Might get flamed for this but Bill Russell is not top 5

[INDI]

If every great player had a max of only 4 rings, I think the majority of the fans would say the same thing. The only arguments you ever here In favor of Russell being top 5 is rings and him being a great teammate. Though that is wonderful and should get him an automatic bid for top 20, I just see too many other players worthy of that slot.

IMHO he reminds me of a more polished Dwight howard, he dominated rebounding but we are talking the 60's, it is unfortunate that they didn't track all of his blocked shots which I'm sure it would've been impressive. What case does he have over Magic though? Kareem? Wilt? Shaq? Kobe? ( please nobody turn this into a Kobe debate) bird? Hakeem?. The only argument people use against these guys is him being the best player on a dominate organization.

No I have never seen him play personally and all of my insight comes fro
Short clips, highlights and stats but let me remind you that that is what 80 percent of the people that rank him top 5 has seen aswell

[demons2005]

Wow you're REALLY going out on a limb there :facepalm

(that was sarcasm, noone thinks Russell is top 5)

[SpecialQue]

If every great player had a max of only 4 rings, I think the majority of the fans would say the same thing. The only arguments you ever here In favor of Russell being top 5 is rings and him being a great teammate. Though that is wonderful and should get him an automatic bid for top 20, I just see too many other players worthy of that slot.

IMHO he reminds me of a more polished Dwight howard, he dominated rebounding but we are talking the 60's, it is unfortunate that they didn't track all of his blocked shots which I'm sure it would've been impressive. What case does he have over Magic though? Kareem? Wilt? Shaq? Kobe? ( please nobody turn this into a Kobe debate) bird? Hakeem?. The only argument people use against these guys is him being the best player on a dominate organization.

No I have never seen him play personally and all of my insight comes fro
Short clips, highlights and stats but let me remind you that that is what 80 percent of the people that rank him top 5 has seen aswell

I agree that nothing you haven't seen in its entirety could ever be good. That's why I'm glad you watch every single game currently available of every single player before making a judgement.

[SpecialQue]

"According to these YouTube highlights, nothing Jordan did hasn't been done better by Lebron/Kobe/Durant. Rings don't matter."

[INDI]

Wow you're REALLY going out on a limb there :facepalm

(that was sarcasm, noone thinks Russell is top 5)

Actually I've NEVER seen him on a list lower than 6. It's always ( no particular order) Jordan, magic, russell, wilt, kaj, bird. My personal opinion I have him 10-15

[iamgine]

If every great player had a max of only 4 rings, I think the majority of the fans would say the same thing. The only arguments you ever here In favor of Russell being top 5 is rings and him being a great teammate. Though that is wonderful and should get him an automatic bid for top 20, I just see too many other players worthy of that slot.

IMHO he reminds me of a more polished Dwight howard, he dominated rebounding but we are talking the 60's, it is unfortunate that they didn't track all of his blocked shots which I'm sure it would've been impressive. What case does he have over Magic though? Kareem? Wilt? Shaq? Kobe? ( please nobody turn this into a Kobe debate) bird? Hakeem?. The only argument people use against these guys is him being the best player on a dominate organization.

No I have never seen him play personally and all of my insight comes fro
Short clips, highlights and stats but let me remind you that that is what 80 percent of the people that rank him top 5 has seen aswell
Yeah record matters.

Or else George Mikan would rank worse than Kwame Brown.

[westsideozzie]

Bill Russel was the uber Howard, Chandler, Noah of all time.. Everything the Celtics did ran off of his defense, rebounding, and passing. He has the rings. He is in the top 5.

[SpecialQue]

Bill Russel was the uber Howard, Chandler, Noah of all time.. Everything the Celtics did ran off of his defense, rebounding, and passing. He has the rings. He is in the top 5.

But according to these YouTube highlights he's not even that good...

[Legends66NBA7]

"According to these YouTube highlights, nothing Jordan did hasn't been done better by Lebron/Kobe/Durant. Rings don't matter."

Wow, can you show me the link on where someone said that.

:facepalm

[jlip]

If every great player had a max of only 4 rings, I think the majority of the fans would say the same thing. The only arguments you ever here In favor of Russell being top 5 is rings and him being a great teammate. Though that is wonderful and should get him an automatic bid for top 20, I just see too many other players worthy of that slot.

IMHO he reminds me of a more polished Dwight howard, he dominated rebounding but we are talking the 60's, it is unfortunate that they didn't track all of his blocked shots which I'm sure it would've been impressive. What case does he have over Magic though? Kareem? Wilt? Shaq? Kobe? ( please nobody turn this into a Kobe debate) bird? Hakeem?. The only argument people use against these guys is him being the best player on a dominate organization.No I have never seen him play personally and all of my insight comes fro
Short clips, highlights and stats but let me remind you that that is what 80 percent of the people that rank him top 5 has seen aswell

@The highlighted parts...Evidently you have never read a pro Russell post by G.O.A.T., ThaRegul8r, or even myself if you feel that those are the "only" arguments. Those arguments only scratch the surface.

[Kblaze8855]

Id listen to and consider the case being made....if someone wanted to call Russell the greatest player in team sports period.

I may not agree with it...but it wouldnt be an impossible case to make or one not worth listening to.

All anyone can say is that he didnt do what they feel would have been more impressive in the process of winning all but 1 deciding game he was healthy to compete for in 20 years.

Not like he became a winner on the Celtics. He had a 55 game college win streak, 2 national titles, and an absurdly dominant gold medal run already.

He might be the best example ever of what a player should strive to be. How one should approach team sports. And what you can get back when you give that much of yourself to the game.

His greatest rival said that Russell would die to win and some saw it as a failing. Im sure it was a personality issue that caused problems. But the man simply had to win...he did anything it took. He played out of his mind 99% of the time his team needed him and through the winning he generated he made a lot of guys nobody would know now into hall of fame players...then has their HOF status used against him.

I dont think Russell was down with the idea that it was just a game. He played for his personal pride every night and got it done at a rate so amazing it makes people wanna throw it out as if something fishy were the cause.

There is nothing ive heard in many years of people trying that makes me feel Russell is overrated. The more
I look into him the more respect I have

[LBJMVP]

i dont have him in my top five, but i give him the benefit of the doubt and keep him in the top ten

modern day ben wallace, but maybe a little better on offense.

[INDI]

@The highlighted parts...Evidently you have never read a pro Russell post by G.O.A.T., ThaRegul8r, or even myself if you feel that those are the "only" arguments. Those arguments only scratch the surface.

If Russell only won 4 championships, would that Change your opinion of where he ranks?

[ihoopallday]

It's not Russell's fault regarding which era he played in. Fact is he was a winner. But we also have to give Red Auerbach credit. He was a great coach on that Celtics team.

[NumberSix]

It's not Russell's fault regarding which era he played in. Fact is he was a winner. But we also have to give Red Auerbach credit. He was a great coach on that Celtics team.
Yes. Sam Jones was a winner too (10 rings), Havlicek (8 rings), Bob Cousy (6 rings), etc...

Simple fact is, it's an absolute joke how stacked that Celtics team was compared to the rest of the league. If Miami wins this year, and then Dwight Howard and Deron Williams join the Heat, They'd probably win 5 more. If that were to happen, you're not gonna say Wade's 7 rings and Bosh & LeBron's 6 rings are equal to MJ's 6. It will just be case of an absurdly stacked team winning, as they should. That's the same with Bill Russell. His 11 rings aren't even the equal of Shaq's 3 Laker rings.

Those Celtic championships are the equivalent of the Eastern conference playoffs right now. Miami is head and shoulder above every team in the east. It would be absurd for them to lose the east. 8 teams. Same thing.

[cltcfn2924]

All I can say is stupid insignificant post by someone too young.

[KG215]

Yes. Sam Jones was a winner too (10 rings), Havlicek (8 rings), Bob Cousy (6 rings), etc...


Russell was the unquestioned leader, heart and soul, and best player on those teams. Yes, Havlicek, Cousy, etc. were great players, but those were Russell's teams. He won 11 rings. I swear, some of you are too enamored with stats. It's not that he just won a lot of rings, it's that he won ELEVEN rings as the alpha dog.

[Kblaze8855]

Simple fact is, it's an absolute joke how stacked that Celtics team was compared to the rest of the league.

Tell me...how did that work out the season before he got there and the season after he retired?

They had 3 all NBA first teamers and never even made the finals and traded one of them for Bill and won right off the bat.

They won back to back titles at the end of his career as heavy underdogs and missed the playoffs the next year without him.

They were stacked relative to todays teams with 2 stars considered a talented lineup. By 60 standards? A lot of teams had crazy talent so it wasnt as big a difference as its made out to be.

They were playing teams with 5 all stars 4 of them now in the HOF. Teams like the knicks with 7 all stars and 6 hall of famers.

Even the teams that get mocked for being weak in comparison to the celtics were stacked back then. Wilt came in ona team with Paul Arizin who already led a team to a title and was coming off his top scoring season, 5 time all star tom gola in his prime, and Guy Rodgers who was a 4 time all star and near hall of famers who broke half of Cousys assist records and has been called as good as cousy by a coach at the time. Wilt pretty much came in with that eras equal of Wade, Bosh, and current Rubio or someone similar...and its called a laughably weak supporting cast because everyone major then had more.

Bob Pettit had 4 hall fo famers in his starting lineup including a 7 time all star, a 6 time all star, and a 7 time all star/3 time all nba first teamer who was actually the guy traded for Russell.

West and Baylor played together at times with 2 additional all stars.

Russells last game was played against a team with 3 of the 6 or 7 best players ever to that point.

Almost all teams were stacked. And his wasnt always the most stacked.

They just won anyway.

[Psileas]

Historically, people are used to calling Russell the GOAT winner while calling Jordan the GOAT player. The question is whether being the GOAT player is really more important than the GOAT winner title. Russell's teammates have lots of titles too, but they don't enter into discussions for "GOAT winner". Neither does Robert Horry or any role player that wins multiple titles.
GOAT winner means you have to lead your team there. You have to be a GOAT player candidate already.

