defense to have the impact of Jordan's offense and his response..."Russell gets a free pass as the greatest defensive player of all-time" A clear lacking of comprehension. While I have said I will give him the best defensive player of all time I did indeed say that this isn't clear cut. JLauder's evidence was not clear cut across modern times. It didn't provide evidence that he could guard Shaq or deal with speed demons and 3pt shooting centers. Another top 7 GOAT said Jordan was God. Magic said he was the greatest. For whatever reasons when I see Oscar he compares Wilt to the modern centers and not Russell.


He continuously suggests that Russell was lazy and did not work on his game, then stories are shared about Russell obsession with understanding every position on the floor and learning the tendencies of each player in the league. Still with out any acknowledgment of this he says his shooting, dribbling etc never improved. Hey I was wrong to say he was Lazy. I should have said I don't agree with his priorities. I sited the video and provided the video in which I said he showed a lack of confidence in dribbling and I am very curious as why this is so this late in his career.


Than he is asked why Russell would bother to improve those skills while he is busy winning championships? His response is to talk about how LeBron James has improved his game every year. Does that not tell you he doesn't get it?
Wow, I answered that three times between your thread and mine. LOL
to claim a person the best basketball player when he is fine not developing a skill with the ball or thinks that he shouldn't be good with it. He may be a great winner who is dependent on others to be good with the basketball but it is an error to say he is the best basketball player. Ultimately somebody on the team has to be good with the basketball for them to win.
I also stated that it is unprofessional for anybody who works with a certain tool to not develope themselves with that tool. Its similiar to Gretsky being bad with the stick. Ali bad with gloves. A bricklayer (Russell was one) being bad with bricks. I said it was criminal that a guy who could neglect that be called the best of all time and that it was also a testiment of how bad the times where. I also said it was totally unresponsible of him to his craft to not improve himself in a practical way.

I thought I was very clear but aparently I wasn't.

[Pointguard]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]No you didn't. You just said he would be. You didn't SHOW anything, used NO proof to support this outlandish claim, nor did you explain the methodology you used by which you arrived at those numbers. (Because you didn't use any. You just pulled them out of your behind.) I gave you PROOF. I provided empirical evidence. I didn't expect you

[G.O.A.T]

I will say this much, the second you start saying stupid and idiot you loose people. I don't mind what you think, but fair enough if you ain't smarter than me, you are going to be taxed. Since we are moving toward dialog I will break it up some.

No one is following this portion of thread except those involved in the"debate". It's not personal I don't even know you. If you say something stupid or fail to show the ability to understand it will be characterized as stupid.

I'll try and show you what I think your failing to understand.


While I have said I will give him the best defensive player of all time I did indeed say that this isn't clear cut.

Nothing is clear cut, but that one's pretty close. Russell won MVP in 1962 as voted by the players in a season where Wilt broke the NBA records for scoring and rebounding average and Oscar averaged a triple double. The two greatest statistical seasons in NBA history and Russell wins MVP because of his defense, safe to say his impact on that end was pretty significant if on a more balanced team he was still considered more valuable than two other all-time greats and MVP winners who excelled on offense like no one else ever has.


JLauder's evidence was not clear cut across modern times.

Could not be more irrelevant. Bill Russell did not play in modern times, just as Kevin Durant did not play in the 1960's. If you try to adjust for eras you become biased towards the eras you are most familiar with and usually show ignorance of at least one era.



It didn't provide evidence that he could guard Shaq or deal with speed demons and 3pt shooting centers.

So, Shaq's highlight tapes provide no evidence (beyond opinions) he could score against Russell.

Here's a real good example of the bias I was talking about: There was no three-point line when Russell played, yet he played in an era when the game changed more than any other one. He was able to adjust to every change and continue to win, why would the three-point line be any different. As for Speed Demons, he was a 6'9" Olympic level track star, I don't think speed in any era was a concern. To me the fact that you would suppose that fast players would bother Russell shows me you have little understanding of his abilities.


Another top 7 GOAT said Jordan was God. Magic said he was the greatest. For whatever reasons when I see Oscar he compares Wilt to the modern centers and not Russell.

In 1980, a panel of Basketball experts voted Russell the Greatest Player Ever. All the Celtics, the vast majority of his contemporaries including a lot of Wilt's teammates give the nod to Russell. All of these are opinions.



Hey I was wrong to say he was Lazy. I should have said I don't agree with his priorities.

When I read this I don't want to talk to you anymore. His priorities were ALWAYS to win and he always did. The Celtics started winning titles as soon as he got there and stopped as soon as he left. If you disagree with his priorities that you truly are an idiot. I mean right?


I sited the video and provided the video in which I said he showed a lack of confidence in dribbling and I am very curious as why this is so this late in his career.

Maybe it's because he was a center and almost never needed to dribble the ball. If you can't show me how it impacted the final score (and you can't cause it never did) than the point is moot.


Wow, I answered that three times between your thread and mine. LOL

You still haven't given anything close to a valid counterpoint though, which still suggests you don't understand the opposing argument.


I also stated that it is unprofessional for anybody who works with a certain tool to not develope themselves with that tool.

Russell decided that dribbling and shooting were not important for him to win, and he was right.


I said it was criminal that a guy who could neglect that be called the best of all time and that it was also a testiment of how bad the times where. I also said it was totally unresponsible of him to his craft to not improve himself in a practical way.

Yikes. See when i read this all I see is someone who understands the modern game but has no concept of the NBA before whenever he was born. You do realize that everything about basketball has changed since 1956 when Russell was drafted?

What you think about the era could not be less relevant. Also unresponsible is not a word. It's irresponsible and the only thing irresponsible is your analysis of the most dedicated team mate in sports history as not showing practical improvement.

How would it have been practical or beneficial to substitute anything he did to win 11 Championships in 13 years in place of refining a skill that WE KNOW he didn't need to win those?

If you can't answer that (and you can't) then you need to reevaluate your position.

[Pointguard]

No one is following this portion of thread except those involved in the"debate". It's not personal I don't even know you. If you say something stupid or fail to show the ability to understand it will be characterized as stupid. I'll try and show you what I think your failing to understand.
What you fail to understand that it is childish to name call when you are coming back with nothing at all. And this is the first time you have stood up and presented your case. We are well over a dozen exchanges now. I have presented 22 facts and this is the first time you have come ready to back up claims.



Nothing is clear cut, but that one's pretty close. Russell won MVP in 1962 as voted by the players in a season where Wilt broke the NBA records for scoring and rebounding average and Oscar averaged a triple double. The two greatest statistical seasons in NBA history and Russell wins MVP because of his defense, safe to say his impact on that end was pretty significant if on a more balanced team he was still considered more valuable than two other all-time greats and MVP winners who excelled on offense like no one else ever has. Excellent point! But there is nothing in my presentation at all that suggest anything to counter this. Ergo, isn't it stupid to suggest that I don't understand it, even after I give him the best defensive player status. For the sake of it, I will counter with human nature and the times can greatly affect MVP voting by the players. It is also a popularity contest.

1. Are there not politics in players who flat out fear another player. Honestly, you don't think Red Aurabach went into the NY locker room and said Wilt embarrassed you guys... send a message... . Red looked out for his boys.

2. And players didn't, and still don't, like the guy who gets all the girls (Shaq escapades were leaked out for no reason, and Jim Jackson said he caught it). I seen Knicks tapes where Walt Frazier get punched twice during games and neither time did it look like it emanated from basketball. Walt Frazier totally lit them up on the court tho. Wilt came into town looking to score 50 on you and then take the prettiest girls.



Could not be more irrelevant. Bill Russell did not play in modern times, just as Kevin Durant did not play in the 1960's. If you try to adjust for eras you become biased towards the eras you are most familiar with and usually show ignorance of at least one era. Ha, human nature is a valid argument!

So, Shaq's highlight tapes provide no evidence (beyond opinions) he could score against Russell. Comparatively, Wilt said he didn't go hard at the basket like Shaq yet there are plenty of tapes of him going straight up and dunking over Russell without fakes or a lot of maneuverability. Welcome to Shaq world. Russell is also undersized.


Here's a real good example of the bias I was talking about: There was no three-point line when Russell played, yet he played in an era when the game changed more than any other one. He was able to adjust to every change and continue to win, why would the three-point line be any different. As for Speed Demons, he was a 6'9" Olympic level track star, I don't think speed in any era was a concern. To me the fact that you would suppose that fast players would bother Russell shows me you have little understanding of his abilities.

My mistake, I actually I meant to say quicker players. I know guys like Archibald and Calvin Murphy came as Russell was gone. Quicker players and penetrators as I mentioned in my points above create more responsibility on the center. As do centers with 3 point range. I have already mentioned Russell's track speed in my amazement that he should have gotten 4 or 5 uncontested shots that way in a game that was really conducive for track stars.


When I read this I don't want to talk to you anymore. His priorities were ALWAYS to win and he always did. The Celtics started winning titles as soon as he got there and stopped as soon as he left. If you disagree with his priorities that you truly are an idiot. I mean right?
Wow, You just don't get it. We are talking greatest of all time. Not that he won. One is one thing and one is the other. The team won and Russell was on it. He was never alone. Let the winning go for a second. If you are not good with the tool you work with everyday for 13 years, nobody is going to call you the greatest tool worker - let the tool be a canvas, a hockey stick, bricks WHATEVER. It is insulting to those who have become Magicians, like Jordan/Magic, that a person who simply CHOSE not to perfect his craft nor felt that he had to. If you choose to take on half the job don't be surprised when the full time guy more serious about the tool they work with replaces you. He eliminates himself from the conversation because of his choices. He didn't take on all the responsibility of his work.


Maybe it's because he was a center and almost never needed to dribble the ball. If you can't show me how it impacted the final score (and you can't cause it never did) than the point is moot. The guy was so lucky that the main object of the game, to put the ball thru the hoop, was a skill he didn't have to cultivate. To me he sounds like the luckiest guy of all time. There is a story of a pauper that never fed himself because he had servants. He was probably the GOAT paupers cause he never learned to feed himself, but wow, what an idiot. GOAT isn't about who won. Its about how you play the game and affected it. Did russell play the full game- NO. Are there people out there trying to be like him - NO. The tapes out there reveal nothing out of the extraordinary. But we are supposed to take your word on it that he is the best. You believe it, give us a tangible revelation.



You still haven't given anything close to a valid counterpoint though, which still suggests you don't understand the opposing argument. Your counter point is that he won which is a cover. I understand that. But to be the best you have to master the tool you work with. Winning the game is the object of the game but for GOAT its about how you do it, the full investment of playing the game. You can't play half the game and expect that you will be respected like those that developed every aspect of the game to be better. Robert Horry is not better Jordan.


Russell decided that dribbling and shooting were not important for him to win, and he was right.
Was it professional or smart? Does it make him better or best as you suggest? Heck NO!



How would it have been practical or beneficial to substitute anything he did to win 11 Championships in 13 years in place of refining a skill that WE KNOW he didn't need to win those?

If you can't answer that (and you can't) then you need to reevaluate your position.
Ahh, you think to win is everything. He refines his skills to make himself more complete. The second he says he doesn't have to be as complete as the next center, he must realize that other complete players are going to be considered better. He removed himself from the GOAT conversation. Al Capone used to cheat and win all the time. Was he the greatest card player? Sometimes the cards are stacked in your favor but if you depend on others playing their hand wrong you are a looser in a way - the second you rest on your laurels you are only as good as they are bad. A winner like Jordan is never going to let it be about how bad the opponent is. Its about how good he can make himself. With an attitude like Russell you have to be lucky and he was.

