Is it possible for someone to pass up Bill Russell's 11 rings?

[jongib369]

People always talk about getting equal to or passing up Jordan's 6 whether it be Kobe, LeBron or whoever...but is it possible for a player in the future to get 11+?

This is a big what if, and no one can really give an answer and proclaim it as fact...but still, interested to hear what ISH thinks


http://oi45.tinypic.com/2ugmq15.jpg


http://www.easymemes.com/uploads/memes/755_Zul51XlPEL5hWvM.jpg

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb6p94lCXk1rg3bauo1_500.jpg



http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9werv87Vw1r2br17o1_400.jpg



http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m98d77ComE1r31jjho1_500.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8puyjjd8x1ruzeslo1_500.png


http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7byihEnVp1qc5k8to6_500.jpg


http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m74oi2ypkB1ruzeslo1_500.jpg


http://oi48.tinypic.com/28kms8.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m68p22hS7s1qm3v2do1_500.jpg

[FireDavidKahn]

No.

[ThaRegul8r]

No. Next question.

The closest any superstar has come is six, and the closest a non-star player has come is seven. Still a ways away. Even if players became purely ringchasers they still couldn't do it (witness the ringchasers who failed to get even one ring).

[Brick Rick]

Weren't there like 8 teams during Russell's era? That's like winning the division title in today's NBA. But with 30 teams and unless technology gets advanced enough that players can play well into their 40's, no I don't see any player ever reaching 11 rings or even 8 or 9.

[Dbrog]

Weren't there like 8 teams during Russell's era? That's like winning the division title in today's NBA. But with 30 teams and unless technology gets advanced enough that players can play well into their 40's, no I don't see any player ever reaching 11 rings or even 8 or 9.

Teams were also way more stacked back then so it evens out. Anyway, no one is ever going to touch this record unless a superteam is assembled with an absolutely monster big. Think modern day Wilt but with the leadership of a Duncan or Russell. It would literally take someone who is that good AND ALSO having a stacked team. Just won't happen.

[Brick Rick]

I was just looking at Russell's stats, the 20+ boards per game is impressive but how did he shoot such a low percentage for field goals at 43% and against 6'4 unathetlic white centers at that?

[KOBE143]

Weak Era

[Dbrog]

I was just looking at Russell's stats, the 20+ boards per game is impressive but how did he shoot such a low percentage for field goals at 43% and against 6'4 unathetlic white centers at that?

Well back then 43% was pretty much the league average. It was just a different style of basketball (think Nash's Suns vs BDiddy's Warriors). Also, you must remember that the rims weren't even all uniform, the arenas were in crappy condition, and the basketballs varied as well (think of all the funky stat stuff that occurred when they switched to that synthetic ball a few years back).

Not only that, but many of these players had jobs n such on the side cause they didn't get paid enough. Either way, Russell's shooting wasn't what made him a great offensive player (cause he certainly clanked a bunch of those sweeping hooks). In any case, I'm not gonna get into a long spiel about Bill's offense. Times were just different for better or for worse.

[Colbertnation64]

I was just looking at Russell's stats, the 20+ boards per game is impressive but how did he shoot such a low percentage for field goals at 43% and against 6'4 unathetlic white centers at that?
What the guy above me said, also because he didn't play against 6'4 unathletic white centers.

http://oi40.tinypic.com/292xmra.jpg
Thurmond
http://chasing23.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/wilt.jpg
Wilt
http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/001/183/849/WALT_BELLAMY_20100808172138_640_480_display_image. jpg
Walt Bellamy
http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/847/935/embry-wayne-1962_display_image.jpg
Wayne Embry
http://nba-players.net/data/media/75/Willis_Reed_8.jpg
Willis Reed

[pauk]

Thing is Bill Russell had hypothetically won like maybe just as many FMVPs (he was the best player there, the FMVP award didnt exist back then)... so to get 11 rings the way he did would mean a guy ending up with around that many FMVPs aswell.... There was 8 teams back then and playoffs did consist of only 1-2 series before the Finals, to be the most dominant team in that era was kindof more of a one sided outcome compared to today considering especially how that Celtic team was ridicilously stacked and to overwhelming, it may have been the best team ever...