For most, "GOAT player" has to be a combination of individual dominance and winning. A good general case for Russell as the GOAT player is that he was definitely more dominant than his closest rivals in the "winning" sector (Sam Jones, Havlicek) and won more to way more than any of the few players who could claim they could dominate a game more (Wilt, Jordan, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Shaq).

[StateOfMind12]

Anyone that has a clue about Bill Russell will tell you that he is at the very least top 5. I could make a long post about how and why Russell is top 3-5 but I'm just going to drop a few points here instead.

People say all the time that Bill Russell played with a bunch of HOFers and that is the only reason why he won rings. The truth is that those HOFers were lucky to play with Russell and not the other way around. Most of the HOFers that Russell played with wouldn't even be HOFers if it weren't for Russell and all the rings Russell won them. Russell may have played with more HOFers than Wilt but Wilt's teams were probably more talented.

Russell is the biggest winner of all the big team sports. Nobody has more championships than Russell does in basketball or in any sport. Russell won everywhere, in high school, in the Olympics, in college, in the NBA, etc. He did it all everywhere.

Russell is the greatest defensive player of all-time and it isn't even close. The Celtics were always #1 in defensive rating and it was simply because of Russell.

There is a reason why the Celtics were going no where before Russell arrived and the Celtics went back to no where as soon as Russell retired. His impact was magnificent and it wasn't something you could measure using stats. It is why I say the people that say Russell isn't top 5 is clueless about him because they are just using stats to support their case about Russell not being top 5.

Russell was a much better offensive player than the stats show as well. The 44-45% FG% range that he averaged for most of his career looks like trash now but back then it was considered efficient and Russell was top 5-7 in the league in FG% for many seasons in most of his career. Russell didn't score a lot of points though because he wasn't asked to but he could though. Russell dropped a 30/40 game in Game 7 of the 1962 NBA Finals and his scoring numbers always increased in the post-season.

That's all I have to say so take it for what is it worth.

[josh99]

You can't compare historical players to modern players. The game has changed too much, coaching has improved, training techniques improved, technology improved, its more popular so people are starting to play younger..etc its unfair on the greats because they didn't have the things that modern players have access to. Thus you have to compare them in their own era.

[Kiddlovesnets]

Hes not top 5... MJ, Wilt, Magic, Kareem and Bird all better.

[nycelt84]

It's not Russell's fault regarding which era he played in. Fact is he was a winner. But we also have to give Red Auerbach credit. He was a great coach on that Celtics team.

Russell also won 2 titles while coaching himself.

[Owl]

Tell me...how did that work out the season before he got there and the season after he retired?

They had 3 all NBA first teamers and never even made the finals and traded one of them for Bill and won right off the bat.

They won back to back titles at the end of his career as heavy underdogs and missed the playoffs the next year without him.

They were stacked relative to todays teams with 2 stars considered a talented lineup. By 60 standards? A lot of teams had crazy talent so it wasnt as big a difference as its made out to be.

They were playing teams with 5 all stars 4 of them now in the HOF. Teams like the knicks with 7 all stars and 6 hall of famers.

Even the teams that get mocked for being weak in comparison to the celtics were stacked back then. Wilt came in ona team with Paul Arizin who already led a team to a title and was coming off his top scoring season, 5 time all star tom gola in his prime, and Guy Rodgers who was a 4 time all star and near hall of famers who broke half of Cousys assist records and has been called as good as cousy by a coach at the time. Wilt pretty much came in with that eras equal of Wade, Bosh, and current Rubio or someone similar...and its called a laughably weak supporting cast because everyone major then had more.

Bob Pettit had 4 hall fo famers in his starting lineup including a 7 time all star, a 6 time all star, and a 7 time all star/3 time all nba first teamer who was actually the guy traded for Russell.

West and Baylor played together at times with 2 additional all stars.

Russells last game was played against a team with 3 of the 6 or 7 best players ever to that point.

Almost all teams were stacked. And his wasnt always the most stacked.

They just won anyway.
Season before he got there they won .542 %. But were overdue Cliff Hagan.

Without Hagan and McCauley but with Heinsohn and no Russell, through 24 games they were 16-8 .666.
With Russell the rest of the way they were 28-20 or .5833

They weren't heavy underdogs versus Philly minus Cunningham. I'm not convinced they were even underdogs given that injury.
They were one of a number of good teams in '69 based on regular season SRS (A close 2nd to New York but other good teams such a Baltimore and 76ers reasonably close). Certainly going through Sixers and NY was impressive. Lakers were worse than their record, bad chemistry (in terms of complementing one another and locker room) and had a had a W-L record that was high from feasting on a weak conference and a bit of luck (even given the weaker schedule their margin of victory was that of a 52 not 55 win team).

Teams were deeper back then (at least in terms of players with accolades)

But how many teams had excluding their top star (this being Russell), an MVP (sometimes GOAT candidate though history had revised its opinion on that), a top 20 GOAT guy (Havlicek), 2 50 at 50 guys (Sharman, Sam Jones) plus the rest. In any given year they had unmatched depth.

Listing all stars at a time when
"Until 1973, each NBA team had to be represented with at least 1 players, and a maximum of 3 players." doesn't really mean very much.

Guy Rodgers was not Cousy and you present a very partial impression of him. He was a career .378 % shooter (and despite some overlap played in league with a significantly higher average fg% than Cousy's time in the league). He shot 72% from the line poor for a guard, below the league average, Cousy was over 80%. Cousy got 18.4 points a game, Rodgers 11.4.

Gola was a HOFer based on his college career. As I have illustrated All-Star appearances from that era are very soft. He peaked at 15ppg and was on the downswing almost as soon as Wilt arrived.

Bill Russell is an exceptional player is typically seen as a lock for top 10 GOAT often top 5, occasionally argued as the greatest.

But he usually had the best team by a substantial distance. Only for his last 3 or 4 years is it even remotely arguable that he didn't have the best supporting cast. Even in these cases I don't think there's a team 2-11 I'd rather have than Boston's with the possible exception of Philly's '67 title winning supporting cast.

[L.Kizzle]

Yes. Sam Jones was a winner too (10 rings), Havlicek (8 rings), Bob Cousy (6 rings), etc...

Simple fact is, it's an absolute joke how stacked that Celtics team was compared to the rest of the league. If Miami wins this year, and then Dwight Howard and Deron Williams join the Heat, They'd probably win 5 more. If that were to happen, you're not gonna say Wade's 7 rings and Bosh & LeBron's 6 rings are equal to MJ's 6. It will just be case of an absurdly stacked team winning, as they should. That's the same with Bill Russell. His 11 rings aren't even the equal of Shaq's 3 Laker rings.

Those Celtic championships are the equivalent of the Eastern conference playoffs right now. Miami is head and shoulder above every team in the east. It would be absurd for them to lose the east. 8 teams. Same thing.
Minneapolis Lakers were stacked, as were the Cincinnati Royals and a few other teams.

[cteach111]

you know what's not fair to Russell? The fact that he played a different game compared to today and no one takes that into account.

A common argument used against Russell is that he wouldn't be the same force that he used to be in today's game. I would agree with that. HOWEVER, how would perimeter players fare in a game with no 3 pt line, no defensive 3 seconds, less star calls, more physicality?

The man won ELEVEN rings in DOMINANT DEFENSIVE fashion and you want to exclude him from ur top 5 just cause.

SMH. Read up on the man since you openly claimed you're ignorant on his history.

There are legit facts that prove that Russell's impact on defense was as great as Magic and Jordan's impact on offense. That is why they won 11 friggin rings. ELEVEN rings.

It's so funny how posters feel so confident in judging a player they barely know anything about.

[Pushxx]

Shit...Bill Russell is a top 10 sports player ever.

Top 3 NBA player all time.

All he did is win no matter what.

[StroShow4]

If every great player had a max of only 4 rings

Stopped reading here.

[bwink23]

you know what's not fair to Russell? The fact that he played a different game compared to today and no one takes that into account.

A common argument used against Russell is that he wouldn't be the same force that he used to be in today's game. I would agree with that. HOWEVER, how would perimeter players fare in a game with no 3 pt line, no defensive 3 seconds, less star calls, more physicality?

The man won ELEVEN rings in DOMINANT DEFENSIVE fashion and you want to exclude him from ur top 5 just cause.

SMH. Read up on the man since you openly claimed you're ignorant on his history.

There are legit facts that prove that Russell's impact on defense was as great as Magic and Jordan's impact on offense. That is why they won 11 friggin rings. ELEVEN rings.

It's so funny how posters feel so confident in judging a player they barely know anything about.


11 rings in 13 years while winning it on the DEFENSIVE end, is enough to call him Top 5. He did it in a way no one else has been able to do, and will never do again.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

He was the best player on a team that dominated for over a decade. He won 11 chips. However, there were like 4 teams in the league at that time. lol

[Kblaze8855]

Season before he got there they won .542 %. But were overdue Cliff Hagan.

Without Hagan and McCauley but with Heinsohn and no Russell, through 24 games they were 16-8 .666.
With Russell the rest of the way they were 28-20 or .5833

I know they won games before Russell. And nothing else. Its not by chance they won the season he showed up....lost the next season with him injured in the finals...then won 8 in a row with him.


They weren't heavy underdogs versus Philly minus Cunningham. I'm not convinced they were even underdogs given that injury.

Not being around I rely on what the people in question have said in interviews ive seen. Though there are always contrasting opinions I suspect google will provide you with shortly.


They were one of a number of good teams in '69 based on regular season SRS (A close 2nd to New York but other good teams such a Baltimore and 76ers reasonably close). Certainly going through Sixers and NY was impressive. Lakers were worse than their record, bad chemistry (in terms of complementing one another and locker room) and had a had a W-L record that was high from feasting on a weak conference and a bit of luck (even given the weaker schedule their margin of victory was that of a 52 not 55 win team).

The 69 team was by all accounts their worst and the Lakers themselves have spoken on how they were supposed to win. Its not exactly a fringe opinion.


Teams were deeper back then (at least in terms of players with accolades)

But how many teams had excluding their top star (this being Russell), an MVP (sometimes GOAT candidate though history had revised its opinion on that), a top 20 GOAT guy (Havlicek), 2 50 at 50 guys (Sharman, Sam Jones) plus the rest. In any given year they had unmatched depth.