Its more about how you do things. You overemphasize the result which is not what life is about. The best stories are about how you go about what you do. Are you going to live this life, refine yourself and try to develop yourself as best as possible. Results are cool but its not the reason we live.

[G.O.A.T]

http://metrobibleblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/chagall_deathofsaul.jpg

It's just not worth it.

[jlauber]

Much of this discussion is based on offensive numbers...which, ultimately hurt Russell in the eyes of some here.

Let's be honest here, though. Virtually ALL of the GREAT players had flaws. Those that rank MJ, Kareem, and Wilt above Russell have to concede that all three of them played on "losers." All three of them played on teams that SHOULD have won titles, and didn't. And NONE of them carried sub-50 win teams to titles. You could make an argument, that none of them carried true under-dogs to titles.

The same cannot be said for Russell. As has been pointed out here, he came to a team that never sniffed an NBA championship, and led them to a title in his very first year. He then guided great teams, very good teams, and even just good teams, to 10 more titles in 12 years. He carried at least two under-dog teams to titles, as well. And, he never lost with a favored team, either. And, after he left, the Celtics dropped to a losing team.

Regul8r has pointed out that he anchored SEVERAL of the greatest defensive teams in NBA HISTORY. There has been a statistical analysis that was done that compared Russell's DEFENSIVE IMPACT to MJ's OFFENSIVE IMPACT. Think about that...Russell's defense was the equivalent of a player that many consider the best offensive player, EVER. So, in effect, Russell's defensive impact was the same as him scoring 30+ ppg a game.

At a certain point, it just comes down to what you value most. Most all of the "ESPN Generation" have MJ ranked as the GOAT. I don't really have a problem with that, and I can understand why. BUT, those same fans probably have Russell ranked somewhere near the botton of their Top-10, IF that high. I DO have a problem with that. As has been stated here several times now, in 1980, Russell was considered a near-consensus GOAT. I find it hard to believe that players like Bird, Magic, Kareem, Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Hakeem, and even Wilt have somehow all passed Russell over the course of that last 30 years (especially Wilt...how is that possible?) How does the best player of the first 35 years in NBA history, get passed by by eight, or more, players, in the last 30 years? If it took 35 years to establish a near consensus GOAT, how do we all of a sudden come up with a slew of better players in the next 30?

The bottom line, though, is that we are at a point here, where everyone has made up their minds already. I'm sure if we took some poll here, that MJ would rout the field, and then the rest of the top-10 would have players like Kareem, Bird, Magic, and perhaps Wilt fighting for the next four spots. And, unfortunately, Russell would probably be near the bottom of the top-10. I don't think a 1000 pages supporting Russell would change any of that.

[julizaver]

For me personaly - the GOAT shall be decided between Wilt Chamberlain and Michael Jordan. But they are hard to compared cause Wilt is a center and Jordan is a shooting guard.

I considered Jordan a complete player - although he is more of an individual than a team player, and although someone can argue for the lack of assits or the low 3pt shooting percentage ( i found the last one complete nonsence - Jordan was not a 3 point shooter and there was no need to be - he was a great penetrator early in his career and a great mid range fadeway shooter in his late years with BULLS)- but he won games for his teams and there was no need to change his game . He has some trouble issues with his ego in the late 80's, but he was the MAIN REASON for BULLS dynasty - and the team was built around him. He was a force on both end of the court. He was the best player from 1988 till 1998 - no doubt about that.

Wilt Chamberlain was the best player during the 60's - also no doubt about that - even Russell knows that Wilt was better and if Wilt want to play the game like Russ he could do it better than him. Also - no doubt that Russ was the most priceless piece in Celtics roster and without him they maybe would have won nothing !!! But the basketball is a team sport and Russells teams won the championsips all together.

KAJ was the best player during the 70's - OK, no doubt about that - but the prime and young Wilt will be able to outplay him in my opinion - no need to argue on that know.

That's why I consider Wilt and Mike as the GOAT and after that KAJ as third in that list.

About teams I consider Celtics from 60's and Bulls from 90's as the best teams in the hisotry of NBA.

[G.O.A.T]

Wilt Chamberlain was the best player during the 60's - also no doubt about that - even Russell knows that Wilt was better and if Wilt want to play the game like Russ he could do it better than him.

If any of this were true than Wilt shouldn't touch the top ten. On the contrary it's Wilt who has admitted his game would not lend itself to winning as many titles with the Celtics as Russell did. So I'll make the easy and much smarter choice and take Russell. Since winning is the goal and the great majority of people who lived through or have written on the topic agree, including the panel of experts that selected Russell over Wilt as the greatest player in league history 10 years after the two played their last game (which as usual Russell won despite Wilt have better teammates and the home court).

[Pointguard]

For me personaly - the GOAT shall be decided between Wilt Chamberlain and Michael Jordan. But they are hard to compared cause Wilt is a center and Jordan is a shooting guard.

I considered Jordan a complete player - although he is more of an individual than a team player, and although someone can argue for the lack of assits or the low 3pt shooting percentage ( i found the last one complete nonsence - Jordan was not a 3 point shooter and there was no need to be - he was a great penetrator early in his career and a great mid range fadeway shooter in his late years with BULLS)- but he won games for his teams and there was no need to change his game . He has some trouble issues with his ego in the late 80's, but he was the MAIN REASON for BULLS dynasty - and the team was built around him. He was a force on both end of the court. He was the best player from 1988 till 1998 - no doubt about that.

Wilt Chamberlain was the best player during the 60's - also no doubt about that - even Russell knows that Wilt was better and if Wilt want to play the game like Russ he could do it better than him. Also - no doubt that Russ was the most priceless piece in Celtics roster and without him they maybe would have won nothing !!! But the basketball is a team sport and Russells teams won the championsips all together.

KAJ was the best player during the 70's - OK, no doubt about that - but the prime and young Wilt will be able to outplay him in my opinion - no need to argue on that know.

That's why I consider Wilt and Mike as the GOAT and after that KAJ as third in that list.

About teams I consider Celtics from 60's and Bulls from 90's as the best teams in the hisotry of NBA.

Pretty much exactly the way I see it.

[jlauber]

For me personaly - the GOAT shall be decided between Wilt Chamberlain and Michael Jordan. But they are hard to compared cause Wilt is a center and Jordan is a shooting guard.

I considered Jordan a complete player - although he is more of an individual than a team player, and although someone can argue for the lack of assits or the low 3pt shooting percentage ( i found the last one complete nonsence - Jordan was not a 3 point shooter and there was no need to be - he was a great penetrator early in his career and a great mid range fadeway shooter in his late years with BULLS)- but he won games for his teams and there was no need to change his game . He has some trouble issues with his ego in the late 80's, but he was the MAIN REASON for BULLS dynasty - and the team was built around him. He was a force on both end of the court. He was the best player from 1988 till 1998 - no doubt about that.

Wilt Chamberlain was the best player during the 60's - also no doubt about that - even Russell knows that Wilt was better and if Wilt want to play the game like Russ he could do it better than him. Also - no doubt that Russ was the most priceless piece in Celtics roster and without him they maybe would have won nothing !!! But the basketball is a team sport and Russells teams won the championsips all together.

KAJ was the best player during the 70's - OK, no doubt about that - but the prime and young Wilt will be able to outplay him in my opinion - no need to argue on that know.

That's why I consider Wilt and Mike as the GOAT and after that KAJ as third in that list.

About teams I consider Celtics from 60's and Bulls from 90's as the best teams in the hisotry of NBA.

First of all, when Julizaver makes a comment, it has to be taken seriously. I am not sure if anyone has spent more time researching Wilt's statistical career, (other than maybe Pollack), than this man. He has scoured online newspaper articles and actualy came up with EVERY H2H game between Wilt and Kareem. He also has done research on some of Wilt's high games against some of the "greats." I personally use him as a reference.

And, regarding his take on the Wilt-Russell debate, I believe he has some valid points. IMHO, Wilt, at his BEST, was the BEST player ever. Even more frightening, is the fact that Wilt seldom played all-out. Take a look at the Record Book, and it confirms that he was individually, the most dominant ever. Now, consider what that book would look like had he played with Russell's intensity, or Shaq's physicality.

And, let's also keep in mind that the "winning" differential between Russell and Wilt, while 7-1 in rings, was in actuality, a mere NINE points, TOTAL, in FOUR game sevens, from being a 5-3 edge for Chamberlain.

And, if you look at those individual H2H battles, and didn't know anything about the outcome of those games, you would come away not only believing Wilt was better, but overwhemingly better.

Regarding the Kareem-Wilt matchup, aside from Kareem outscoring Wilt in the 71-72 season by a large margin, the rest of their career was very close. In the only matchup in which Chamberlain could be considered close to his prime, in their very first meeting in 1969 (and just before Wilt's horrific knee injury), Wilt thoroughly outplayed Kareem in EVERY facet of the game. And, a year-and-a-half later, in the 70-71 WCF's, Chamberlain, just one year removed from major knee surgery, and at 11 years older, battled Abdul-Jabbar to a statistical draw.

Furthermore, in the 71-72 WCF's, while Kareem put up some huge scoring games, Wilt held Kareem to .457 shooting (Kareem had shot .574 during the regular season.) Even more incredible, over the course of the last four pivital games of that series, Chamberlain held Kareem to .414 shooting, AND, was knocking the "sky-hook" all over the building. In the clinching game six, Wilt took over the game in the 4th quarter, and dominated Kareem down the stretch. And, in their last season in the league together, in six regular season games, Wilt outshot Kareem from teh floor, .637 to .450, and he even outscored him in one game, despite Kareem taking 27 shots to Chamberlain's 14.

Continuing, Wilt was never close to his "scoring" prime, or even his "all-around" prime (66-67) when he faced Kareem. Kareem struggled mightily against Thurmond in their playoff battles. In fact, Nate outscored and outshot Kareem in the '71-72 playoffs. And, as we all know by now, Thurmond held Kareem to three straight post-seasons of .486, .405, and .428 shooting.

Wilt never faced Nate in the post-season in his "scoring" seasons, but still, he pretty much dominated him in all three. He outrebounded him in all three, (some by huge margins), and outshot him in all three. In fact, Wilt shot 50% or better, in all three (.up to .560), and held Thurmond under 40% in all three (and in one, at .343.) Furthermore, the two only met a few times in Wilt's "scoring" seasons, and we know that Wilt outscored him in one, 45-13, and put up a 38-31 game in another. Even in his 66-67 season, when he cut back his shooting dramatically, he was asked to score in an early season game, and took over in the second half with a 24 point outburst, en route to a 30 point game (with 12 blocks.)

The bottom line, involving Wilt and Kareem was, as Julizaver stated,...that we never got to see a PRIME Wilt. And, by most observers, we did see a well-past his peak Chamberlain, outplay a statistically PRIME Kareem late in his career. One can only imagine what a 65-66 or 66-67 Wilt would have done to Kareem. And, in terms of statistical domination...it is not even close. Wilt holds a 7-2 edge in scoring titles. He holds a 9-1 edge in FG% titles. He holds an incredible 11-1 margin in rebounding titles. And, he even won an assist title. Also, most of those statistical titles are light-years ahead of Kareem's best seasons. And, keep this in mind...Kareem played for 20 seasons, while Wilt only played in 14.