So unless GOD decides to lace up a pair of shoes and somehow miraculously lands always the best supporting cast for his entire or almost his entire career i think its pretty much impossible... Even the Robert Horry way i think it might be impossible... :P

[d.bball.guy]

Yes (http://espn.go.com/espn/photos/gallery/_/id/8492386/image/1/king-rings-espn-magazine-marvel-present-lebron-king-rings)

[Asukal]

Not gonna happen until a one man team superstar player is born which is never. :oldlol:

[fpliii]

Thing is Bill Russell had hypothetically won like maybe just as many FMVPs (he was the best player there, the FMVP award didnt exist back then)... so to get 11 rings the way he did would mean a guy ending up with around that many FMVPs aswell.... There was 8 teams back then and playoffs did consist of only 1-2 series before the Finals, to be the most dominant team in that era was kindof more of a one sided outcome compared to today considering especially how that Celtic team was ridicilously stacked and to overwhelming, it may have been the best team ever...

So unless GOD decides to lace up a pair of shoes and somehow miraculously lands always the best supporting cast for his entire or almost his entire career i think its pretty much impossible... Even the Robert Horry way i think it might be impossible... :P

well, he didn't win in 69 so 10 would be has absolute most

68 *might* go to Havlicek as well

people also aren't on the same page with 57, 59, 60 (he wouldn't win in 58 in a losing series) as well

61-66 are probably his though, so a minimum of 6 with probably a few more

[BoutPractice]

Well, Jordan could've had 8, maybe 9 hadn't he retired so damn often.
Magic got to, I think, 9 Finals, yet retired early.
Kobe to 7.
You could easily imagine an alternate universe where Duncan has 6 rings, maybe 7. Say Fisher misses in 2004, Ginobili doesn't foul in 2006, and the Spurs keep playing the same way as the first two games against the Thunder.
Horry might've played for the Bulls instead of Houston/LA from 96 to 98, then ringchased for the Celtics in 08...
I don't think it's as impossible as it sounds.

[Psileas]

Well, Jordan could've had 8, maybe 9 hadn't he retired so damn often.
Magic got to, I think, 9 Finals, yet retired early.
Kobe to 7.
You could easily imagine an alternate universe where Duncan has 6 rings, maybe 7. Say Fisher misses in 2004, Ginobili doesn't foul in 2006, and the Spurs keep playing the same way as the first two games against the Thunder.
Horry might've played for the Bulls instead of Houston/LA from 96 to 98, then ringchased for the Celtics in 08...
I don't think it's as impossible as it sounds.

Maybe not, but let me offer you another alternative universe: Russell doesn't get injured in 1958 and Red Auerbach doesn't retire in 1966.

[Legends66NBA7]

Maybe not, but let me offer you another alternative universe: Russell doesn't get injured in 1958 and Red Auerbach doesn't retire in 1966.

13 for 13.

Bill would be unanimous GOAT forever, man.

[Owl]

13 for 13.

Bill would be unanimous GOAT forever, man.
Because?

How much better do you think Auerbach makes Boston. Philly won 8 more games that year (then bested Boston 4-1 in the playoffs, losing by 4, winning by 5, 11, 14 and 24). Boston were better than the year before because of adding Howell. But Philly would surely remain favourites.

[ThaRegul8r]

13 for 13.

Bill would be unanimous GOAT forever, man.

If he isn't the "unanimous GOAT" now going 11 for 13, which no other superstar has even approached, I fail to see why he would be if he had won the two he didn't win in '58 and '67. Modern fans would make the same disparging comments they do now, and he would still be discounted because he played in an earlier era, one which they have no emotional investment in as they do the current era.

[ripthekik]

No, but in the next 50 years, who knows.
There has to be someone even better than MJ, Shaq-ish dominance, who happens to have a great team from the start.

[WillC]

Edited..........

[tmacattack33]

You do know there were only 8 (before 1961) or 9 (after 1961) teams during Bill Russell's time right?