Cousy winning the MVP as his teams second best player means little to me.

Plenty of teams had 2-3 all time greats in addition to their star. Where they rank is largely a matter of career accolades. I suspect that if guys like Dick Barnett spent years next to Russell his resume looks a bit better than it does now. Being on that team inflated a lot of guys accolades and name beyond players likely just as good as them. And russell is the biggest reason why.


Listing all stars at a time when
Quote:Originally Posted by http://www.allstarnba.es/ballot/1966.htm
"Until 1973, each NBA team had to be represented with at least 1 players, and a maximum of 3 players."

doesn't really mean very much.

Not like the guys I mentioned were like...shady borderline stars.

We are talking guys who led title teams and retired as top 2-3 all time scorers. 6-7 time all stars with multiple high scoring seasons. Hall of fame players.

Not like all the people Russell gets discredited for actually have sparkling careers or skillsets aside from being celtics. KC Jones might be the least accomplished player in the HOF(which he is in....as a player...not coach). Hes pretty much in for playing with Russell in college and the NBA and being a top notch on the ball defender.




Guy Rodgers was not Cousy and you present a very partial impression of him. He was a career .378 % shooter (and despite some overlap played in league with a significantly higher average fg% than Cousy's time in the league). He shot 72% from the line poor for a guard, below the league average, Cousy was over 80%. Cousy got 18.4 points a game, Rodgers 11.4.

I didnt say he was cousy. I said ive read people from the time say he was as good or better. Who am I to call out Oscar Robertson, Sonny Hill, and Wilt about 60s pointguards? Oscar said he was the greatest ball handler and passer ever. Seems the general opinion was that he was pretty great. As for his shooting numbers...Cousy is not the one to prop up when the issue is shooting. not liek I actually said he was better than Cousy anyway.



Gola was a HOFer based on his college career. As I have illustrated All-Star appearances from that era are very soft. He peaked at 15ppg and was on the downswing almost as soon as Wilt arrived.

Im not sure how the 1 per team rule would even get him in.

He was playing with Wilt and Paul and then on Knicks teams with multiple all stars as well. You listed the rule as if it got him in when he otherwise wouldnt be.


Bill Russell is an exceptional player is typically seen as a lock for top 10 GOAT often top 5, occasionally argued as the greatest.

But he usually had the best team by a substantial distance. Only for his last 3 or 4 years is it even remotely arguable that he didn't have the best supporting cast. Even in these cases I don't think there's a team 2-11 I'd rather have than Boston's with the possible exception of Philly's '67 title winning supporting cast.

Id say he had the team that played the best by a substantial distance. Not the same as the most talent or some crazy stacked team when other teams have 7 stars or 4-5 hall of famers.

You look at the difference in defense the moment he arrived its clear what was going on. The best defense by an insane margin, with the best chemistry, the most effort, and players who get used to theirs roles over year and year and years? They were sitting around in practices being coached by 4-5 different players with Red himself listening just so everyone grew to respect eachother.......

That team wasnt winning off talent. They were the best team. If other teams had what they had their talent likely would have been enough. But the Celtics were built to win, had the greatest winner ever, and chemistry that is hard to overstate. Odd situation really....

[PHILA]

Bill Russell is not top 5

Indeed, he is top 2 alongside Jordan.

[Round Mound]

I would rank around Top 20-25...He was a Great Rebounder and Shot Blocker but he DID NOT RUN ANY OFFENSE...that was Desgined by His Teamates

He wasn`t known for an Offensive Player even before he came to the NBA. Red himself mentioned this. They needed a Defensive Anchor for Blocks and Rebounds and thats what he did.

Many Teamates of Him for More than Half of his Titles had a Higher PER.

He wasn`t the Best Player...He was Lucky to Have a Great Cast...Its Not Like he was Magic or Bird WHO MADE OTHERS BETTER THROUGH THEIR OFFENSIVE.

He was an Defensive Anchor and THATS IT.

OFFENSIVE CENTERS are WAY HARDER TO FIND.

[jlip]

Let's be real. The argument against Russell stems almost exclusively from two numbers...15.1ppg and 44fg%. Most people, especially ESPN generation of fans, equate greatness with scoring dominance, and 15ppg on 44fg% (especially for a center) do not fit their criteria for greatness.

I won't even take the time to discuss why those numbers aren't bad considering Russell's Celtics' offensive system and Russell's role, neither the fact that Russell showed on multiple times an ability to score when it mattered most, especially the Finals.

But it's so important to understand that while dominant scoring has always been valued, it was not viewed as the primary criterion for greatness until MJ's era. That's the reason why players were voting Russell MVP, time and time again, with him never reaching 19ppg even once, while Wilt was avg. 40 and 50ppg, and the likes of Pettit, West, Baylor, and Big O were avg. over 30ppg. That's why Wilt was considered a better player when he avg. 24ppg than he was when he avg. 50ppg. That's why prime Bill Walton was in the discussion as the league's best player during the mid-late 70's despite never reaching 19ppg or finishing even close to top 10 in scoring.

Greatness was often attributed to how a player contributed to his team winning, not just how many points he scored. According to that standard Russell was as good as anyone. Cousy said it best in 1961: "We can win without me, we can win without Heinsohn, we can win without Sharman, but without Big Bill, we don't win."

[NumberSix]

How come nobody brings up the typical arguments used against Wilt? (weak era, short white guys, weak competition, etc...) It's the same era.

Bill Russell was pretty much Tyson Chandler with worse offense. He's definitely one of the best defensive players of all time, but this dude isn't even a top 5 center. Replace Bill on those Celtic teams with Kareem or Hakeem and they probably win like 16 chips.

[Punpun]

@Number, don't forget he played with 11 HOF. I.e like all the HOF in the league. :oldlol:

[jbryan1984]

Weak era or not, imo he gets a pass to at least the top 10 for his finger jewelry.

[Kblaze8855]

How come nobody brings up the typical arguments used against Wilt? (weak era, short white guys, weak competition, etc...) It's the same era.


Because the people hating on Wilt with those arguments dont know anything about the era either. Short white guys and all....

He plays a team with 7'1'' and change 265-290 pound Wilt who also has Nate thurmond who was built like Zo plus 2-3 inches with a 6'9'' forward in addition a 6'4'' 2 guard and a 6 foot point....where do we get short white guys from? Or 6'10'' 240-250 Willis reed, 7 foot Walt Bellamy around 240, 2 other 6'10'' centers, a 6'5'' 2 guard in Bill bradley and a 6'4'' point in Walt frazier with 6'5'' swingman Cazzie Russell and 6'8'' 220-230 Phil Jackson among the bench guys. And all those players are listed in barefoot measurements not modified like we all know the heights are today with guys in shoes. The Knicks team the Celtics beat would probably have guys listed at 6'5'', 6'6'', 6'7'', 7', and 6'11'' in the starting lineup today. Where are the short white guys? You could look through and find some small teams in any era. We have had teams with 6'4'' small forwards playing this week. But for the most part the only short guys are tiny points and a 2 guard sized 3 now and then just like we have now.

All made to seem smaller than they are by the rookie heights/weights they are forever listed under which would have people listing Kobe at 6'5'' or 6 and 195 pounds now. Guys on average went up an inch from 1967 to 2004 and thats not even accounting for the in shoes measurement change.

People got heavier with weight training. They were not just tiny people though. But no matter how many times its said it never sinks in because people are looking to hate not learn the truth.





Bill Russell was pretty much Tyson Chandler with worse offense. He's definitely one of the best defensive players of all time, but this dude isn't even a top 5 center. Replace Bill on those Celtic teams with Kareem or Hakeem and they probably win like 16 chips.

Chandler with worse offense....yea...not even going into that...

And really...what is Hakeem or anyone gonna do that wilt wasnt? Drop 130 instead of 100? have 58 rebounds instead of 55?

Everything a center could do Wilt did it and no matter if you feel players are better than him or not there is little anyone could do to put points on the board at a rate he didnt...or block more shots...or get more rebounds.

If it didnt make him automatically dominate Russells teams and players of the time valued Russell more than Wilt(as evidenced in MVP voting they did themselves) what makes you so sure that others would do different?

If the Celtics believed wilt would make them worse why would someone who can not be expected to do more than wilt...make them better?

[jlip]

Bill Russell was pretty much Tyson Chandler with worse offense.

This is wrong in so many different ways. It's as wrong as saying that water is dry.

[Thorpesaurous]

I'd write more but I'm at work so ...

http://www.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs4/1600271_o.gif

[LJJ]

Not going to lie, I'm not 70 years old so I wasn't around for Russell.


But when I think of Russell, I like to bring it to the modern league and compare him to Ben Wallace. Not in the way you think though, I'd like to imagine how Ben Wallace would be if he were more like Bill Russell. Ben Wallace, a player the majority of us have seen in his prime. Now imagine a better Ben Wallace, a player built like him but even more stops defensively and with a high IQ on offense. Imagine Ben Wallace's teams dominating the league, winning the championship nearly every season. And Ben Wallace clearly being the best player on those teams, from his rookie season to his retirement season. In a league which at times includes Michael Jordan, includes Shaquille O'neal, includes Tim Duncan, all playing on very good teams as well.

At that point, who cares how good his teammates are? How can you NOT call that player possibly the greatest of all time? And that is essentially what Russell did in his day.

[Psileas]

How come nobody brings up the typical arguments used against Wilt? (weak era, short white guys, weak competition, etc...) It's the same era.

1) Because Russell is discussed less than Wilt.
2) Because Russell dominated in a different way than Wilt, which only gives room for the "less teams" arguments, which, depending on the way they are used, may be comparably flawed. Funnily enough, Russell's different way of dominance, which included posting inferior individual stats to other all-time greats, shows how moot the whole "weak, short opponents" argument is. Russell was as athletically gifted as almost any big man ever was, yet he wasn't doing the crap today's mediocre centers would supposedly do if they played back then, which means that either he was greater than what his stats show (especially offensively, since his defensive value is somewhat well known) or that today's expectations from today's big men to completely dominate Russell's era are false/exaggerated, probably both.


Bill Russell was pretty much Tyson Chandler with worse offense.