Having said all of that, though, and getting back to the Russell-Wilt debate...Russell DID have that 7-1 edge in rings H2H. And, he did whatever it took to get that edge. He held Wilt to 22 points in game seven of the '62 ECF's. He held Wilt to a 14 point game in game seven of the '68 ECF's. And, he held Wilt to 12 ppg in the '69 Finals. True, in most all instances, Chamberlain had some dominating games in those series. And, yes, Wilt had some legitimate excuses for his TEAM's losing those series. But, the bottom line was that Russell needed no excuses. He took great teams to titles. He took very good team's to titles. And he even won with a merely good team, in his very last season.

Stats meant nothing to Russell (except the final score...and his ring count.) And he played only to WIN. No one else did it better. And, as G.O.A.T stated, Russell was almost universally accepted as the best player of his era, by his peers and media alike.

[Duncan21formvp]

IMO Kareem is the GOAT, but Russell also has a strong case. 11 rings and 5 MVPs speaks for its self.

Honestly assigning an arbitrary criteria that the top players must be an offensive threat is just naive. I guess this shows the prevailing stat hog mentality and double standards of today's fans. Magic averaged less than 20 PPG, is he worthy to be put in the top 10? John Stockton only averaged 13 PPG is he worthy to be included in the top 15-20?

People put way too much stock on an individuals scoring stats to determine their greatness, especially when such scoring stats (and stats in general) don't tell a complete picture of the player's contributions.

I agree that Kareem has a strong case to be GOAT, as does Russell, but I believe MJ has the strongest case for GOAT.

IMO, MJ and Kareem are 1a and 1b, but what hurts Kareem is that for half of his titles he not only had a player better than he was on his team, but the fact he had a player that was either the best player in the league (1987) or 2nd best player in the league (1988 and 1985) on his team.


With Kareem he was great statisically but people forget that once Oscar left the team went from 59 wins to 38 wins and didn't make the playoffs.
Kareem gets traded to the Lakers and the Bucks the team Kareem was on the previous year makes the playoffs while Kareem on his new team did not.
Also there were 2 series where he was hands down favorite and lost the 1st series he played. 1973 vs Golden State and 1981 vs Houston. Those series are inexcusable.


People overrate winning so much. Its not winning that matters, its how you PERFORMED while Winning.

Performance, rings, accolades, productivity as a player determines the GOAT.

[Duncan21formvp]

So your saying Russell only won because he had talented teammates?

- Boston had never even been to the Finals before Bill Russell. Despite having multiple HOF players and a HOF coach.

- During the 1962 season, Russell took himself out for 4 games and the Celtics lost 4 straight games even with Cousy, Sharman, Jones, Ramsey and other HoF's.

- In the 1969 season he took himself out for 5 games due to injury and Boston lost 5 straight games even with Hall of famers Jones, Hondo, Howell and Sanders

The occurrences that I mentioned are the worst losing streaks of the Russell-era Celtics. The latter is the worst losing streak of the Celtics since Red Auerbach took over the helm.

After he retired, Boston went from 48 wins to 34 and they didn't make the playoffs despite having several HOF players. An abysmal 14 game drop off. Compare that to Jordan who a lot of people consider the undisputed greatest and the most valuable player ever.

After Jordan retired in '93 the Bulls only had a 2 game drop off. (57 wins to 55). Hell, if it wasn't for one of the most controversial phantom foul calls ever, the Bulls would've been in the ECF. It would've been a huge blow to Jordan's prestige and importance seeing the team that he left behind reach the conference finals. And no the post-98 Bulls doesn't count since it was a virtual restructuring of the Bulls with Jordan, Pippen, Rodman and Phil Jackson all going out.

And the modest 48 wins that the Celtics garnered during the '69 season is the lowest number of wins that the Celtics have during the Russell -era and occurred only because Russell spent a lot of time on the injured list and/or recovering.

Boston with an "All-Star" cast like that should be able to shake off his departure and continue the dynasty, but they couldn't.

He has 5 rings without Cousy and 5 without Hondo and 2 without coach Auerbach. 3 without KC and Heinsohn, 2 of which came as a player/coach.


Bill made HOF players out of his teammates. He had a good cast because he was the one making them look good. He was the one constant in Boston's dynasty.

I agree with a lot of this, however a few things I wanted to point out.
1. When Russell went to the Celtics they were a team that had been in the playoffs 6 years in a row and that was in the 2nd round or greater each time.
2. When Russell went to the Celtics, he was playing with the player that won league mvp that year in Cousy.
So while I agree that Russell help turn guys into HOF, he sure in hell didn't turn Cousy into one and he sure as hell didn't inherit a lottery team when he first went there.
Also in 1969
He had 2 teammates that were top 5 in Win Shares in the playoffs and he had 3 teammates that had a higher Win Share than he did in the playoffs and those same two teammates had a higher PER in the playoffs than Russell as well.

3. John Havlicek*-BOS 2.8
4. Willis Reed*-NYK 2.2
5. Don Nelson-BOS 1.8

Don Nelson this season simply had better overall numbers statistically than Russell did.

Also I don't see how it would hurt MJ's legacy if the Bulls got to the finals considering how much did it hurt Kareem's legacy that Magic got to the finals without him and was 2nd in MVP voting or that Magic won back to back MVP's? Or how did it hurt Russell's legacy that HONDO won 2 titles after Russell left as well?
Truth be told it didn't. Also you are using hypotheticals because the Bulls didn't win in 1994. Whereas those other things actually happened.

[Pointguard]

Regul8r has pointed out that he anchored SEVERAL of the greatest defensive teams in NBA HISTORY. There has been a statistical analysis that was done that compared Russell's DEFENSIVE IMPACT to MJ's OFFENSIVE IMPACT. Think about that...Russell's defense was the equivalent of a player that many consider the best offensive player, EVER. So, in effect, Russell's defensive impact was the same as him scoring 30+ ppg a game.

We can never really isolate his defensive impact. You can say there are patterns when Russell is in the game but you can't say it's because of Russell. I do know that when Jordan played opposing offenses strategized to not have the ball on his side of the court. Now how do we quantify that? Jordan was as good a defensive player that there was during his time as well.

You also said Jordan lost a year he should have won? What year was that? Like I said. Jordan and 2 other HOFers the only question is to what level does that team win the most games ever. Everything else is sowed up.

To me the fact that Russell can come in right away and win is an argument against him and his times. It was easy. You didn't even have to go thru a Rites of Passage. The balance of power was very fragile then.


At a certain point, it just comes down to what you value most. Most all of the "ESPN Generation" have MJ ranked as the GOAT. I don't really have a problem with that, and I can understand why. BUT, those same fans probably have Russell ranked somewhere near the botton of their Top-10, IF that high. I DO have a problem with that. As has been stated here several times now, in 1980, Russell was considered a near-consensus GOAT. I find it hard to believe that players like Bird, Magic, Kareem, Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Hakeem, and even Wilt have somehow all passed Russell over the course of that last 30 years (especially Wilt...how is that possible?) How does the best player of the first 35 years in NBA history, get passed by by eight, or more, players, in the last 30 years? If it took 35 years to establish a near consensus GOAT, how do we all of a sudden come up with a slew of better players in the next 30?

The bottom line, though, is that we are at a point here, where everyone has made up their minds already. I'm sure if we took some poll here, that MJ would rout the field, and then the rest of the top-10 would have players like Kareem, Bird, Magic, and perhaps Wilt fighting for the next four spots. And, unfortunately, Russell would probably be near the bottom of the top-10. I don't think a 1000 pages supporting Russell would change any of that.
I agree. But in everything we know, we know that we don't see Rusell's greatness. There is no footage (Amazingly we have footage Wilt in HS - even Babe Ruth 20 years prior) showing a player that should be considered the GOAT. We mysteriously are susposed to believe it. The footage we see he is a good player that rebounds alot and blocks well - yet we know he was second in those categories.

I seen a lot of Russell and you can see some of Russell on Youtube. Tell me that you see this standout player? Do we have one player that said they emulated the way he played? Just one? Artist Gilmore was primarily a defensive player in the next generation and I never seen the I wanna be like Russell quote. Maybe yall can produce a Dave Cowens quote. You do not go into the Jordan archives and I guarantee you will not see anything that resembles the footage Shaqattack showed us. Not in any playoff series, nor in any half. That's how thorough Jordan is.

We know Russell won a lot and we base the rest on what other people give us. Why is there an intentional hold back on footage? They're hiding something. We do get international people that held on to footage and some of that gets relseased on Youtube before it gets shut down but mysteriously nothing that captured Russell being super special. Why is that so mysteriously consistent? Why in the information age/video age are we so thoroughly being brainwashed into this Russell doctrine. The one thing in our lives that doesn't have to go thru the show and prove reality.

I say its fair that he shouldn't be in top 5 until we see something.

[jlauber]

I agree that Kareem has a strong case to be GOAT, as does Russell, but I believe MJ has the strongest case for GOAT.

IMO, MJ and Kareem are 1a and 1b, but what hurts Kareem is that for half of his titles he not only had a player better than he was on his team, but the fact he had a player that was either the best player in the league (1987) or 2nd best player in the league (1988 and 1985) on his team.


With Kareem he was great statisically but people forget that once Oscar left the team went from 59 wins to 38 wins and didn't make the playoffs.
Kareem gets traded to the Lakers and the Bucks the team Kareem was on the previous year makes the playoffs while Kareem on his new team did not.
Also there were 2 series where he was hands down favorite and lost the 1st series he played. 1973 vs Golden State and 1981 vs Houston. Those series are inexcusable.


People overrate winning so much. Its not winning that matters, its how you PERFORMED while Winning.

Performance, rings, accolades, productivity as a player determines the GOAT.

I agree with much of this. I have been asked why I rank Russell so high, based on rings, yet, at the same time, I have Wilt at #4 (behind Russell, MJ, amd Magic), when he "only" had two. The reason is the fact that Wilt almost always played brilliantly, even in defeat. AND, with a few points, here-or-there, or a few breaks, here-or-there, and he could have won anywhere from 5-7 more rings.

Personally, I have Russell with a razor-thin edge over MJ. Why? Because MJ played on some very good teams that did not win the title. He played on 50 win teams in the late 80's that did not win. He played on the '95 Bulls, just after that team had gone 55-27 the year before withOUT him, and they did not win. Russell simply won...whether it was on great team's (e.g 62-63), very good teams (e.g. 65-66), or even just merely good teams (68-69.) And, while most everyone discounts Russell because of his offense, the fact was, his defensive impact has been compared with MJ's offensive impact...or the equivalent of a 30 ppg scorer. Furthermore, Russell made his teammates much more effective. It was no coincidence that he took a team that had never won a title, to 11 in 13 years (and he played injured on one of those teams that did not win)...and that the Celtics dropped to 34-48 after he retired.

After Russell and MJ, I have Magic, who was, IMHO, the second greatest "winner" (behind Russell), in NBA history. He basically played 12 seasons, and in those 12, his team's averaged 59 wins per year. They went to nine Finals, and won FIVE of them. In fact, if he had not been injured in '81, LA probably wins that season. And, had Worthy not missed the Finals in '83, the Lakers, might have won that season (even though they were swept, the last three games were close.) In '84, Magic, himself goofed up one game at the FT line, but still his overall numbers were exceptional, and had he not missed those two FTs in game four, LA wins that series in six games. In '89 Magic led LA into the Finals with an 11-0 playoff record, but they had lost Scott before the Finals, and then Magic went down in game two. Here again, they were swept, but three of those games were close. Only in '86, when Houston shocked the heavily-favored Lakers, 4-1, is the only season in which they did not have an excuse for losing.