So as far as I'm concerned, Jordan's 6 titles, which meant he lead his teams to be number 1 out of 28, is more impressive than what Russell did.



If you do not agree, I'm forming this fantasy basketball league. It's a $100 buy-in. It consists of 28 teams, but if you win, you will only make $900 (which is what you would expect to make for winning a 9 team league). The other $1,900 is going to be kept by me, because i like money.

[Legends66NBA7]

Because?

How much better do you think Auerbach makes Boston. Philly won 8 more games that year (then bested Boston 4-1 in the playoffs, losing by 4, winning by 5, 11, 14 and 24). Boston were better than the year before because of adding Howell. But Philly would surely remain favourites.

Are you kidding me ?

Russell already has more than enough done in his resume to be considered the GOAT, now add a 13 peat and the majority of those title years as the best player ?

How can he not be considered unanimous GOAT ? Russell made that team click for those titles.


If he isn't the "unanimous GOAT" now going 11 for 13, which no other superstar has even approached, I fail to see why he would be if he had won the two he didn't win in '58 and '67. Modern fans would make the same disparging comments they do now, and he would still be discounted because he played in an earlier era, one which they have no emotional investment in as they do the current era.

I agree, perhaps that's just more irrefutable because he went perfect to a 13 peat, but you will probably still get the "it was a weak era/no offense" statements.

[D.J.]

You would have to start winning titles pretty much from day 1. You would also have to join a team with an FO like the Spurs or Lakers. And you also would have to be extremely lucky.

[Zackmorris]

I wouldn't say out right impossible but the window of someone getting 11 rings plus as a player is a very very very tight window of possibility.

[Duderonomy]

Phil Jackson already has :D

[veilside23]

no just the regular season will take its toll on players and how much more for the playoff back then in just like less than 50 games you are an nba champ already ... :D

so no ... if teams get reduced to like 10 teams then yes

[talkingconch]

Teams were also way more stacked back then so it evens out. Anyway, no one is ever going to touch this record unless a superteam is assembled with an absolutely monster big. Think modern day Wilt but with the leadership of a Duncan or Russell. It would literally take someone who is that good AND ALSO having a stacked team. Just won't happen.
no it doesn't

[ThaRegul8r]

Phil Jackson already has :D

Russell won all 11 of his rings on the court playing ball.

Jackson won all of 1 title on the court playing ball.

[DatAsh]

Russell won all 11 of his rings on the court playing ball.

Jackson won all of 1 title on the court playing ball.

Even if you include coaching championships, Russell has more.

[Psileas]

Maybe they should have given Russell 2 rings for 1968 and 1969, one for Russell the player, one for Russell the coach.

[EnoughSaid]

If a player like we've never seen before steps on the court and dominates the game like no one else, who says he can't win 11? What about a duo of two amazing players? Anything can happen.

[Owl]

Maybe not, but let me offer you another alternative universe: Russell doesn't get injured in 1958 and Red Auerbach doesn't retire in 1966.
13 for 13.

Bill would be unanimous GOAT forever, man.
Because?

How much better do you think Auerbach makes Boston. Philly won 8 more games that year (then bested Boston 4-1 in the playoffs, losing by 4, winning by 5, 11, 14 and 24). Boston were better than the year before because of adding Howell. But Philly would surely remain favourites.
Are you kidding me ?

Russell already has more than enough done in his resume to be considered the GOAT, now add a 13 peat and the majority of those title years as the best player ?

How can he not be considered unanimous GOAT ? Russell made that team click for those titles.

Read the fricking post. I questioned why Auerbach coaching automatically automatically gives Boston the ring in '67 and instead of an explanation you come out arguing how great Russell is. That wasn't what I was talking about.

That said, I wouldn't say "If Russell had .... extra rings" makes him GOAT (or any other player with any other stipulation of rings) because it makes no statement as to the players impact on achieving those titles. Elgin Baylor got a ring in '72. But implicit in your suggestion that adding titles necessarily, arbitrarily and without context does mean a players career is better than it was in than in an alternate version of history in which a different outcome occurred, is the suggestion that individual performance doesn't matter at all.