With the exception of FG% and FT% (and he's not exactly great in that second field, either), there's not a single field where "Mr. 1.0 APG At His Best" Chandler is better than Russell (in most fields it's not even close).


He's definitely one of the best defensive players of all time, but this dude isn't even a top 5 center. Replace Bill on those Celtic teams with Kareem or Hakeem and they probably win like 16 chips.

The same Kareem that started his career and won just 1 title in the early 70's, playing against more or less the same opponents with old Russell, in a league with the same number of teams and for a team that, one season before him, won just 7 games more than the Celtics one season after Russell?
That's not to say that young Kareem wouldn't win more than 1 title with the Boston Celtics. But, don't forget, that's Kareem at or near his prime against Russell past his own, the same Kareem who has to hear and bear the criticism of his '73 underperformance and loss to the Warriors, something that probably wouldn't happen to Russell.
Doesn't seem like a cakewalk for Kareem to match Russell's team success really. Especially if you matched a 35 year old Kareem against 1969 (same age) Russell, playing for the same 1969 Celtics.

[PTB Fan]

I'd argue Bill as the greatest of all time.

He's definitely up there.

[Thorpesaurous]

Let's be real. The argument against Russell stems almost exclusively from two numbers...15.1ppg and 44fg%. Most people, especially ESPN generation of fans, equate greatness with scoring dominance, and 15ppg on 44fg% (especially for a center) do not fit their criteria for greatness.

I won't even take the time to discuss why those numbers aren't bad considering Russell's Celtics' offensive system and Russell's role, neither the fact that Russell showed on multiple times an ability to score when it mattered most, especially the Finals.

But it's so important to understand that while dominant scoring has always been valued, it was not viewed as the primary criterion for greatness until MJ's era. That's the reason why players were voting Russell MVP, time and time again, with him never reaching 19ppg even once, while Wilt was avg. 40 and 50ppg, and the likes of Pettit, West, Baylor, and Big O were avg. over 30ppg. That's why Wilt was considered a better player when he avg. 24ppg than he was when he avg. 50ppg. That's why prime Bill Walton was in the discussion as the league's best player during the mid-late 70's despite never reaching 19ppg or finishing even close to top 10 in scoring.

Greatness was often attributed to how a player contributed to his team winning, not just how many points he scored. According to that standard Russell was as good as anyone. Cousy said it best in 1961: "We can win without me, we can win without Heinsohn, we can win without Sharman, but without Big Bill, we don't win."


This is really the point. You can't go back and attribute current values to past eras and then hold those things against those people. There was a similar argument in baseball when Babe Ruth came along and changed the nature of game, fences were moved in, and the home run became a legitimate metric for success. But when the baseball HOF was established it was Ty Cobb who was the first inductee, and people at the time didn't get it, because they were comparing Ruth's game with the way Cobb played.
The name of the game is molding yourself in the best way possible to win. And what wins at one time may not win at another. No one "figured it out" better than Russell ever. Not even Jordan. Now that's not the only way to measure greatness, but it's silly to just throw it out.

There are an extremely limited number of players with multiple titles and multiple MVPs, and they generally lay out the greatest list of players ever. Russell, Kareem, Wilt, Magic, Bird, Jordan, Duncan, and Mikan.

[CavaliersFTW]

i dont have him in my top five, but i give him the benefit of the doubt and keep him in the top ten

modern day ben wallace, but maybe a little better on offense.
Shaq is a modern day Bynum but maybe a little better on offense... Olajuwon is a modern day Howard but maybe a little better in the post... Robinson is a modern day McGee but maybe a little better on defense.

[WillC]

The aim of basketball (like any team sport) is to win games and win championships.

Bill Russell did that better than anyone in basketball history.

Not only that, but he is arguably the greatest defender in NBA history.

He is also the ultimate player when it comes to intangibles such as leadership, determination, intensity, etc.

Sure, he didn't have the offensive repertoire of Jordan (or even Wilt or Kareem) but, then again, none of them could defend like Russell. He changed the game with his defense and was the first truly great shot-blocker.

I recommend buying a few basketball history books and learning a bit more about Bill Russell. It's quite outrageous to suggest he's not one of the 5 greatest players of all-time.

He's arguably the only player who could justifiably be ranked number 1 ahead of Jordan.

[pauk]

You keep forgetting that he has also 5 MVPs (that alone according to me is even without a single ring worth a top 10 spot)....

You keep forgetting that:
The DPOY award didnt exist until 1981
The Finals MVP award didnt exist until 1969

You keep forgetting that if they did exist during his time he would had them all probably... because he was the best defender in the NBA and the best player in his team maybe every single year of his career...

You keep forgetting that hypothetically Bill Russells career looks like this:

11 x Championships
10 x FMVP
10 x DPOY
5 x MVP



So in essence i agree that he is not a Top 5 player.... more like TOP 1 / TOP 2.... :D

[WillC]

By the way, I've never seen Bill Russell ranked lower than 4th in any respected all-time rankings. Here's a break down of some of the more famous/respectable lists:

- 'The Expert's Picks: Basketball's Best 50 Players in the Last 50 Years' (Kenneth Shouler): 2nd

- 'Book of Basketball' (Bill Simmons): 2nd

- 'Basketball's 100 Greatest Players' (Wayne Patterson): 3rd

- 'Slam 500' magazine: 3rd

- 'SPORT Magazine's 50th Anniversary' (Pete Vecsey): 3rd

- 'Who's Better Who's Best in Basketball' (Elliot Kalb): 4th

- Associated Press Player of the Century: 4th

But maybe we should listen to some kid who's never seen him play but thinks Russell belongs outside the top 5.....

:facepalm

[CavaliersFTW]

I recommend the book "The Rivalry" to anyone who doesn't have a f*cking clue what Bill Russell was like. Then I recommend you check out my Youtube channel to see his competition was actually like in the paint - in the future I'll actually highlight Big Bill himself.

Any Ben Wallace or Tyson Chandler comparison is retarded... Ben Wallace and Chandler are two big men from the last decade that I highly respect. But Bill Russell is on another planet. He was a defensive genius not just a "great defender". His pyschotic drive and intensity to win is bar none. Only person I see arguably matching it is maybe Jordan. He wasn't carried along for the ride on the Celtics - he's the only figure who got 11 rings in that Celtics Dynasty. Not Aurbach, not Cousy, not Havlicek. Just Bill. 11 titles. Bill assumed the role of player-coach after Red retired and won two more rings.

No player in any team sport has ever won like he did - the run of the mill defensive center comparisons are ridiculous. Counting his Olympic Gold and b2b NCAA titles means in only sixteen years he was the best player winning on the biggest stages in the world fourteen times. And as an athlete? World Record high-jump potential. Seriously, he was expected to break a world record had he actually developed form in the High-Jump. Ranked #7 in the world in 1956 and willing and able to compete in the Olympics had he not been picked to play basketball. He's a freak athlete, a psychotic winner, was intangibly clutch down the stretch, a very underrated offensive threat, and a defensive genius. His blend of traits, and insane winning percentage is every bit as mind boggling and unbelievable as Wilt Chamberlain and Michael Jordan's statistics. Bill is quite easily a GOAT candidate. He's always going to be top 5 and rightfully so. You don't anchor teams through 11 NBA titles just to be written off as a modern Ben Wallace. :facepalm :oldlol:

[WillC]

It's time for my to break out the Bill Russell basketball cards...

http://i1132.photobucket.com/albums/m561/Will23C1982/IMG_7344.jpg

http://i1132.photobucket.com/albums/m561/Will23C1982/BillRussell-1.jpg

http://i1132.photobucket.com/albums/m561/Will23C1982/2007-08%20Chronology%20Stitches%20in%20Time/BillRussell2.jpg

http://i1132.photobucket.com/albums/m561/Will23C1982/IMG_4428.jpg

[Odinn]

If there is an award named after you, especially in the biggest stage, damn right you're a top 5 ever.

/thread.

[Owl]

I know they won games before Russell. And nothing else. Its not by chance they won the season he showed up....lost the next season with him injured in the finals...then won 8 in a row with him.
They did. What I said wasn't to diminish Russell. It was to indicate implying the direct correllation of Russell's arrival and a title wasn't as absolutely cause and effect as your post seemed to imply. The facts are the Celtics had a good team before he arrived, were due to finally get Hagan, and would have got Heinsohn anyway.

Not being around I rely on what the people in question have said in interviews ive seen. Though there are always contrasting opinions I suspect google will provide you with shortly.
The 76ers were certainly regarded as favourites throughout the season. I would be interested to see quotes saying they were still favourites once Cunningham got injured (versus Knicks game 3, in the previous round).

I don't know what was said after that point. I'd think the loss of Cunningham who started the playoffs hot (20.7 ppg, .558fg%, 82.4%ft%, 7 rebounds, 3.3 assists and his defense in 28.7 minutes of the 3 games he played a part in) would have essentially evened the odds.

The 69 team was by all accounts their worst and the Lakers themselves have spoken on how they were supposed to win. Its not exactly a fringe opinion.
The later Celtics (68 and 69) were the worst Celtics teams in part because of the aging or loss of important pieces (Russell and Sam Jones aging) and in part because of other teams catching up. Still Russell, Howell, Havlicek, S Jones, Sanders and Nelson doesn't sound like a bad core. Most of whom in their primes, or just very good indeed. Only Larry Seigfried of those in their main rotation looks out of place amongst great Celtics.

The Lakers would certainly have felt they should have won, they had not only 3 of the great players but 3 of the great egos in basketball. Still as I stated they didn't fit as a team had bad coach (and/or a poorly fitting coach) and both teams win loss record is misreprentative of their actual quality. I think whichever team came out of the East was probably the more likely to win.

Anyway this isn't central to my point the Celtics did very well going through a very tough Eastern conference route of the 76ers and Knicks.

Cousy winning the MVP as his teams second best player means little to me. Who was better. Russell was never going to win it or be considered as impactful as Cousy or RotY Heinsohn, given that he arrived late and they had a worse win percentage with him than without him with a reasonable sample size. It's pretty difficult to argue Russell was more valuable that year.