I have covered Wilt here many times. FOUR game seven losses to Russell's Celtics, by a TOTAL of NINE points. And, there were significant injuries in '68. There were miracle shots in '69 (and horrible coaching.) There was a controversial goal-tend in '62. And there was a brilliant steal by Havlicek in '65. In game five of the '70 Finals, even the NY media admitted that the officials handed the Knicks that game, which ultimately led to a seven game series win. And injuries killed Wilt's '71 and '73 teams. On top of all of that, he generally either outplayed, or crushed his opposing center in most all of his post-seasons.

I have dropped Kareem to #5, only because, before Magic, his track record was even worse than Wilt's. Duncan21for MVP mentioned Kareem's 73 and '81 post-seasons. He also lost with a 63 win team in '72. His '74 Bucks, which went 59-23, lost a game seven in the Finals, to the 56-26 Celtics, and when Cowens outplayed him. His '75 Bucks went 38-44, and did not make the playoffs in a year in which the 48-34 Warriors, with really only Barry as a superstar, won the title. In '76 his Lakers, in a very weak league, could not make the playoffs, and had a losing record. In '77, his 53-29 Lakers were swept by the 49-33 Blazers. He had Wilkes, Nixon, Hudson, and Dantley on his 77-78 and 78-79 Lakers teams, and they were destroyed by the Sonics. In the '78 post-season, that Sonic team lost in the Finals to a 44-38 Bullets team. In '79, a Sonics team with one borderline HOFer (Dennis Johnson) beat Kareem's Lakers, 4-1...with, again, Nixon, Hudon, Wilkes, and Dantley.

Kareem had post-seasons FG% seasons of .437, .428, and .462...and all were well below the league average. He was outplayed by Thurmond and Wilt in '72, and by Malone in '83. And he was simply horrible in both '88 and '89.

And Kareem was probably only LA's third best player in '87, and probably only their fifth best player in '88...yet he gets credit for two rings. His '71 Bucks beat a Laker team in the WCF's, that had lost Baylor AND West before the playoffs, and then swept a 42-40 Bullets team in the Finals. So, even that title was not a monumental achievement. And, while he was the best player on the '80 Lakers, he was at home when Magic had that 42-15 game six clinchin win. From that point on, it was Magic's team. The bottom line is that Kareem's six rings were clearly deceptive. He won two titles as the best player on the team, and in one, they had no competition, and in the other, he was not even on the floor when they won. Two of his rings were achieved as the second best player, and the other two were achieved as either the third best player, or DESPITE his poor play.

Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Olajuwon, and Bird round out my top-10. They all had their post-season flops, as well. Shaq was on six team's that got swept. Duncan played on team's in '01 and '02 that were crushed in the post-season, as well as in '08. Kobe was awful in the '04 and '08 Finals. Olajuwon played on EIGHT teams that lost in the FIRST ROUND. And Bird shot .455 in his CAREER Finals. And even in one title, he shot .419.

[Pointguard]

2. When Russell went to the Celtics, he was playing with the player that won league mvp that year in Cousy.
So while I agree that Russell help turn guys into HOF, he sure in hell didn't turn Cousy into one and he sure as hell didn't inherit a lottery team when he first went there.
Also in 1969
He had 2 teammates that were top 5 in Win Shares in the playoffs and he had 3 teammates that had a higher Win Share than he did in the playoffs and those same two teammates had a higher PER in the playoffs than Russell as well.

3. John Havlicek*-BOS 2.8
4. Willis Reed*-NYK 2.2
5. Don Nelson-BOS 1.8

Don Nelson this season simply had better overall numbers statistically than Russell did.

Also I don't see how it would hurt MJ's legacy if the Bulls got to the finals considering how much did it hurt Kareem's legacy that Magic got to the finals without him and was 2nd in MVP voting or that Magic won back to back MVP's? Or how did it hurt Russell's legacy that HONDO won 2 titles after Russell left as well?
Truth be told it didn't. Also you are using hypotheticals because the Bulls didn't win in 1994. Whereas those other things actually happened.
Great points.
If these circumstances surrounded Tim Duncan he has 11 rings. They are absolutely a mute point with Jordan. MVP teammate the previous year he joins the team. Two players in the top five win share and two guys with higher PER's. I'm sure Sam Jones, HaveaCheck and Heinsohn were getting shooting tips from Russell as well. Heinson was fully into his game as well before Russell.

[Duncan21formvp]

I agree with much of this. I have been asked why I rank Russell so high, based on rings, yet, at the same time, I have Wilt at #4 (behind Russell, MJ, amd Magic), when he "only" had two. The reason is the fact that Wilt almost always played brilliantly, even in defeat. AND, with a few points, here-or-there, or a few breaks, here-or-there, and he could have won anywhere from 5-7 more rings.

Personally, I have Russell with a razor-thin edge over MJ. Why? Because MJ played on some very good teams that did not win the title. He played on 50 win teams in the late 80's that did not win. He played on the '95 Bulls, just after that team had gone 55-27 the year before withOUT him, and they did not win. Russell simply won...whether it was on great team's (e.g 62-63), very good teams (e.g. 65-66), or even just merely good teams (68-69.) And, while most everyone discounts Russell because of his offense, the fact was, his defensive impact has been compared with MJ's offensive impact...or the equivalent of a 30 ppg scorer. Furthermore, Russell made his teammates much more effective. It was no coincidence that he took a team that had never won a title, to 11 in 13 years (and he played injured on one of those teams that did not win)...and that the Celtics dropped to 34-48 after he retired.



Disagree with this. Russell had allstars on his team every single year he played. In fact the 1st year Russell won, he wasn't even an allstar himself. The late 80's Bulls had no other player that was even close to an allstar other than MJ. Also in 1995 the Bulls were the #5 seed playing the #1 seed.

1969 NBA 1. John Havlicek
2. Bill Russell

1968 NBA 1. John Havlicek
2. Sam Jones
3. Bill Russell

1967 NBA 1. John Havlicek
2. Bailey Howell
3. Bill Russell

1966 NBA 1. John Havlicek
2. Sam Jones
3. Bill Russell

1965 NBA 1. Tom Heinsohn
2. Sam Jones
3. Bill Russell


1964 NBA 1. Tom Heinsohn
2. Sam Jones
3. Bill Russell

1963 NBA 1. Bob Cousy
2. Tom Heinsohn
3. Bill Russell

1962 NBA 1. Bob Cousy
2. Tom Heinsohn
3. Sam Jones
4. Bill Russell

1961 NBA 1. Bob Cousy
2. Tom Heinsohn
3. Bill Russell

1960 NBA 1. Bob Cousy
2. Bill Russell
3. Bill Sharman

1959 NBA 1. Bob Cousy
2. Bill Russell
3. Bill Sharman


1958 NBA 1. Bob Cousy
2. Bill Russell
3. Bill Sharman

1957 NBA 1. Bob Cousy
2. Tom Heinsohn
3. Bill Sharman

[icewill36]

its nice his team won all those titles, but there were hardly any teams in the league FFS. he was very good and an important person for that era, not just in basketball, but as far as individual skill i dont think hes anywhere near the GOAT.

[jlauber]

Disagree with this. Russell had allstars on his team every single year he played. In fact the 1st year Russell won, he wasn't even an allstar himself. The late 80's Bulls had no other player that was even close to an allstar other than MJ. Also in 1995 the Bulls were the #5 seed playing the #1 seed.

1969 NBA 1. John Havlicek
2. Bill Russell

1968 NBA 1. John Havlicek
2. Sam Jones
3. Bill Russell

1967 NBA 1. John Havlicek
2. Bailey Howell
3. Bill Russell

1966 NBA 1. John Havlicek
2. Sam Jones
3. Bill Russell

1965 NBA 1. Tom Heinsohn
2. Sam Jones
3. Bill Russell


1964 NBA 1. Tom Heinsohn
2. Sam Jones
3. Bill Russell

1963 NBA 1. Bob Cousy
2. Tom Heinsohn
3. Bill Russell

1962 NBA 1. Bob Cousy
2. Tom Heinsohn
3. Sam Jones
4. Bill Russell

1961 NBA 1. Bob Cousy
2. Tom Heinsohn
3. Bill Russell

1960 NBA 1. Bob Cousy
2. Bill Russell
3. Bill Sharman

1959 NBA 1. Bob Cousy
2. Bill Russell
3. Bill Sharman


1958 NBA 1. Bob Cousy
2. Bill Russell
3. Bill Sharman

1957 NBA 1. Bob Cousy
2. Tom Heinsohn
3. Bill Sharman

The problem with basing it on all-stars, is the fact that there were only nine teams in the NBA for much of Russell's career...EVERY team had them. My god, Wilt played with one HOFer who is among the worst ever (Tom Gola...go ahead, look up his numbers.) He also played with two "all-stars" in '63 (Meschery and Rodgers...neither which were any good.)

Jordan's Bull nearly won the title withOUT him in '94. They went from a 57-25 team in '93 to a 55-27 team in '94, with no real replacement for MJ. That '94 team lost a close game seven to a Knick team, that would lose a close game seven to the Rockets in the Finals. In '95 Jordan came back and played near the end of the season. He even had a 55 point game. So, instead of being rusty, he was refreshed...and he still couldn't take that team to a title. Furthermore, in the late 80's, and against the Bad Boys, he essentially gave up. Fatal9 posted that series, and he was worse than Lebron in '10 against Boston.

Furthermore, Jordan played with most loaded rosters in the 90's. My god, Pippen, Grant, Rodman, Kerr, Kukoc, Paxson, Harper and others. How many GREAT teams did they face? There were NO loaded teams in the 90's. There were no 80's Sixers, Pistons, Celtics or Lakers.

Meanwhile, Russell won...plain-and-simple. And to a man, his teammates would acknowledge that Russell was the reason. How many 48-34 teams did Jordan carry to a title? Russell ELEVATED the play of his teammates, and his defensive IMPACT adversely affected his opponents. Take a look at Boston's record DURING the Russell era...withOUT Russell. It was awful. There were seasons in which he missed games, and his team lost ALL of them. They were merely a good team before he arrived, and a mediocre team after he left. In between, 11 titles in 13 years.

[Duncan21formvp]

The problem with basing it on all-stars, is the fact that there were only nine teams in the NBA for much of Russell's career...EVERY team had them. My god, Wilt played with one HOFer who is among the worst ever (Tom Gola...go ahead, look up his numbers.) He also played with two "all-stars" in '63 (Meschery and Rodgers...neither which were any good.)

Jordan's Bull nearly won the title withOUT him in '94. They went from a 57-25 team in '93 to a 55-27 team in '94, with no real replacement for MJ. That '94 team lost a close game seven to a Knick team, that would lose a close game seven to the Rockets in the Finals. In '95 Jordan came back and played near the end of the season. He even had a 55 point game. So, instead of being rusty, he was refreshed...and he still couldn't take that team to a title. Furthermore, in the late 80's, and against the Bad Boys, he essentially gave up. Fatal9 posted that series, and he was worse than Lebron in '10 against Boston.

Furthermore, Jordan played with most loaded rosters in the 90's. My god, Pippen, Grant, Rodman, Kerr, Kukoc, Paxson, Harper and others. How many GREAT teams did they face? There were NO loaded teams in the 90's. There were no 80's Sixers, Pistons, Celtics or Lakers.

Meanwhile, Russell won...plain-and-simple. And to a man, his teammates would acknowledge that Russell was the reason. How many 48-34 teams did Jordan carry to a title? Russell ELEVATED the play of his teammates, and his defensive IMPACT adversely affected his opponents. Take a look at Boston's record DURING the Russell era...withOUT Russell. It was awful. There were seasons in which he missed games, and his team lost ALL of them. They were merely a good team before he arrived, and a mediocre team after he left. In between, 11 titles in 13 years.