From what I heard Russell played well versus the 76ers in '67. Yet by any "more titles always equals better player" reckoning, if Russell played worse but happened to win, he would be better.

To the main topic, its tough to say never because basketball could be going on for thousands of years. But in the concievable future, I can't see anyone doing 11 titles.

[Legends66NBA7]

Read the fricking post. I questioned why Auerbach coaching automatically automatically gives Boston the ring in '67 and instead of an explanation you come out arguing how great Russell is. That wasn't what I was talking about.

I'll admit, that was a jackass response. My bad, I should have read your post more properly.

Why would it not give them the ring, in your opinion ?

I'm going off facts that they won 8 years in a row and 9 in 10 years... Red stays, I don't see why they don't win another one, unless the Sixers were just THAT much on a mission that year.

With Red going and Russell having to coach, that probably wasn't in their comfort zone for him coaching and playing... until a year later. (I'm just going of psychology here...)


That said, I wouldn't say "If Russell had .... extra rings" makes him GOAT (or any other player with any other stipulation of rings) because it makes no statement as to the players impact on achieving those titles. Elgin Baylor got a ring in '72. But implicit in your suggestion that adding titles necessarily, arbitrarily and without context does mean a players career is better than it was in than in an alternate version of history in which a different outcome occurred, is the suggestion that individual performance doesn't matter at all.

From what I heard Russell played well versus the 76ers in '67. Yet by any "more titles always equals better player" reckoning, if Russell played worse but happened to win, he would be better.

I wouldn't say Rings make you the GOAT automatically... but in that type of dominance ? A 13 peat ? And you are clearly the main reason for that type of dominance, getting to the finals, being the best player on that, being the most clutch, etc... He would have had the perfect basketball resume and embodies everything of the team concept of basketball: playing un selfish, putting team views ahead of individual goals, remarkable consistency.

I would also not just arbitrary rings, but even the awards didn't exist back then like Defensive Player of the Year and Finals MVP... how much more better does Russell's resume look for a unanimous GOAT candidate ? I'd say that's pretty strong. All hypothetical.

[Owl]

I'll admit, that was a jackass response. My bad, I should have read your post more properly.

Why would it not give them the ring, in your opinion ?

I'm going off facts that they won 8 years in a row and 9 in 10 years... Red stays, I don't see why they don't win another one, unless the Sixers were just THAT much on a mission that year.

With Red going and Russell having to coach, that probably wasn't in their comfort zone for him coaching and playing... until a year later. (I'm just going of psychology here...)



I wouldn't say Rings make you the GOAT automatically... but in that type of dominance ? A 13 peat ? And you are clearly the main reason for that type of dominance, getting to the finals, being the best player on that, being the most clutch, etc... He would have had the perfect basketball resume and embodies everything of the team concept of basketball: playing un selfish, putting team views ahead of individual goals, remarkable consistency.

I would also not just arbitrary rings, but even the awards didn't exist back then like Defensive Player of the Year and Finals MVP... how much more better does Russell's resume look for a unanimous GOAT candidate ? I'd say that's pretty strong. All hypothetical.
Sixers weren't "that much on a mission". There were that much better than they ever were or would be again.

Substantially better coach (Hannum replaces Schayes)
Substantially better Cunningham (Cunningham improves significantly in his 2nd year then is injured in the first round in '68 and misses the Boston series)
Wilt settled in with team (1 1/2 full years prior to '67 season) and living in Philly rather than communting from NYC. Wilt finds his role and is now arguably at his apex.
I could probably go further but '67 Sixers were a beast of team. I don't see that Auerbach tilts the balance of power that much (especially since he's already established his coaching systems, his arduous pre-season fitness regimes and still has significant influence over the players anyway). Could the Celtics have won a series versus those Sixers, sure, it's possible. But then I think it's also more than possible that the Sixers repeat with a healthy Cunningham (especially without a bunch of other nagging injuries).

Don't have a problem with your opinions now they are expressed in a nauanced way.