Plenty of teams had 2-3 all time greats in addition to their star. Where they rank is largely a matter of career accolades. I suspect that if guys like Dick Barnett spent years next to Russell his resume looks a bit better than it does now. Being on that team inflated a lot of guys accolades and name beyond players likely just as good as them. And russell is the biggest reason why.
Plenty of teams had a significantly higher percentage of HOFers than teams do nowadays (as a result of less teams back then). But none have the elite likes of the Celtics. If you want to give a specific year and team that was comprable to those the Celtics had 2 through 10 or 12 go ahead. I think the only time they got nearly close was at the end of the Celtics run. And even those teams didn't have the consistency and trust (and indeed psychological edge) of Red's Celtics.

Being on the Celtics limited their accolades at the time (cap of 3 all-stars). Certainly all Celtics benefit from the Celtics' legacy (I've seen Heinsohn ranked at tied 16th GOAT, equal with Jerry West, in a published book with a formula system that presumably heavily overweighed winning). But Russell too benefited from a team perfectly fitting his style, staying with that team, and having a bunch of career long teammates who naturally enough feel endebted to him and act as his booster. This is a compliment to how good he was, but also means people look at the body of Celtics quotes. Basically it cuts both ways.

And if you genuinely don't think Russell had a (significantly) better supporting cast then you're giving a slap in the face to the likes of:
Bill Sharman: tough defensive guard, early advocate and practitioner of conditioning and high usage shooter who had a fg% shooting from distance that wouldn't look out of place in the modern game and looks remarkable for a guard in the 50s and early 60s.
Tommy Heinsohn: Beat out Russell for the Rookie of the Year, career averages 22.8ppg, 10.7rpg, elite shot creator (if sometimes questionable shot selection)
etc

Not like the guys I mentioned were like...shady borderline stars.

We are talking guys who led title teams and retired as top 2-3 all time scorers. 6-7 time all stars with multiple high scoring seasons. Hall of fame players.The guys you were mentioning were the big ticket stars, Pettit, West, Baylor, it's the multiple all-star teammates (from the Russell or pre-Russell era) they had that I'd question.

Not like all the people Russell gets discredited for actually have sparkling careers or skillsets aside from being celtics. KC Jones might be the least accomplished player in the HOF(which he is in....as a player...not coach). Hes pretty much in for playing with Russell in college and the NBA and being a top notch on the ball defender.
KC certainly seems a very questionable HOFer. You could argue that given Russell gets all the entangiable and defense credit and Jones provided the same things and was on the same teams he deserves similar credit. Obviously not equal credit and I don't honestly KNOW how good either was, just seems odd to give one complete benefit of the doubt and dismiss the other. Certainly if you build a case for Russell on the back of Boston's phenomenal defense you have to give a little of the credit to Sharman, KC, Satch, Hondo, and tbh everyone, not least Red. Offense can be done as an individual, defense can't. Russell might have been the exception, he was the greatest defender ever. But he didn't have to be.

I didnt say he was cousy. I said ive read people from the time say he was as good or better. Who am I to call out Oscar Robertson, Sonny Hill, and Wilt about 60s pointguards? Oscar said he was the greatest ball handler and passer ever. Seems the general opinion was that he was pretty great. As for his shooting numbers...Cousy is not the one to prop up when the issue is shooting. not liek I actually said he was better than Cousy anyway.
Regarding the specifics
Never said Cousy had great shooting numbers I specifically aluded to the fact he didn't but that that was a slightly earlier era (Cousy arrived in a league with .357 average fg% and had his highest usage years in years where the league average was below 40%, by comparison Rodgers heaviest scoring years which have the greatest weight on his career percentage were in a league with a league average of .433 and .441 so by comparison with their peers there is no competition).
If you pull out all the nicest quotes from after the fact with nostalgia thrown in then I'm sure you can make most players sound pretty great. Wilt generally felt his teammates weren't up to snuff. Certainly not good enough to compete with the Celtics. If I wanted to pull up negative quotes I'd recall Wilt saying that Rodgers wanted to be white, which was uncomfortable for the black players.
From what I can tell Rodgers was very good at the point guard role specifics, mainly passing (as was say Brevin Knight, to give a totaly unfair comparison) but not necessarily very good all round, except for a couple of years in San Francisco with Thurmond and Barry, a strong team but not comparable with the Celts, and a statistically impressive year on the expansion Bulls. Certainly as part of Wilt's supporting cast his play doesn't seem that great.
To the general point:
I interpreted what you wrote as a suggestion Rodgers was comparable to Cousy. If that wasn't your intention then sorry for the misinterpretation. :cheers:
If it was then I feel it was necessary to flesh out a fairly partial view of what Guy Rodgers was and wasn't.

[Owl]

Im not sure how the 1 per team rule would even get him in.

He was playing with Wilt and Paul and then on Knicks teams with multiple all stars as well. You listed the rule as if it got him in when he otherwise wouldnt be. The 1 to 3 per team rule was brought up in general not meant to be specific to Gola. But I'd say the main way that rule advantaged him wasn't the obligation for one but the limit of 3 which stopped the Eastern conference teams being made up of about 5 Celtics each year.

More generally the references was to all star numbers being soft in that era which was in part because of the reason previously stated and a lot because more than half the leagues starters were all stars (24 in an 8 and 9 team league when Gola got his ASGs).

Id say he had the team that played the best by a substantial distance. Not the same as the most talent or some crazy stacked team when other teams have 7 stars or 4-5 hall of famers.
His team did play the best by a substantial difference for most of that 8 in 8 year run. But their team was stacked. Feel free to name a team you think should have been closer. My gut says the next best team should have been LA but Baylor peaked early (and was not a good defender) then got injuries, whilst West seemed to peak later. And I don't like their depth.

You look at the difference in defense the moment he arrived its clear what was going on. The best defense by an insane margin, with the best chemistry, the most effort, and players who get used to theirs roles over year and year and years? They were sitting around in practices being coached by 4-5 different players with Red himself listening just so everyone grew to respect eachother.......

That team wasnt winning off talent. They were the best team. If other teams had what they had their talent likely would have been enough. But the Celtics were built to win, had the greatest winner ever, and chemistry that is hard to overstate. Odd situation really....
Agree with the vast majority of this. But they did also have the best talent and obviously that includes the very talented Mr Russell. And most of the time it wasn't close.

Anyway interesting debate :cheers:

[Owl]

[/QUOTE]The aim of basketball (like any team sport) is to win games and win championships.[/QUOTE]
That is the aim of the team, not the evaluation measure of an individual who at most can be 1/5 of that team (playing 48 mpg, which to be fair Russell was pretty close to).

Bill Russell did that better than anyone in basketball history.The Boston Celtics led by Bill Russell (and Red Auerbach). I think the distinction is worth making.


Not only that, but he is arguably the greatest defender in NBA history.You're hedging on this? Russell was the greatest defender in NBA history.

[/QUOTE]He is also the ultimate player when it comes to intangibles such as leadership, determination, intensity, etc.

Sure, he didn't have the offensive repertoire of Jordan (or even Wilt or Kareem) but, then again, none of them could defend like Russell. He changed the game with his defense and was the first truly great shot-blocker.

I recommend buying a few basketball history books and learning a bit more about Bill Russell. It's quite outrageous to suggest he's not one of the 5 greatest players of all-time.

He's arguably the only player who could justifiably be ranked number 1 ahead of Jordan.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about the ultimate intangiables player. Wasn't a good practice player and his refusal to sign autographs ended up embarassing a couple of his teammates. His intangiables were superb, and I'm nit picking, but to be "the ultimate" in those areas I'd suggest he would have to be closer to flawless.

No-one could defend like Russell but no other GOAT candidate is unexceptional in such a large area of the game as Russell on offense (maybe Oscar on D, if you count him).


By the way, I've never seen Bill Russell ranked lower than 4th in any respected all-time rankings. Here's a break down of some of the more famous/respectable lists:

- 'The Expert's Picks: Basketball's Best 50 Players in the Last 50 Years' (Kenneth Shouler): 2nd

- 'Book of Basketball' (Bill Simmons): 2nd

- 'Basketball's 100 Greatest Players' (Wayne Patterson): 3rd

- 'Slam 500' magazine: 3rd

- 'SPORT Magazine's 50th Anniversary' (Pete Vecsey): 3rd

- 'Who's Better Who's Best in Basketball' (Elliot Kalb): 4th

- Associated Press Player of the Century: 4th

But maybe we should listen to some kid who's never seen him play but thinks Russell belongs outside the top 5.....

:facepalm
I was surprised looking through those lists (and my own) how consistently Russell is 2-4.
Even amongst internet lists the lowest is a couple 6th places and one 10th (however that list has Otis Thorpe as 100th GOAT :facepalm).

Hmm maybe you can't put him outside the top 5. I'm just not sure that it's THAT unreasonable.

[NumberSix]

Do people seriously not understand the difference between the best player on the best team, and the best player period?

You could argue that right now, Tony Parker is the best player on the best team. You'd have to be pretty delusional to think he's the best player period.

[WillC]

I guess it was a coincidence that Bill Russell's San Francisco team also dominated the college scene.

Last time I checked, Red Auerbach and Bob Cousy had nothing to do with that.

[bdreason]

I have him 3rd.

[Pointguard]

With the way people are entranced by winning these days, there is no way he can be any lower than 3. I'm not like that but I still have him at four.

He creates a lot of arguments. If people are saying Lebron can't be top twenty GOAT without a ring, then Russell has to be number one. If you moved anybody up two spaces in your top 10 GOAT list because of Ring count then Russell should be number one. He's the ring man. If you use the ring argument, then how do you not have the guy who is near double Jordan's ring count. If your argument jumps to era (as being superior to ring count) then Magic must be your man.

Then another Russell argument comes up. Havicheck, Heinsohn and Sam Jones were pretty good at hitting clutch shots. They were kind of like Dirk on those Celtic teams. I wonder if people today would watch a finals and say Ben Wallace should get a finals MVP over a guy like Dirk - I just don't see that happening. So the time has a different value system In American team sports, rarely ever is a not so skilled player with ball ever considered the best in the sport. Russell is a bit of an puzzle.

[D-Wade316]

You cannot rank him below #2.