They were in the playoffs 6 years in a row before Russell came and always in the 2nd round. He didn't elevate them if Cousy was MVP before Russell was and was an allstar before Russell came. Not to mention he had guys finish ahead of him in Win Shares in the playoffs. Russell played with several HOF and guys who actually made the allstar team. Jordan never played with a player that was more proven than he was on his teams. Russell essentially came to a team that had the MVP already. Jordan pretty much went to a team with the 2nd worst record in the league and a team that was averaging 5000 in attendance to a winning organization.

Russell played with numerous all-stars: Bob Cousy, Ed Macauley, Bill Sharman, Tom Heinsohn, Sam Jones, and John Havlicek. A whopping nine of his teammates made the hall of fame!

Jordan never averaged less than 26.6 ppg in any playoff series and never less than 29.3 ppg in any playoff year. So yeah, he never gave up.
http://www.motorcitybadboys.com/box-score-1990-eastern-conference-finals-game-7.php

Jordan is the only player ever to win multiple titles without even having an allstar on his team. He did so in 1991 and 1998.

Also Jordan is the only top 10 player ever to never play with a guy who won league or finals mvp.

Russell in the finals in 1969 was the 7th leading scorer of 9 players.

http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1969.htm#


And how did the Bulls nearly win without him? They made the 2nd round, which is what the Celtics were doing before Russell got there. In fact, the Celtics won 2 titles in the 70's which was the most titles that decade without Russell and then 3 more in the 80's, so yeah Russell was already playing for a winning organization.

The only player that was a good player before Jordan played with them was Rodman and he was 35 at the time. Pippen was a 8 and 4 player and Grant was a bench warmer as well. Russell essentially played with a MVP as soon as he came into the league.

[Pointguard]

Furthermore, Jordan played with most loaded rosters in the 90's. My god, Pippen, Grant, Rodman, Kerr, Kukoc, Paxson, Harper and others. How many GREAT teams did they face? There were NO loaded teams in the 90's. There were no 80's Sixers, Pistons, Celtics or Lakers.

Meanwhile, Russell won...plain-and-simple. And to a man, his teammates would acknowledge that Russell was the reason. How many 48-34 teams did Jordan carry to a title? Russell ELEVATED the play of his teammates, and his defensive IMPACT adversely affected his opponents. Take a look at Boston's record DURING the Russell era...withOUT Russell. It was awful. There were seasons in which he missed games, and his team lost ALL of them. They were merely a good team before he arrived, and a mediocre team after he left. In between, 11 titles in 13 years.

LOL @ my god Kerr, Kukoc, Paxson, Harper and Grant. Haha!!! Those guys sucked on other teams - yes Grant too. Harper was beaten down by injuries by that time. Kerr, Kukoc and Paxson were ok players.

Was there a player from 88-96that was as good as Jordan. To me the better question, when he was healthy and in shape during that time, was there a better player in two consecutive games in which he played. He was that thoroughly competitive. If he had some of Russells shooting nights he probably would have had checked himself into a psychiatric facility.

[G.O.A.T]

They were in the playoffs 6 years in a row before Russell came and always in the 2nd round. He didn't elevate them if Cousy was MVP before Russell was and was an allstar before Russell came. Not to mention he had guys finish ahead of him in Win Shares in the playoffs. Russell played with several HOF and guys who actually made the allstar team. Jordan never played with a player that was more proven than he was on his teams. Russell essentially came to a team that had the MVP already. Jordan pretty much went to a team with the 2nd worst record in the league and a team that was averaging 5000 in attendance to a winning organization.

This is what bothers me, you don't even know what you're talking about, yet you act like these are things you know instead of asking questions.

Cousy was ONLY MVP because of Russell and because Russell didn't qualify for the award because he missed 30 games to play for the Olympic team. That and because Boston writers were racist and left him off the NBA team. Even when Russell was voted MVP by his peers, the media often put him on second team all-NBA.

Cousy's whole legacy changed with Russell because of Russell. He went from an entertaining fan favorite who never sniffed the finals in seven seasons to a six time champ and one of the games all-time greats.


Russell played with numerous all-stars: Bob Cousy, Ed Macauley, Bill Sharman, Tom Heinsohn, Sam Jones, and John Havlicek. A whopping nine of his teammates made the hall of fame!

Macauley and Russell never played together. In fact Macauley was traded for Russell, but you don't know that because you've not bothered to learn about this subject, yet you think you get to have a credible opinion.


Russell in the finals in 1969 was the 7th leading scorer of 9 players.

He also led the team in rebounds, blocked shots, assists and was the coach. So what's your point?



And how did the Bulls nearly win without him? They made the 2nd round, which is what the Celtics were doing before Russell got there.

Again, it's clear to people who understand this topic that you've done no research. The Celtics had won just one playoff series (a best of three) in three years before Russell was drafted.

And after he left, they became a bottom feeder, last place two years in a row despite having four of five starters and seven of the top nine back from the '69 Champs Including Players in the HOF like Havlicek and Howell.


In fact, the Celtics won 2 titles in the 70's which was the most titles that decade without Russell and then 3 more in the 80's, so yeah Russell was already playing for a winning organization.

Except before him the had 0 titles and in the 40 years since they've won just six. And by the way when he was there, they won 11. So Russell has more titles than the Celtics without him combined with the 76ers entire franchise dating back to the Syracuse days, but yeah, it was the organization.

As for those 1970 titles, great yes, but in easily the weakest three year period in NBA post-shot clock history.


Russell essentially played with a MVP as soon as he came into the league.

To say this correctly it would be "Russell essentially was a MVP as soon as he came into the league."

It's okay to rank players ahead of Russell, but don't pretend to know what you're talking about if you don't.

[jlauber]

They were in the playoffs 6 years in a row before Russell came and always in the 2nd round. He didn't elevate them if Cousy was MVP before Russell was and was an allstar before Russell came. Not to mention he had guys finish ahead of him in Win Shares in the playoffs. Russell played with several HOF and guys who actually made the allstar team. Jordan never played with a player that was more proven than he was on his teams. Russell essentially came to a team that had the MVP already. Jordan pretty much went to a team with the 2nd worst record in the league and a team that was averaging 5000 in attendance to a winning organization.

Russell played with numerous all-stars: Bob Cousy, Ed Macauley, Bill Sharman, Tom Heinsohn, Sam Jones, and John Havlicek. A whopping nine of his teammates made the hall of fame!

Jordan never averaged less than 26.6 ppg in any playoff series and never less than 29.3 ppg in any playoff year. So yeah, he never gave up.
http://www.motorcitybadboys.com/box-score-1990-eastern-conference-finals-game-7.php

Jordan is the only player ever to win multiple titles without even having an allstar on his team. He did so in 1991 and 1998.

Also Jordan is the only top 10 player ever to never play with a guy who won league or finals mvp.

Russell in the finals in 1969 was the 7th leading scorer of 9 players.

http://webuns.chez-alice.fr/finals/1969.htm#


And how did the Bulls nearly win without him? They made the 2nd round, which is what the Celtics were doing before Russell got there. In fact, the Celtics won 2 titles in the 70's which was the most titles that decade without Russell and then 3 more in the 80's, so yeah Russell was already playing for a winning organization.

The only player that was a good player before Jordan played with them was Rodman and he was 35 at the time. Pippen was a 8 and 4 player and Grant was a bench warmer as well. Russell essentially played with a MVP as soon as he came into the league.

I was hoping to find the boxscores on the 87-88 playoff battle between the 54-28 Pistons and the 50-32 Bulls, but I have not been able to find ANY. I wonder if the media didn't record Jordan's BAD games. Hopefully someone here will fill them in, but I would really be interested in the last three games of that series. In any case, Jordan, Oakley, Gilmore, Grant, Paxson, and Pippen were beaten 4-1 in that series. MJ only scored 25, 24, and 25 over the last three games, and if I recall, he was awful in the 4th quarter of game five.

Perhaps someone here can provide those numbers.

[G.O.A.T]

I was hoping to find the boxscores on the 87-88 playoff battle between the 54-28 Pistons and the 50-32 Bulls, but I have not been able to find ANY. I wonder if the media didn't record Jordan's BAD games. Hopefully someone here will fill them in, but I would really be interested in the last three games of that series. In any case, Jordan, Oakley, Gilmore, Grant, Paxson, and Pippen were beaten 4-1 in that series. MJ only scored 25, 24, and 25 over the last three games, and if I recall, he was awful in the 4th quarter of game five.

Perhaps someone here can provide those numbers.

I know Gilmore didn't play in that series, I have the box scores somewhere, I have all the Pistons playoff boxes from 1986 on through 1991, unless the ink has worn off.

I'll post them when I find them.

Jordan played with plenty of very good veteran players in his first four seasons.

Gervin
Gilmore
Oakley
Woolridge

He just never had the full team around him until Pippen and Grant matured.

[Duncan21formvp]

I was hoping to find the boxscores on the 87-88 playoff battle between the 54-28 Pistons and the 50-32 Bulls, but I have not been able to find ANY. I wonder if the media didn't record Jordan's BAD games. Hopefully someone here will fill them in, but I would really be interested in the last three games of that series. In any case, Jordan, Oakley, Gilmore, Grant, Paxson, and Pippen were beaten 4-1 in that series. MJ only scored 25, 24, and 25 over the last three games, and if I recall, he was awful in the 4th quarter of game five.

Perhaps someone here can provide those numbers.

That's because Gilmore didn't even play on the Bulls. He was traded to the Celtics.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/gilmoar01.html

Gilmore played on the Celtics in the playoffs.

[jlauber]

I know Gilmore didn't play in that series, I have the box scores somewhere, I have all the Pistons playoff boxes from 1986 on through 1991, unless the ink has worn off.

I'll post them when I find them.

Jordan played with plenty of very good veteran players in his first four seasons.

Gervin
Gilmore
Oakley
Woolridge

He just never had the full team around him until Pippen and Grant matured.

I have MJ ranked at #2, just behind Russell, and he was the greatest post-season scorer in NBA history (although West was close.) And there was no question that MJ was the reason the Bulls won six titles.

And I have no problem with those that rank MJ at #1. BUT, I do have a problem with those that just dismiss Russell's 11 rings as if he were just one of many great players on those Celtic teams. Jordan didn't win ANY rings until he was surrounded with those talented rosters of the 90's. One need look no further than the '94 Bulls, who went 55-27 withOUT Jordan (and just a year removed from a 57-25 record WITH MJ.) They lost a close and controversial game seven to the Knicks, who would go on and lose a close game seven to the Rockets in the Finals. Furthermore, they were an IMPROVED roster from '96 thru '98. My god, Rodman, Kerr, Harper, and Kukoc...along with Pippen? Rodman was arguably the best rebounder in the league, as well as a top notch defender, and Pippen was outstanding at EVERY facet of the game. Then, bring in Kerr, who may very well be the greatest 3pt shooter in NBA history, and you have a STACKED deck.

So, yes, Russell played on talented teams, but so did Jordan. And Jordan played on them in a much more watered down NBA.

[Alhazred]

The problem with basing it on all-stars, is the fact that there were only nine teams in the NBA for much of Russell's career...EVERY team had them. My god, Wilt played with one HOFer who is among the worst ever (Tom Gola...go ahead, look up his numbers.) He also played with two "all-stars" in '63 (Meschery and Rodgers...neither which were any good.)