[miggyme1]

Yall people are crazy! He is top five and ill prove it!they didnt track blocks by then and according to my grandfather who was an avid bball fan use to tell me how bill russell would block so many shots during games.also i think he belongs in top five for this reason alone.HE MADE THE CELTICS WHAT THEY ARE TODAY!


Was anybody a bulls fan before jordan?come on be honest! Jordan made the bulls wat they are today.bill russell was the embodiment of the celtics defense.his defense was their offense.hell of a talent and if he was playing today i would say he would be a mix of every center currently in the league today.he could run the floor,rebound,block,catch the alley ( i heard bill could jump out the gym),could score wen needed,great character.

[ILLsmak]

It's fair to take his championships into context just like we take wilt's 100 or 50 ppg into context.

I think he was the GOAT of his era, but as it was said, you can't compare these guys to those guys.

MJ's 6 rings in a larger league with more talent is much more impressive than Bill's 11 championships. To put it into context, he isn't even the leader in playoff games played (nor is he even close...)

-Smak

[CavaliersFTW]

With the way people are entranced by winning these days, there is no way he can be any lower than 3. I'm not like that but I still have him at four.

He creates a lot of arguments. If people are saying Lebron can't be top twenty GOAT without a ring, then Russell has to be number one. If you moved anybody up two spaces in your top 10 GOAT list because of Ring count then Russell should be number one. He's the ring man. If you use the ring argument, then how do you not have the guy who is near double Jordan's ring count. If your argument jumps to era (as being superior to ring count) then Magic must be your man.

Then another Russell argument comes up. Havicheck, Heinsohn and Sam Jones were pretty good at hitting clutch shots. They were kind of like Dirk on those Celtic teams. I wonder if people today would watch a finals and say Ben Wallace should get a finals MVP over a guy like Dirk - I just don't see that happening. So the time has a different value system In American team sports, rarely ever is a not so skilled player with ball ever considered the best in the sport. Russell is a bit of an puzzle.

These Ben Wallace comparisons really need to stop even if only said in passing. Bill Russell is not analogous to Ben Wallace and he is a far more skilled player than people realize - certainly more so than Ben Wallace. Russell is more integral to his teams success even on offense. He is fed the ball from a variety of positions to pass off and/or set screens, shoot, or simply clean up those offensive rebounds. He is tightly woven into the team on any end of the floor. On defense of course he's absolutely incredible, he blocks so many more shots than players block today and they aren't against bad shooters/offense his hands literally just seem to come out of nowhere in every direction possible and he's often in the right place at the right time (by no accident either).

When he blocks shots its almost a guaranteed 4 point play every time. The opposing team misses their 2 points then Bill creates a rapid fire 2 points for the Celtics. It's all because of his soft touch blocks to guards, or soft touch to himself followed by quarterback passes - OR his startling ability to just start running the ball up the floor himself, capable of dribbling with both hands for a coast to coast finish or a pass to start the offense himself. This isn't a flukey thing like what Shaq did once or twice either, this was a regular part of Bill's and the Celtics arsenal and teams always had to be ready for Russell to do this.

The Celtics also have deliberate plays where he's the shooter. And he shoots with a wide variety of hookshots including a straight up skyhook a-la Kareem - with great form from both left and right. It also appears that his timing when sinking shots is impeccable. The free throws he shoots actually become noticeably clutch towards the end of games, I've watched about 3 4th quarters of his and I don't recall him missing any free throws in the 4th quarter yet. When he's not at the line the buckets that he does make seem to be daggers that break opponents backs - or momentum changers, the type of shots that come through at the perfect time. The majority of his missed free throws and field goals shots seem to happen during the normal grind of a game before the pressure is on.

I'm going on and on but basically all I'm try to say is that Bill Russell under the eyeball test looks nothing like a Ben Wallace. Bill Russell is far more versatile (and valuable) than Wallace ever was. Russ basically looks like he can do anything Aurbach asks him to do on both offense or defense once the game is on the line. I can't think of a single player that plays visibly comparable to Russell save for maybe Wilt in the 1972 championship season.

[CavaliersFTW]

It's fair to take his championships into context just like we take wilt's 100 or 50 ppg into context.

I think he was the GOAT of his era, but as it was said, you can't compare these guys to those guys.

MJ's 6 rings in a larger league with more talent is much more impressive than Bill's 11 championships. To put it into context, he isn't even the leader in playoff games played (nor is he even close...)

-Smak

:lol


no.

[NumberSix]

:lol


no.
How delusional are you that you would laugh at that? You really think level of competition means nothing?

You really think Bill Russell's Celtics would be winning 11 championships in a league of teams like the terminator Knicks, bad boy Pistons, showtime Lakers, Hakeem's Rockets? The Bill Russell Celtics wouldn't beat the '86 Celtics.

Yes, MJ's 6 rings as by far the best player on his team AT BOTH ENDS OF THE FLOOR is greatly superior to Bill Russell's 11 rings as the best on one end and mediocre on the other end in an 8 team league full of guys who wouldn't make the cut on a college team these days. It's an absurd comparison.

[Owl]

I assume the following post was at least partially in response to my distinction between the Russell winning and the Celtics winning.

I guess it was a coincidence that Bill Russell's San Francisco team also dominated the college scene.

Last time I checked, Red Auerbach and Bob Cousy had nothing to do with that.
They did have Phil Woolpert as a well regarded coach though (also the first to start 3 black players).
More importantly they had Russell. Who else in college at that time was in his league (Maurice Stokes maybe?, Baylor was playing for the last year but by all accounts his coach wasn't very good). You would expect a team with him (and KC) to dominate.
But at the pro level individuals don't win, teams do, something those Celtics grasped as well as anyone since.

[Horatio33]

It's fair to take his championships into context just like we take wilt's 100 or 50 ppg into context.

I think he was the GOAT of his era, but as it was said, you can't compare these guys to those guys.

MJ's 6 rings in a larger league with more talent is much more impressive than Bill's 11 championships. To put it into context, he isn't even the leader in playoff games played (nor is he even close...)

-Smak

What I don't get you praise Jordan for being great in a larger league, when the talent is more spread out and diluted compared to the teams Russell faced the had multiple hofers and all stars.

[Toizumi]

How delusional are you that you would laugh at that? You really think level of competition means nothing?

You really think Bill Russell's Celtics would be winning 11 championships in a league of teams like the terminator Knicks, bad boy Pistons, showtime Lakers, Hakeem's Rockets? The Bill Russell Celtics wouldn't beat the '86 Celtics.

You can only measure Russell his impact against his contemporaries, not against teams that played 30 years later. The game naturally evolved over time and the individual talent level was higher in the 90's obviously. But back in the 60's Russell played against the best players in the world, at that time.
Alsoyou have to consider there were less teams in the 90's. This would mean the talentlevel of teams was less watered down. Imagine the current NBA cutting back to 10 teams. How stacked would those teams be?



Yes, MJ's 6 rings as by far the best player on his team AT BOTH ENDS OF THE FLOOR is greatly superior to Bill Russell's 11 rings as the best on one end and mediocre on the other end in an 8 team league full of guys who wouldn't make the cut on a college team these days. It's an absurd comparison.

Russell was the best defensive player on that team, was their leader (and player coach later on) and the most important part of their offense. It was orchestrated through him, from either the high post or the low block. He was not their top scorer, but he played a big role in that offense..

Just go and watch footage. He was not their Ben Wallace, but their one big star. There were just 8 teams, so of course these teams were stacked and had multiple stars.. Those were the best players in the league these days. Who cares how they would do in the current league? He played against the best players there were back then.. and Russell was arguably the best. I have MJ over Russell, but you can make a case both ways.

[Owl]

What I don't get you praise Jordan for being great in a larger league, when the talent is more spread out and diluted compared to the teams Russell faced the had multiple hofers and all stars.
I'd imagine because in a larger league there's less of a chance of one team being way ahead of the rest of the pack.
This is leaving aside the stronger/weaker era debate, though I should add that expansion as lowering the talent level assumes that the pool of potential talent remains static and doesn't improve.

[LMFAO]

Id listen to and consider the case being made....if someone wanted to call Russell the greatest player in team sports period.

I may not agree with it...but it wouldnt be an impossible case to make or one not worth listening to.

All anyone can say is that he didnt do what they feel would have been more impressive in the process of winning all but 1 deciding game he was healthy to compete for in 20 years.

Not like he became a winner on the Celtics. He had a 55 game college win streak, 2 national titles, and an absurdly dominant gold medal run already.

He might be the best example ever of what a player should strive to be. How one should approach team sports. And what you can get back when you give that much of yourself to the game.

His greatest rival said that Russell would die to win and some saw it as a failing. Im sure it was a personality issue that caused problems. But the man simply had to win...he did anything it took. He played out of his mind 99% of the time his team needed him and through the winning he generated he made a lot of guys nobody would know now into hall of fame players...then has their HOF status used against him.

I dont think Russell was down with the idea that it was just a game. He played for his personal pride every night and got it done at a rate so amazing it makes people wanna throw it out as if something fishy were the cause.

There is nothing ive heard in many years of people trying that makes me feel Russell is overrated. The more
I look into him the more respect I have
well Blaze at least your still hanging out and trying to teach the children. Most are not teachable though. At their age they know everything. At my age you figure out not only do you not know all the answers but you don't even know all the questions.

[The Iron Fist]

It's fair to take his championships into context just like we take wilt's 100 or 50 ppg into context.

I think he was the GOAT of his era, but as it was said, you can't compare these guys to those guys.

MJ's 6 rings in a larger league with more talent is much more impressive than Bill's 11 championships. To put it into context, he isn't even the leader in playoff games played (nor is he even close...)

-Smak
A larger league with watered down talent<<<<<a league where only the absolute best can play

[Pointguard]

These Ben Wallace comparisons really need to stop even if only said in passing. Bill Russell is not analogous to Ben Wallace and he is a far more skilled player than people realize - certainly more so than Ben Wallace. Russell is more integral to his teams success even on offense. He is fed the ball from a variety of positions to pass off and/or set screens, shoot, or simply clean up those offensive rebounds. He is tightly woven into the team on any end of the floor. On defense of course he's absolutely incredible, he blocks so many more shots than players block today and they aren't against bad shooters/offense his hands literally just seem to come out of nowhere in every direction possible and he's often in the right place at the right time (by no accident either).

When he blocks shots its almost a guaranteed 4 point play every time. The opposing team misses their 2 points then Bill creates a rapid fire 2 points for the Celtics. It's all because of his soft touch blocks to guards, or soft touch to himself followed by quarterback passes - OR his startling ability to just start running the ball up the floor himself, capable of dribbling with both hands for a coast to coast finish or a pass to start the offense himself. This isn't a flukey thing like what Shaq did once or twice either, this was a regular part of Bill's and the Celtics arsenal and teams always had to be ready for Russell to do this.

The Celtics also have deliberate plays where he's the shooter. And he shoots with a wide variety of hookshots including a straight up skyhook a-la Kareem - with great form from both left and right. It also appears that his timing when sinking shots is impeccable. The free throws he shoots actually become noticeably clutch towards the end of games, I've watched about 3 4th quarters of his and I don't recall him missing any free throws in the 4th quarter yet. When he's not at the line the buckets that he does make seem to be daggers that break opponents backs - or momentum changers, the type of shots that come through at the perfect time. The majority of his missed free throws and field goals shots seem to happen during the normal grind of a game before the pressure is on.

I'm going on and on but basically all I'm try to say is that Bill Russell under the eyeball test looks nothing like a Ben Wallace. Bill Russell is far more versatile (and valuable) than Wallace ever was. Russ basically looks like he can do anything Aurbach asks him to do on both offense or defense once the game is on the line. I can't think of a single player that plays visibly comparable to Russell save for maybe Wilt in the 1972 championship season.
I didn't say he was Ben Wallace. Nor do I think Dirk hit as many important shots as Sam Jones either (Boston played a lot of close series) - so the comparison still keeps a certain proportion. One could argue that Pippen/Dirk would be more appropriate - being that Pippen was a team oriented defensive great on a great defensive team that kept winning - but Russell was not as skilled as Pippen offensively, Pip was like a point guard, with the trade off being Pippen not manning the middle and blocking shots. But we think of Pippen as a 2nd fiddle anyway. So I didn't go for that comparison. Sure Russell was better than Wallace but Sam was hitting more critical shots than Dirk was. I was going for the perception of modern fan and I thought I said as much. No?

I don't think the average fan really takes into account all around players in general, and defensive players overall. Both of whom I tend to favor them. So I give Russell his props there and have him ranked four (GOAT list) based on that. The thing I dislike is that when I argue here that KG should be ranked higher than Dirk and Barkley, miraculously, a couple of people here that have ranked Russell as GOAT, and seen him play, argued against me. Even when I told him to go to a Celtic game and see the new level in which KG was interconnected with his team defense, which was unprecedented in the game. I only ask for consistency. Guys who are great on both sides of the ball are great two times in one whole trip up and down the court. So I tend to like them and favor them. I rank basically on play primarily and other things secondly - otherwise I would have Russell ranked higher.

[gengiskhan]

If every great player had a max of only 4 rings, I think the majority of the fans would say the same thing. The only arguments you ever here In favor of Russell being top 5 is rings and him being a great teammate. Though that is wonderful and should get him an automatic bid for top 20, I just see too many other players worthy of that slot.

IMHO he reminds me of a more polished Dwight howard, he dominated rebounding but we are talking the 60's, it is unfortunate that they didn't track all of his blocked shots which I'm sure it would've been impressive. What case does he have over Magic though? Kareem? Wilt? Shaq? Kobe? ( please nobody turn this into a Kobe debate) bird? Hakeem?. The only argument people use against these guys is him being the best player on a dominate organization.

No I have never seen him play personally and all of my insight comes fro
Short clips, highlights and stats but let me remind you that that is what 80 percent of the people that rank him top 5 has seen aswell

Totally agreed

1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Wilt
4. Magic
5. Bird
-------------------------------------

Those are real top 5

Rusell is more like top 6 or top 7.

[Pointguard]

Just go and watch footage. He was not their Ben Wallace, but their one big star.
The team had clutch shooters and usually had three guys scoring more than Russell. When Cousy was there in the first three years he was the star player running the plays. Heinsohn was the guy that could create and make the shot in the early years as well. Havichek and Sam Jones were stars in the later years.

Watching footage of Russell might also need some coaching. It isn't as obvious as you might think. He makes a lot of very smart decisions that aren't always apparent. And while he was dominant it isn't immediately visual.

[jlip]

It's fair to take his championships into context just like we take wilt's 100 or 50 ppg into context.

I think he was the GOAT of his era, but as it was said, you can't compare these guys to those guys.

MJ's 6 rings in a larger league with more talent is much more impressive than Bill's 11 championships. To put it into context, he isn't even the leader in playoff games played (nor is he even close...)

-Smak

:facepalm

[Pushxx]

Let's not understate the racism Bill Russell had to deal with.

[CavaliersFTW]

How delusional are you that you would laugh at that? You really think level of competition means nothing?

You really think Bill Russell's Celtics would be winning 11 championships in a league of teams like the terminator Knicks, bad boy Pistons, showtime Lakers, Hakeem's Rockets? The Bill Russell Celtics wouldn't beat the '86 Celtics.

Yes, MJ's 6 rings as by far the best player on his team AT BOTH ENDS OF THE FLOOR is greatly superior to Bill Russell's 11 rings as the best on one end and mediocre on the other end in an 8 team league full of guys who wouldn't make the cut on a college team these days. It's an absurd comparison.

Wait am I being trolled right now? :lol

Bill Russell's competition? Your well versed in Jordan's era - I'm not surprised. But could you care to explain the teams and players Bill Russell played against? Did you do as much homework about who he played against as you did with MJ?

I'm just going to remind everyone else that against a league of direct center competition in the form of Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy and Jerry Lucas (in a small ass league), Russ cranked 11 titles in only 13 seasons and too add insult to injury a Gold medal + 2 b2b NCAA titles... We're talking 14 titles in only 16 consecutive years. 2 of those 11 NBA rings were as a player-coach. Yah, Bill Russell tha coach who doubles as a center has 2 b2b rings under his belt... And the dude never 3peated, he 8peated... against Wilt f*cking Chamberlain... but his competition is weaker than MJ's? :roll:

MJ has 1 Gold 1 NCAA title and 6 NBA rings in 18 active years that spanned 22 years because he actually became aloof in his prime and made a come back past his prime. This isn't even a slight to MJ MJ is an immortal top 5 who could very well be the GOAT but this shit can't be brushed under the rug when some guy tries to pretend MJ's 6 rings somehow adds up to a greater significance than Russell's 11 lmfao... The NBA rings MJ got were a gawdlike impressive pair of 3 peats. Amazing incredible mind boggling feat for any player not named Bill Russell. Period end of discussion :lol P.S. MJ never won against the 1986 Celtics either :hammerhead:


Have a nice day and best of luck trying to further explain how 6 is greater than 11 tho. I'm sure it will be full of interesting 1-sided research :cheers:

[Owl]

Wait am I being trolled right now? :lol

Bill Russell's competition? Your well versed in Jordan's era - I'm not surprised. But could you care to explain the teams and players Bill Russell played against? Did you do as much homework about who he played against as you did with MJ?

I'm just going to remind everyone else that against a league of direct center competition in the form of Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy and Jerry Lucas (in a small ass league), Russ cranked 11 titles in only 13 seasons and too add insult to injury a Gold medal + 2 b2b NCAA titles... We're talking 14 titles in only 16 consecutive years. 2 of those 11 NBA rings were as a player-coach. Yah, Bill Russell tha coach who doubles as a center has 2 b2b rings under his belt... And the dude never 3peated, he 7peated... against Wilt f*cking Chamberlain... but his competition is weaker than MJ's? :roll:

MJ has 1 Gold 1 NCAA title and 6 NBA rings in 18 active years that spanned 22 years because he actually became aloof in his prime and made a come back past his prime. This isn't even a slight to MJ MJ is an immortal top 5 who could very well be the GOAT but this shit can't be brushed under the rug when some guy tries to pretend MJ's 6 rings somehow adds up to a greater significance than Russell's 11 lmfao... The NBA rings MJ got were a gawdlike impressive pair of 3 peats. Amazing incredible mind boggling feat for any player not named Bill Russell. Period end of discussion :lol P.S. MJ never won against the 1986 Celtics either :hammerhead:


Have a nice day and best of luck trying to further explain how 6 is greater than 11 tho. I'm sure it will be full of interesting 1-sided research :cheers:
http://thebestten.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/jordan-1984-olympic.jpghttp://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38797000/jpg/_38797969_usamedal298.jpg
Given how 3-peated is used, Russell 8-peated (if you're going use that turn of phrase).
Sorry just being pedantic.

[CavaliersFTW]

http://thebestten.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/jordan-1984-olympic.jpghttp://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38797000/jpg/_38797969_usamedal298.jpg
Given how 3-peated is used, Russell 8-peated (if you're going use that turn of phrase).
Sorry just being pedantic.
Typo my bad! Fixed

[PTB Fan]

This should be for a NBA meme or something..

Russell=Wins 11 titles, as arguably the best player, get labeled as overrated and poor man's Ben Wallace

Jordan=Wins 6 titles as the best player, gets labeled as a god and above any other player


:wtf:

[bizil]

Any GOAT list include these things:

Team accolades
Solo Accolades
Longevity being great
Numbers
Impact on the L (things like redefining a position, transcending the sport, etc.)

When u include ALL of these things, Russell has a great case to be a top 5 GOAT. For me personally, here's my top 5:

MJ
Kareem
Wilt
Magic
Russell

So I have Russell number 5. But I think Kobe and Lebron both have a great shot before it's all said and done to get in the top five players of all time. But at the same time, the top five I named are mythic type figures in the sports world. All five are most likely in the top 20-25 athletes in the history of American sports.

But in terms of peak value, I agree with you. Frankly, I wouldn't have Russell in my top five centers peak value wise. I would rather have these guys at center than Russell:

Wilt
Kareem
Shaq
Dream
Moses
Robinson
Ewing
Walton
McAdoo

I would arguably even have these guys:

Zo
Gilmore
Reed
Lanier
Howard

I know many are gonna roll their eyes at me about this. But all the centers I named are better scorers than Russell, were great rebounders, and many of them were also great defensive players. Now in terms of defense and rebouning as a package, Russell is arguably the best center of all time. But for me, I want a center who can DOMINATE a game scoring the rock in addition to being a great rebounder and defender. So the last five guys I'm not so sure about. But the first nine guys I named I would take over Russell with no hesitation at all.