Why is it that the only reason you've come up with for Gola being a bad player is stats? Have you even seen him play or read about him? Most of the information I've found on him leads me to believe that he was actually a solid player. From Wikipedia:


Gola was praised as a great all-around player as a high school student at La Salle College High School, where he led the Explorers to a Philadelphia Catholic League Championship. He entered La Salle a year after another Philadelphia NBA hall of famer, Paul Arizin, graduated from Villanova. Gola came to national attention while playing for the hometown La Salle University Explorers men's basketball team in 1954 as an All-American forward. At 6'6" (198 cm), Gola was clearly a forward who could shoot/score, rebound and defend, but he also had the ballhandling (dribbling, passing) skills of a guard, and with his shooting range and All-Pro defensive skills, could play just as well in the backcourt.

After a phenomenal college career, Gola turned pro with the Philadelphia Warriors as a territorial draft pick. He teamed with All-Pros Paul Arizin and Neil Johnston to lead the Warriors to NBA championship in 1956. He gained praise for concentrating on defense, passing and rebounding and allowing the other two to be the chief scorers during these years.

Also, Guy Rodgers from 1960-67 was either 1st or 2nd in total assists out of the entire league, yet according to you he wasn't "any good". :rolleyes:


Jordan's Bull nearly won the title withOUT him in '94. They went from a 57-25 team in '93 to a 55-27 team in '94, with no real replacement for MJ. That '94 team lost a close game seven to a Knick team, that would lose a close game seven to the Rockets in the Finals.

You forgot to mention that they acquired Kukoc, Kerr and Longley in 1994. Also, losing in the second round in 7 games is not nearly winning the title. It's a good run, but not really close to winning it all.


In '95 Jordan came back and played near the end of the season. He even had a 55 point game. So, instead of being rusty, he was refreshed...and he still couldn't take that team to a title.

"Refreshed"? Jordan shot 41% in his first 17 games back. :facepalm One good game in the regular season doesn't mean that he was completely back into shape. Also, Grant was no longer on the team and was on the Magic that year, which explains why the Bulls struggled.


Furthermore, in the late 80's, and against the Bad Boys, he essentially gave up. Fatal9 posted that series, and he was worse than Lebron in '10 against Boston.

Are you referring to the 1989 ECF? Not one of his performances that series was as bad as Lebron's 3 for 14 field goal performance in a 32 point blow out, imo.


Furthermore, Jordan played with most loaded rosters in the 90's. My god, Pippen, Grant, Rodman, Kerr, Kukoc, Paxson, Harper and others. How many GREAT teams did they face? There were NO loaded teams in the 90's. There were no 80's Sixers, Pistons, Celtics or Lakers.

The mid 90s Magic weren't loaded?

Shaquille O'Neal
Penny Hardaway
Horace Grant
Nick Anderson
Dennis Scott

They didn't win any championships, but they came awfully close to doing it and could have had Shaq not decided to leave.


Meanwhile, Russell won...plain-and-simple. And to a man, his teammates would acknowledge that Russell was the reason. How many 48-34 teams did Jordan carry to a title? Russell ELEVATED the play of his teammates, and his defensive IMPACT adversely affected his opponents. Take a look at Boston's record DURING the Russell era...withOUT Russell. It was awful. There were seasons in which he missed games, and his team lost ALL of them. They were merely a good team before he arrived, and a mediocre team after he left. In between, 11 titles in 13 years.

Not denying Russell's impact, losing him was obviously going to be a huge blow to Boston, but the Celtic's were only weak for two years after Russell's retirement until they became contenders again and went to 5 straight ECF's while winning two championships.

The Celtic's record from 1970-76

1969-70 34-48 Missed playoffs

1970-71 44-38 Third best record in East but missed playoffs

1971-72 56-26 Lost ECF 4-1

1972-73 68-14 Lost ECF 4-3

1973-74 56-26 Won Finals 4-3

1974-75 60-22 Lost ECF 4-2

1975-76 54-28 Won Finals 4-2

EDIT: Just wanted to add that I think Russell does deserve GOAT consideration and that the OP is incredibly misinformed.

[G.O.A.T]

Why is it that the only reason you've (jlauber) come up with for Gola being a bad player is stats? Have you even seen him play or read about him? Most of the information I've found on him leads me to believe that he was actually a solid player.

Also, Guy Rodgers from 1960-67 was either 1st or 2nd in total assists out of the entire league, yet according to you (Jlauber) he wasn't "any good"

I agree, that he is always underrating these guys for the purposes of highlighting Wilt's individual excellence at this point of his career.

Gola is always spoken very highly of by his contemporaries, he had the ball handling skills of a guard and the size and defensive disposition of a forward from that era. He was not a scorer and along with Rodgers, should have fit well with Wilt.

Rodgers was the second best passer of his era next to Cousy, he once had 28 assists in a game. As Jlauber often points out, he was not a good shooter, but he did have a higher career FG% than Cousy...

In fact, the team Wilt came to was far from being a bunch of chumps.

Remember, Philly didn't get Wilt because they were bad, they got him because their owner got a rule passed that allowed him to draft the rights to Wilt in 1955 using the NBA's territorial draft rule.

Now, Philly had had a bad season in 1958-59, but that can be attributed more to the loss of center and former two-time scoring champ Neil Johnston to a career ending injury early that year.

In addition to Rodgers and Gola, excellent role players of their era, they had Paul Arizin, an All-NBA staple and the best player on the 1956 Champs coming of a 26 and 9 season.

They also had Woody Sauldsberry who was the rookie of the year in 1958.

In the next season's draft they nabbed Al Attles who many would call a KC Jones clone, a defensive minded guard who can play a role.

In the next draft it was Tom Meschary, another stellar role player with a great team game. He would average 12-18 points and 8-10 rebounds while shooting at or above the league average for a decade.

So what you have is an Elite Superstar interior player (Wilt), an elite sidekick perimeter player (Arizin) and 3-5 top tier role players. In any era of basketball that's a title contender. And they were, but inconsistently.



You forgot to mention that they acquired Kukoc, Kerr and Longley in 1994. Also, losing in the second round in 7 games is not nearly winning the title. It's a good run, but not really close to winning it all.



Not denying Russell's impact, losing him was obviously going to be a huge blow to Boston, but the Celtic's were only weak for two years after Russell's retirement until they became contenders again and went to 5 straight ECF's while winning two championships.

The Celtic's record from 1970-76

1969-70 34-48 Missed playoffs

1970-71 44-38 Third best record in East but missed playoffs

1971-72 56-26 Lost ECF 4-1

1972-73 68-14 Lost ECF 4-3

1973-74 56-26 Won Finals 4-3

1974-75 60-22 Lost ECF 4-2

1975-76 54-28 Won Finals 4-2

Yes but they drafted a finals MVP All-Star guard in 70 and an MVP center in 1971. And all they lost besides Russell was an out of gas Sam Jones. Plus their rise coincided with the NBA's weakest era, due to the ABA taking anywhere from 25-50% of their talent pool and nabbing more high end stars. And expansion, from 10 teams in 1967 to 12 in '68 and 14 teams in 1969 to 17 teams by 1974.

Once the merger hit and Havlicek declined the Celtics were in the outhouse.

It wasn't really until Bird that Boston was back.

[Alhazred]

I agree, that he is always underrating these guys for the purposes of highlighting Wilt's individual excellence at this point of his career.

Gola is always spoken very highly of by his contemporaries, he had the ball handling skills of a guard and the size and defensive disposition of a forward from that era. He was not a scorer and along with Rodgers, should have fit well with Wilt.

Rodgers was the second best passer of his era next to Cousy, he once had 28 assists in a game. As Jlauber often points out, he was not a good shooter, but he did have a higher career FG% than Cousy...

In fact, the team Wilt came to was far from being a bunch of chumps.

Remember, Philly didn't get Wilt because they were bad, they got him because their owner got a rule passed that allowed him to draft the rights to Wilt in 1955 using the NBA's territorial draft rule.

Now, Philly had had a bad season in 1958-59, but that can be attributed more to the loss of center and former two-time scoring champ Neil Johnston to a career ending injury early that year.

In addition to Rodgers and Gola, excellent role players of their era, they had Paul Arizin, an All-NBA staple and the best player on the 1956 Champs coming of a 26 and 9 season.

They also had Woody Sauldsberry who was the rookie of the year in 1958.

In the next season's draft they nabbed Al Attles who many would call a KC Jones clone, a defensive minded guard who can play a role.

In the next draft it was Tom Meschary, another stellar role player with a great team game. He would average 12-18 points and 8-10 rebounds while shooting at or above the league average for a decade.

So what you have is an Elite Superstar interior player (Wilt), an elite sidekick perimeter player (Arizin) and 3-5 top tier role players. In any era of basketball that's a title contender. And they were, but inconsistently.

Excellent post, thank you for the response. :cheers:


Yes but they drafted a finals MVP All-Star guard in 70 and an MVP center in 1971. And all they lost besides Russell was an out of gas Sam Jones. Plus their rise coincided with the NBA's weakest era, due to the ABA taking anywhere from 25-50% of their talent pool and nabbing more high end stars. And expansion, from 10 teams in 1967 to 12 in '68 and 14 teams in 1969 to 17 teams by 1974.

Once the merger hit and Havlicek declined the Celtics were in the outhouse.

It wasn't really until Bird that Boston was back.

You're right, they did acquire new talent to make up for the loss of Russell and I agree with you about the league at the time being diluted due to competing with the ABA and expansion. That being said, I notice that the 70s Celtics get overlooked by several NBA fans and rarely receive any recognition. Just thought I'd shed some light on how well they did, regardless of how weak the era they played in was.

Also, I wasn't trying to question Russell's impact on the team, I know that his influence went far beyond scoring and that he was an amazing rebounder, passer, defender and team leader. I also think his label of being a bad scorer is overblown, considering he usually shot above the league average(thanks to several ISH posters for revealing this information) and actually was a competent if not outstanding scorer at his peak.

[Poochymama]

Just want to clear a few things up about the Jordan/Russell debate, which in my opinion, is quite arguable either way.

People like to hold it against Jordan that the bulls only dropped 2 games in the regular season after he left for the first time. What they don't realize is that had more to do with the three new players the bulls acquired that year. If anything, I would say that is a testament to just how much of a key player Jordan was to that franchise. Think about it like this, they lost one player, but gained three, yet they still dropped 2 games in the regular season; not to mention they went from NBA champions to a second round exit. Jordan was obviously worth more than two wins(he was worth 11 wins as a rookie), unfortunately the three players the Bulls picked up that year kinda made it seem like he wasn't, at least to the casual fans. Had the Bulls lost Jordan and not acquired those 3 players, I think we would have seen a 15-20 win drop.


Also, blaming Jordan for not carrying his team to a championship his first year like Russell did is completely unfair. The team Russell joined his first year was MUCH better than the team Jordan joined.

Bill Russell joined a team that went 38-34 the year before and improved them to a 49-23 team, an overall improvement of 11 games.

Jordan joined a team that went 28-54 the year before and improved them to a 39-43 team, an overall improvement of 11 games...the exact same as Russell.

Both players improved their teams by exactly 11 wins their rookie seasons. The only difference being, Russell's team was much better to begin with. I don't see how Russell taking a team that made it to the Eastern Division Semifinals the year before and leading them to a championship is drastically better than Jordan taking the WORST team in the league and leading them to the playoffs. If anything, I see those accomplishments as almost exactly equal.

In four years, Jordan helped his team go from the WORST team in the league at 28-54 to a team that lost in the Eastern Conference Semi Finals(The same place Russell's team started at) with a seasonal record of 50-32, an overall improvement of 22 wins. That aint to shabby if you ask me.