[jlauber]

Any GOAT list include these things:

Team accolades
Solo Accolades
Longevity being great
Numbers
Impact on the L (things like redefining a position, transcending the sport, etc.)

When u include ALL of these things, Russell has a great case to be a top 5 GOAT. For me personally, here's my top 5:

MJ
Kareem
Wilt
Magic
Russell

So I have Russell number 5. But I think Kobe and Lebron both have a great shot before it's all said and done to get in the top five players of all time. But at the same time, the top five I named are mythic type figures in the sports world. All five are most likely in the top 20-25 athletes in the history of American sports.

But in terms of peak value, I agree with you. Frankly, I wouldn't have Russell in my top five centers peak value wise. I would rather have these guys at center than Russell:

Wilt
Kareem
Shaq
Dream
Moses
Robinson
Ewing
Walton
McAdoo

I would arguably even have these guys:

Zo
Gilmore
Reed
Lanier
Howard

I know many are gonna roll their eyes at me about this. But all the centers I named are better scorers than Russell, were great rebounders, and many of them were also great defensive players. Now in terms of defense and rebouning as a package, Russell is arguably the best center of all time. But for me, I want a center who can DOMINATE a game scoring the rock in addition to being a great rebounder and defender. So the last five guys I'm not so sure about. But the first nine guys I named I would take over Russell with no hesitation at all.

I am not suggesting that Russell was a GREAT scorer, but at his peak, he was at least good. He had seasons of 18 ppg. He had post-season of over 20 ppg. He had post-season games of 30-40 and 30-38. And many rip his FG% (which was around the league average), BUT, he had an 18-29 .702 FINALS in '65. Yes, a .702 FG% in the FINALS. And he followed that up the very next season's FINALS, by LEADING Boston in SCORING.

Of course, aside from Chamberlain, Russell has the highest APG seasons of any all-time great center. The Celtic offense RAN THRU Russell after Cousy retired.

[bizil]

I am not suggesting that Russell was a GREAT scorer, but at his peak, he was at least good. He had seasons of 18 ppg. He had post-season of over 20 ppg. He had post-season games of 30-40 and 30-38. And many rip his FG% (which was around the league average), BUT, he had an 18-29 .702 FINALS in '65. Yes, a .702 FG% in the FINALS. And he followed that up the very next season's FINALS, by LEADING Boston in SCORING.

Of course, aside from Chamberlain, Russell has the highest APG seasons of any all-time great center. The Celtic offense RAN THRU Russell after Cousy retired.

I agree with u. Russell was a good scorer. But if I am looking at other centers, I just prefer more scoring or more size for my center. Russell was pretty much the size of today's SF. Now a guy like McAdoo wasn't the biggest center and is the size of many SF's today. But McAdoo was a prolific scorer and a great rebounder. Other than McAdoo, the top nine centers I named could control the paint scoring and defensively better than Russell. But I still have Russell in my top ten centers of all time peak value wise. But I would rank him at ten. However, the most important list is the GOAT list. And I got Russ number five GOAT. So I give Russ mad props if I feel he's the number five greatest player of all time!

[D.J.]

I personally have him at 6. Even if he's not as individually talented as the top 5, he has the rings. My ranking is Jordan, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic, and Russell.

[jlauber]

I agree with u. Russell was a good scorer. But if I am looking at other centers, I just prefer more scoring or more size for my center. Russell was pretty much the size of today's SF. Now a guy like McAdoo wasn't the biggest center and is the size of many SF's today. But McAdoo was a prolific scorer and a great rebounder. Other than McAdoo, the top nine centers I named could control the paint scoring and defensively better than Russell. But I still have Russell in my top ten centers of all time peak value wise. But I would rank him at ten. However, the most important list is the GOAT list. And I got Russ number five GOAT. So I give Russ mad props if I feel he's the number five greatest player of all time!

I wasn't directing my repkly so much at you, as other's here. I certainly respect your opinions. But even I under-rated Russell's offensive contributions for years.

He was CLEARLY a better offensive player than players like Ben Wallace and Tyson Chandler (FG% not withstanding.)

Now, here again, I wouldn't put Russell on the level of the players you mentioned, either. But then the question becomes...how much of a difference maker was Russell on the defensive end? ThaRegul8r posted an interesting article whch illustrated that Russell's defense was worth every bit as much as MJ's offense. I wish I would have saved that article, but in any case, it was a solid argument.

[Pointguard]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38797000/jpg/_38797969_usamedal298.jpg

Am I the only one that thinks that's really not Jordan. I never seen Jordan sport a peanut head.

[Pointguard]

I am not suggesting that Russell was a GREAT scorer, but at his peak, he was at least good. He had seasons of 18 ppg. He had post-season of over 20 ppg. He had post-season games of 30-40 and 30-38. And many rip his FG% (which was around the league average), BUT, he had an 18-29 .702 FINALS in '65. Yes, a .702 FG% in the FINALS. And he followed that up the very next season's FINALS, by LEADING Boston in SCORING.

Of course, aside from Chamberlain, Russell has the highest APG seasons of any all-time great center. The Celtic offense RAN THRU Russell after Cousy retired.
Russell played a pivot center type of offense. He could take the ball down low and have the defense come at him and he used good judgement in hitting the open man or just opening up the offense. So he was very active on both sides of the ball. I think he was a smart passer and a good offensive player. Being that he was among the fastest players, had quick feet and was cat quick like Amare, I never understood why he wasn't better offensively. None-the-less, its still hard to argue above him. Jordan is definitely the hardest to be critical of.

[bizil]

I wasn't directing my repkly so much at you, as other's here. I certainly respect your opinions. But even I under-rated Russell's offensive contributions for years.

He was CLEARLY a better offensive player than players like Ben Wallace and Tyson Chandler (FG% not withstanding.)

Now, here again, I wouldn't put Russell on the level of the players you mentioned, either. But then the question becomes...how much of a difference maker was Russell on the defensive end? ThaRegul8r posted an interesting article whch illustrated that Russell's defense was worth every bit as much as MJ's offense. I wish I would have saved that article, but in any case, it was a solid argument.

No question Russ is on a whole other level than Chandler and Wallace. Russell was a very good scorer, while those guys are non existent when it comes to scoring. And if u think about Russell in the total package context (scoring, passing, rebounding, defense, freakish athletic ability, leadership) he's in the top 2-3 centers of all time.

[bizil]

Russell played a pivot center type of offense. He could take the ball down low and have the defense come at him and he used good judgement in hitting the open man or just opening up the offense. So he was very active on both sides of the ball. I think he was a smart passer and a good offensive player. Being that he was among the fastest players, had quick feet and was cat quick like Amare, I never understood why he wasn't better offensively. None-the-less, its still hard to argue above him. Jordan is definitely the hardest to be critical of.

I've always wondered that about Russell too. Russ qualifies as a freakish athlete. Russell was ahead of his time in that sense. As he was then, he athletic ability stands up to the best big men of today. I think his game translates very well to what we see today. He would simply be more of a PF who could defend damn near any position on the court. But u would get WAY more offensive production than guys like Rodman, Ben Wallace, Chandler, etc.

[jlauber]

No question Russ is on a whole other level than Chandler and Wallace. Russell was a very good scorer, while those guys are non existent when it comes to scoring. And if u think about Russell in the total package context (scoring, passing, rebounding, defense, freakish athletic ability, leadership) he's in the top 2-3 centers of all time.

:cheers:

[INDI]

I appreciate everyones comments on the subject. One good reason why I say he is not top five is this.

If you were starting a franchise, any player in the history of the the league, name your top five.

[LBJMVP]

lets be serious... russell never shot above 50% for a season. and never scored over twenty points while averaging over 40 minutes a game his whole career. even in the playoffs it took him playing almost every minute of every game to get over 20 points a game and he barely shot over 40% all time in the playoffs.

he isnt averaging those same amounts of rebounds in any other era... i know, i know, you cant make that argument blah blah blah...

he played in time when there were four teams in each conference... :facepalm


he played with so many hall of famers its unbelievable...

his ring totals give him that free pass into the 10, but he isn't cracking my top 5.

[bizil]

I appreciate everyones comments on the subject. One good reason why I say he is not top five is this.

If you were starting a franchise, any player in the history of the the league, name your top five.

Peak value wise I agree with u 100% At the highest, I have Russ #10 all time for centers peak value wise I would take. But when it comes to GOAT shit, it's like your resume. It includes team accolades, solo accolades, numbers, longevity being great, and impact on the L. When it comes to resume, it vaults Russell EASILY in the top 10 GOAT. And more than likely, he usually ranked at the lowest number six or seven. I realize it was a different league with fewer teams and all that stuff. But he still battled some of the premier big men of all time.

[INDI]

Peak value wise I agree with u 100% At the highest, I have Russ #10 all time for centers peak value wise I would take. But when it comes to GOAT shit, it's like your resume. It includes team accolades, solo accolades, numbers, longevity being great, and impact on the L. When it comes to resume, it vaults Russell EASILY in the top 10 GOAT. And more than likely, he usually ranked at the lowest number six or seven. I realize it was a different league with fewer teams and all that stuff. But he still battled some of the premier big men of all time.

True indeed, skill wise he is within the top twenty, but when you add in his accomplishments it puts him 10-12 in my book. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and put him 9 but I cannot realistically put him above

Jordan
Kareem
Wilt
Magic
Bird
Kobe
Shaq
Hakeem
Russell
(honorable mentions to Duncan, big O, and eventually lebron)

[jlauber]

True indeed, skill wise he is within the top twenty, but when you add in his accomplishments it puts him 10-12 in my book. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and put him 9 but I cannot realistically put him above

Jordan
Kareem
Wilt
Magic
Bird
Kobe
Shaq
Hakeem
Russell
(honorable mentions to Duncan, big O, and eventually lebron)

Bill Simmons must be turning over in his grave...