While it's pretty much a fact that the Celtics acquiring Russell was the sole reason they won three championships in Russell's first four years, it's unfair to criticize MJ for not doing the same thing considering what he was starting with.

And the 80's/90's weren't stacked??? If anything, I would say the league Jordan joined in the 80's was a much tougher league to succeed in than the league Russell joined in the 50's(the 50's was a relatively weak decade, though it was followed by a strong decade)

[jlauber]

I was a bit harsh on my comments about Gola, Rodgers, and Meschery, but the facts were these:

Gola was a CAREER 11 ppg, 7.8 rpg, .431 player in a era of higher scoring offense. He played with Wilt for three seasons, and his best season was 15 ppg and 10.4 rpg on .433 shooting. Furthermore, how did he do in the post-season alongside Chamberlain? In 59-60 he averaged 12.6 ppg, 10.6 rpg, and shot .412. In 60-61 he averaged 9.7 ppg, 12.3 rpg, and shot .206 (yes, .206.) In his last post-season with Wilt, in 61-62, he averaged 6.3 ppg, 8.2 rpg, and shot .271. So, let's not rave too much about his time with Wilt. IMHO, he was SLIGHTLY above average. A HOFer? I just don't see it. There have been MANY NBA players with much better career numbers who are NOT in. Gilmore, King, Chet Walker, an on-and-on.

Ok, how about Meschery? He was a ONE-TIME all-star. In that one all-star season he averaged 16 ppg and 9.8 rpg on .425 shooting. And, that was his BEST season in his CAREER, which was worse AFTER Chamberlain. How about the post-season? In his 61-62 season, he was decent, with a 20.1 ppg, 11.5 rpg, but only shot .397. He also played alongside Wilt in the 63-64 post-season, and had 16.8 ppg, 7.3 rpg, and shot .442. Now, the frightening thing about all of this, is that he was Wilt's SECOND best player in the 62-63 season. Here again, Chamberlain's 62-63 roster was arguably, the WORST in NBA history.

That brings us to Guy Rodgers. G.O.A.T alredy alluded to it, but even in the era of low FG%, he was awful. His career FG% was at .378, and he NEVER made it to 40%. He was among the leaders in assists almost every year, but here again, much of that was directly attributable to Wilt.

And, G.O.A.T mentioned HOFer Paul Arizin. Wilt only played with him in Arizin's last three seasons. He was a very good scorer, but he was past his prime with Wilt. In Chamberlain's historic 61-62 season, Arizin averaged 21.9 ppg, 6.8 rpg, and shot .410. Good numbers to be sure, but not spectacular. Furthermore, in the 61-62 post-season, he averaged 23.2 ppg on .375 shooting (and in 60-61, he averaged 22.3 ppg on a dreadful .328 shooting.)

The more I look at Wilt's 61-62 season, the more incredible it becomes (as does his 62-63 season...when he had virtually NO help.) In the post-season, Wilt averaged 35.0 ppg, 26.6 rpg, and shot a low, for him, .469. But how about his teammates? Arizin shot .375, Meschery shot .397, Rodgers shot .359, Attles shot .368, and Gola shot .271. Clearly Wilt CARRIED that team to within an eyelash of beating the 60-20 Celtics, in a game seven, two-point loss. No other player in NBA history ever carried a worse team further.

[jlauber]

Just curious...has anyone found a link to provide MJ's post-season games in 87-88?

[Pointguard]

When Jordan came back from baseball he was not in basketball shape. He was a shakow of the player he was before or after. He had a good game here and there but if you see him play you know better. I am amazed that is being held against him. He was gased and tired out at end of games.

The other thing is that there is this incredible effort to look for bad games by Jordan. Wow, this is amazing and the fact is you aren't finding them. You have to look in a year where he average 36 ppg in the playoffs (nobody else on the team averaged more than 10.2) to find them and against the best defensive team the league had seen in many years to prove your point and he STILL outplayed everybody in that series despite the fact that they lost 4 to 1. A bad game for Jordan is when he averages 25ppg three games straight against a great defensive player and the best defensive team around.

And we are comparing him to a guy that has played pretty aweful in many playoff series.

A guy that averaged 13ppg and shot 415FG% and 550FFT% in '65 regular season
A guy that averaged 10ppg and shot 360FG% in 67 playoffs below his other starters
A guy that averaged 13ppg and shot 356FG% in 64 playoffs far below the other starters in 10 games.
In fact his shooting percentage was below 37% 4 years in the playoffs and

[Pointguard]

I have MJ ranked at #2, just behind Russell, and he was the greatest post-season scorer in NBA history (although West was close.) And there was no question that MJ was the reason the Bulls won six titles.

I'm curious who is, in your opinion, the best all around player in post season play?

[Pointguard]

This is what bothers me, you don't even know what you're talking about, yet you act like these are things you know instead of asking questions.

Cousy was ONLY MVP because of Russell and because Russell didn't qualify for the award because he missed 30 games to play for the Olympic team. That and because Boston writers were racist and left him off the NBA team. Even when Russell was voted MVP by his peers, the media often put him on second team all-NBA.

His point stands that Cousy was a player before Heisohn and Russell appeared. Cousy now had Sherman, Heinsohn, Russell and Ramsey to pass to now. He had more options and guys with different strong suites.


Macauley and Russell never played together. In fact Macauley was traded for Russell, but you don't know that because you've not bothered to learn about this subject, yet you think you get to have a credible opinion.

His point stands. Russell played with numerous Hall of Famers and solid teams. We all make mistakes it doesn't make us less credible. What would be credible is that we can get something very definite that Russell did DURING the game where he was definitively better than anybody else. That would mean a whoole lot. Several things would be gravy. Video would be the best. Us going on your faith isn't going to work.



He also led the team in rebounds, blocked shots, assists and was the coach. So what's your point?
It capped a 4 year span where he was 12th or below in scoring per 36 minutes on his team. Its a GREAT deviation from other great players. Unheard of from the great center bunch. Unheard of from a player that played very close to the rim and missing with frequency.

Again, it's clear to people who understand this topic that you've done no research. The Celtics had won just one playoff series (a best of three) in three years before Russell was drafted.
Russell came in with Heinsohn and yes their fortunes changed but Heinshon was key in that transformation as well.


And after he left, they became a bottom feeder, last place two years in a row despite having four of five starters and seven of the top nine back from the '69 Champs Including Players in the HOF like Havlicek and Howell.
Didn't Sam Jones leave as well??? Yeah Howell's game fell off some as well. Russell's rebounding and defense left a void so the look of the team changed dramatically.


Except before him the had 0 titles and in the 40 years since they've won just six. And by the way when he was there, they won 11. So Russell has more titles than the Celtics without him combined with the 76ers entire franchise dating back to the Syracuse days, but yeah, it was the organization.

LOL, so a guy that was going to have Wilt and Russell on the same team wasn't Dynastic in his thinking. If Wilt had just said yes and put himself in the territorial draft of New England proper and Red stold Larry Bold and amazingly had Bias in his grip wasn't amazing in his building his organization? A guy that would have had 4 guys in the top ten all time is sometype of joke.

To say this correctly it would be "Russell essentially was a MVP as soon as he came into the league."

It's okay to rank players ahead of Russell, but don't pretend to know what you're talking about if you don't.
Did you just rewrite something to suite your own end and say that poster doesn't know what he is talking about? You see what I am saying. He made solid points but you are nitpicking on pointless issues and you are trying to say you are smarter than him. Grow up.

[jlauber]

I'm curious who is, in your opinion, the best all around player in post season play?

Well, it depends on what you are looking for. If you need a player to shoot 35 times and to play great perimeter defense, then you take Jordan. If you need a player to limit an opposing center to well under his scoring and efficiency, and who is going to lock down the lane on players that drive to the basket, and who is going to limit offenses to no more than one shot with his defensive rebounding, and who is going to start the break with great outlet passes, and who is going to run the floor and get some easy put-backs, and who is going to be relentless on the offensive glass, and thereby giving his team extra possessions, and who is going to set up his teammates for better looks, and who is going to give you a few clutch baskets...then you take Russell.

I mentioned West's post-season scoring. The man won a Finals MVP by averaging 38 ppg in a seven game series. He also had a playoff series in which he scored 46 ppg. He was the game's greatest post-season scorer until Jordan came into the league. BTW, he was 0-7 against Russell and the Celtics, and HE would tell you that RUSSELL was the main reason.

[Pointguard]

Well, it depends on what you are looking for. If you need a player to shoot 35 times and to play great perimeter defense, then you take Jordan. If you need a player to limit an opposing center to well under his scoring and efficiency, and who is going to lock down the lane on players that drive to the basket, and who is going to limit offenses to no more than one shot with his defensive rebounding, and who is going to start the break with great outlet passes, and who is going to run the floor and get some easy put-backs, and who is going to be relentless on the offensive glass, and thereby giving his team extra possessions, and who is going to set up his teammates for better looks, and who is going to give you a few clutch baskets...then you take Russell.

I mentioned West's post-season scoring. The man won a Finals MVP by averaging 38 ppg in a seven game series. He also had a playoff series in which he scored 46 ppg. He was the game's greatest post-season scorer until Jordan came into the league. BTW, he was 0-7 against Russell and the Celtics, and HE would tell you that RUSSELL was the main reason.

No need to qualify, just say what you really believe. I am saying all around game. That means offense and defense. West was offensive. Walt Frazier was offensive and defensive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4gigN2zMU4&feature=related

[nycelt84]

Jerry West was one of the best defensive guards to ever play the game. He was not a 1 way player and I have never heard anyone say Walt Frazier was better than him until now.

[jlauber]

No need to qualify, just say what you really believe. I am saying all around game. That means offense and defense. West was offensive. Walt Frazier was offensive and defensive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4gigN2zMU4&feature=related

West was a great defensive player, as well. The league started the all-defensive teams in the 68-69 season. He finished 2nd that season, and then was first-team all-defense his next FOUR seasons. BTW, many here remember Frazier's brilliant game seven against West in the '70 Finals, but in the first six games of that series, West owned Frazier. He averaged 33 ppg in those six games, and 31.3 ppg for the series.

[jlauber]

Once again, I have MJ at #2. I also have no problem with those that have him at #1. But, I just don't think you can look at Russell's offensive numbers, and diminish his career because of that.

[Bodhi]

Here are Jordan's playoff stats series by series:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Michael_Jordan#Play offs

Notice how every single one is a dominating performance. Jordan was never outplayed over the course of a series once in 13 playoff runs. I'd like to see that done for Wilt or Russell, but I doubt they approach the consistency Jordan had.

[PHILA]

BTW, many here remember Frazier's brilliant game seven against West in the '70 Finals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg4HHyrOdU8#t=8m16s

[jlip]

Yep...I have to agree wth jlauber about West. West was not only great on both sides of the ball as shown by the fact that he was making the all defensive 1st team past his prime, but he is also one of only 3 players that I know of in NBA history that has led the league in both points per game and assist per game (Big O and Tiny Archibald are the other 2). He was as all around as they come.

[G.O.A.T]

Yep...I have to agree wth jlauber about West. West was not only great on both sides of the ball as shown by the fact that he was making the all defensive 1st team past his prime, but he is also one of only 3 players that I know of in NBA history that has led the league in both points per game and assist per game (Big O and Tiny Archibald are the other 2). He was as all around as they come.

you forgot Wilt...

crazy.

[jlauber]

Here are Jordan's playoff stats series by series:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Michael_Jordan#Play offs

Notice how every single one is a dominating performance. Jordan was never outplayed over the course of a series once in 13 playoff runs. I'd like to see that done for Wilt or Russell, but I doubt they approach the consistency Jordan had.

No question that MJ's offense in his post-season career was the best ever. I would still like to see the boxscores from the entire 87-88 series against the Pistons, though.

As for Wilt. He had a poor offensive series against Russell in '69 (although his game seven was actually a great game by anyone's standards.)

And, of course, Russell was never considered a great offensive player. Having said that, though, he also played to his strengths, and led his team's to 27 playoff series wins in 29 tries...amd ultimately, 11 rings.

[jlip]

you forgot Wilt...

crazy.

Wilt led the league in total assists not assists per game in '68. Oscar Robertson actually led the league in apg that season.

[G.O.A.T]

Wilt led the league in total assists not assists per game in '68. Oscar Robertson actually led the league in apg that season.

True but wasn't total assists what determined the statistical champ at that time?

[jlauber]

As far as absolute post-season domination, I would take Shaq's "three-peat" post-seasons, and particularly his Finals in those three seasons.

[jlauber]

True but wasn't total assists what determined the statistical champ at that time?

In fact, Oscar would have led the league in BOTH scoring and assists in the '67-68 season, but, as you just stated, they were based on totals.

[jlauber]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg4HHyrOdU8#t=8m16s

You and I are both Chamberlain fans...but he was wrong on this one. To be honest, West and Wilt nearly beat the 60-22 Knicks by themselves in the Finals that year. Baylor was clearly at the end of his career, and the rest of the Laker roster was no match for the depth of that great NY team.

In any case, West played brilliantly in the first six games, and for Wilt to make the comment that Frazier "always kicked West's butt" was a complete falsehood.

[jlip]

As far as absolute post-season domination, I would take Shaq's "three-peat" post-seasons, and particularly his Finals in those three seasons.

So true! I did a thread on another forum about Shaq's Finals performances during that 3 peat. Those were some of the most dominant performances ever.

[jlip]

True but wasn't total assists what determined the statistical champ at that time?

Yep.

[jlauber]

The team that holds the opposing team to fewer points than them wins.

This.

:applause:

[Pointguard]

West was a great defensive player, as well. The league started the all-defensive teams in the 68-69 season. He finished 2nd that season, and then was first-team all-defense his next FOUR seasons. BTW, many here remember Frazier's brilliant game seven against West in the '70 Finals, but in the first six games of that series, West owned Frazier. He averaged 33 ppg in those six games, and 31.3 ppg for the series.

I never said Frazier was better. West was extremely good defensively. In the end Frazier did indeed demolished West in one of the best finals games ever. The only reason I said Frazier for both sides of the ball was that Frazier was feared defensively. I seen guys like JoJo White straight fall down when Frazier fainted a steal while being 5 feet off of him. I've seen other guys just double dribble or travel when Frazier moved toward them. But obviousl yall know my choice.

[Johnni Gade]

Isn't Jordan GOAT? :\

[Pointguard]

You and I are both Chamberlain fans...but he was wrong on this one. To be honest, West and Wilt nearly beat the 60-22 Knicks by themselves in the Finals that year. Baylor was clearly at the end of his career, and the rest of the Laker roster was no match for the depth of that great NY team.

In any case, West played brilliantly in the first six games, and for Wilt to make the comment that Frazier "always kicked West's butt" was a complete falsehood.

I remember reading that Wilt was upset that West never stepped up and said it wasn't about Willis we didn't do our job defensively. The media did have a crazy spin, as they consistently did with Wilt. The media had it like Reed came back in the game and did a Jordan number. I did a paper on it in college because I was so amused when I went on microfiche to see such a wild intepretation of events.

[Pointguard]

As far as absolute post-season domination, I would take Shaq's "three-peat" post-seasons, and particularly his Finals in those three seasons.

Shaq witnessed a whole lot of Jordan domination while playing. He knew he had to wait.

[Pointguard]

Isn't Jordan GOAT? :\
Well not if you believe in the GHOST of GOAT Bill Russell. Guy is so mystical the NBA has magically whipped out all traces of his greatness so that we have no reality to base his greatness on. What are the odds of that? There are clips and even whole halfs in the playoffs that are quite embarrassing to watch as he looks, well, very unremarkable. While he was decimated on ocassion in the playoffs we are to believe was better in his decimation. He could win without being better and be the greatest without much on the ball skill. If winning covers a multitude of sins, Russell could be the devil and we are to have faith in him because he won.

I'm just saying.

[jlauber]

I remember reading that Wilt was upset that West never stepped up and said it wasn't about Willis we didn't do our job defensively. The media did have a crazy spin, as they consistently did with Wilt. The media had it like Reed came back in the game and did a Jordan number. I did a paper on it in college because I was so amused when I went on microfiche to see such a wild intepretation of events.

You and I agree 100% on this. To this day that remains one of the biggest mytseries of the history of the NBA. I don't even believe that Reed's entrance "motivated" or "inspired" the Knick players. My god, this was a game seven for the NBA championship. If a player needed extra motivation for a game like that, they needed to find another career.

The facts were, the ENTIRE Knick team came out on fire. They hit 15 of their first 21 shots, and it was all over. Frazier had a game for the ages, and he smothered West in the first half, while the rest of the Knicks swarmed a somewhat passive Wilt. But I have long maintained that that Knick team would have beaten a team of five MJ's that night. They just could not miss. And, even a 40 point game by Chamberlain probably would not have been enough.

What really galls me about the PERCEPTION of that game, was that, if you just went by what you heard or read...and did not SEE the game...you would have thought Reed outscored Wilt, 21-4, and outrebounded Wilt, 24-3...instead of the other way around. Even more upsetting, was the fact that here comes Reed with a slight knee injury, and he basically plays like a statue, while Chamberlain was only four months removed from major knee surgery. On top of that, virtually all medical opinion at the time ranged the most optomistic being that Wilt was done for the year, to his career being finished. Yet, Reed goes down as a "hero", and Wilt as the "failure" and "choker."

In reality, that Laker team had no business taking that great Knick team to a game seven. The Knicks had FOUR HOFers (Bradley, DeBusschere, Frazier, and Reed), as well as Cazzie Russell and a DEEP bench (and a HOF coach.) They had romped to a 60-22 record during the regular season, and then crushed the 56-26 Bucks in the playoffs, 4-1 (although Kareem played exceptionally well.)

All the Lakers had were basically a prime West, an over-the-hill Baylor, and a Wilt at nowhere near 100%. And, before Reed was injured in game five, the series was tied 2-2, and in fact, the Knicks were getting beaten by a rejuvenated Wilt in that game five (he had 14 1st period points), and were down by 10 points in game five when Reed went down. LA managed to extend the lead to 13 points at the half, and even the most ardent Knick supporter had all but given up. HOWEVER, the Knicks manhandled West and Wilt in the second half, limiting West to a total of three shots, and Wilt to two. It was legalized brutality, and even NY Times writer Leonard Koppett acknowedged that following the game. With the generous help of the officials, the Knicks came back and won the game, 107-100. And that was really the series. The Lakers went back to LA, and with Wilt playing one of the greatest games in Finals history (albeit with Reed not playing)...in which he scored 45 points, on 20-27 shooting, and 27 rebounds, the Lakers pummeled the Knicks, 135-113. If the officials had not given game five to NY, Wilt's game six might be more remembered today.

That was just another example of the "anti-Wilt" slant by the media. I will be the first to admit that Wilt played that game seven tentitively. Some in the media claimed that Reed's last second appearance "intimidated" Wilt, but none other than Dick Schaap said that Chamberlain "eased up" on the hobbled Reed. Unfortunately for Wilt, he was often a "gentle giant", and in this case, it may have cost him a ring. Still, having watched that game, the Knicks just exploded that night, and I doubt a great performance by Chamberlain would have been enough.

[jlauber]

Well not if you believe in the GHOST of GOAT Bill Russell. Guy is so mystical the NBA has magically whipped out all traces of his greatness so that we have no reality to base his greatness on. What are the odds of that? There are clips and even whole halfs in the playoffs that are quite embarrassing to watch as he looks, well, very unremarkable. While he was decimated on ocassion in the playoffs we are to believe was better in his decimation. He could win without being better and be the greatest without much on the ball skill. If winning covers a multitude of sins, Russell could be the devil and we are to have faith in him because he won.

I'm just saying.

Maybe Boston won those 11 rings DESPITE Russell then? Can you imagine just how dominant the Celtics would have been with Walt Bellamy, a man who could score 30 ppg over the course of a season?

You also have to wonder how the Lakers won the title in the 71-72 season, with a center that could only score 14.8 ppg.

[Pointguard]

Maybe Boston won those 11 rings DESPITE Russell then? Can you imagine just how dominant the Celtics would have been with Walt Bellamy, a man who could score 30 ppg over the course of a season?

You also have to wonder how the Lakers won the title in the 71-72 season, with a center that could only score 14.8 ppg.

True, TRUE!

[Yung D-Will]

Well not if you believe in the GHOST of GOAT Bill Russell. Guy is so mystical the NBA has magically whipped out all traces of his greatness so that we have no reality to base his greatness on. What are the odds of that? There are clips and even whole halfs in the playoffs that are quite embarrassing to watch as he looks, well, very unremarkable. While he was decimated on ocassion in the playoffs we are to believe was better in his decimation. He could win without being better and be the greatest without much on the ball skill. If winning covers a multitude of sins, Russell could be the devil and we are to have faith in him because he won.

I'm just saying.

Lol did you just use the fact that we don't have a lot of footage on him as something to support your argument?

:roll:

[Pointguard]

That was just another example of the "anti-Wilt" slant by the media. I will be the first to admit that Wilt played that game seven tentitively. Some in the media claimed that Reed's last second appearance "intimidated" Wilt, but none other than Dick Schaap said that Chamberlain "eased up" on the hobbled Reed. Unfortunately for Wilt, he was often a "gentle giant", and in this case, it may have cost him a ring. Still, having watched that game, the Knicks just exploded that night, and I doubt a great performance by Chamberlain would have been enough.

I have to agree that Wilt did ease off of him. He was like that, he was a compassionate guy. Not that he sucked afterwards or even played bad but it wasn't the second coming or the slew Goliath. Wilt played and he wasn't a factor. Frazier's game was stellar. I can't believe they still play that Reed coming out of the hall scene til today. LOL, he sucked after that entrance and that's my team.

[Pointguard]

Lol did you just use the fact that we don't have a lot of footage on him as something to support your argument?

:roll:

Yes D Will, Grrreatness Footage. There is plenty of medicore footage? Why are you rolling your head tho. Are you keeping up?

[jlauber]

I'm done with this topic. I'll just add one last comment...I guess all of those teammates, opposing players, coaches, and media were wrong back then. All they needed to do was look at the limited footage of Russell, and they would have been able to determine that his teammates were carrying him to 11 rings.

[G.O.A.T]

I'm done with this topic. I'll just add one last comment...I guess all of those teammates, opposing players, coaches, and media were wrong back then. All they needed to do was look at the limited footage of Russell, and they would have been able to determine that his teammates were carrying him to 11 rings.

What a great point, if not for Russell's poor shooting, 13 of 13 would have been a lock.

[Pointguard]

I'm done with this topic. I'll just add one last comment...I guess all of those teammates, opposing players, coaches, and media were wrong back then. All they needed to do was look at the limited footage of Russell, and they would have been able to determine that his teammates were carrying him to 11 rings.

ROFL, well they certainly didn't see him carrying them. Unless of course you heard its a bird, its a plain, no wait its number 23.

If you are done or not done, it was/is indeed a great exchange. I never said he wasn't great and you have proved that much over again.

Touche' til we meet again.