Bill Russell's 11 Rings Are Overrated.

[NumberSix]

"Greatest" is usually some kind of blend between accomplishments and how good a player is..... It's not really that clear. Russell isn't some kind of absurd selection under that criteria.

There's one thing about Russell that people like to pretend isn't true though. Those 11 titles is an EXTREMELY skewed and over valued accomplishment. That's what happens in a young 8 team league.

It's not a coincidence that that is what happens in every single sport. Green Bay has 2 different runs where they won 5 chips in a decade. Boston Celtics won 11 chips in 13 years. Yankees had a 5-peat and two 4-peats.

Whether it's the Montreal Canadiens, New York Yankees, Green Bay Packers or the Boston Celtics. You don't see teams putting up these large strings of championships in a short period of time in 30 team leagues.

It's not a coincidence that every sport before the modern age had 1 single team dominating the sport. 2 teams if your lucky. Every pre-mordern era sport has a Bill Russell and a bunch of Sam Jones/John Havlicek's. Montreal has 3 players with double digit chips and 4 more guys with 8 or 9. Yogi Berra won 10 rings as a player and there's like 30 other Yankees who have between 6-9 rings.

Bill Russell having 11 rings by itself is a really weak reason to count him among the best players of all time. "Greatest", maybe.

[SyRyanYang]

One can only dominate his era. :confusedshrug:

[Sarcastic]

OP just came to the realization that free agency has had an effect on professional sports teams' ability to retain talent. :rolleyes:

[Bernie Nips]

Yeah, so many players in so many sports have won 11 times.

So many.

[willds09]

"Greatest" is usually some kind of blend between accomplishments and how good a player is..... It's not really that clear. Russell isn't some kind of absurd selection under that criteria.

There's one thing about Russell that people like to pretend isn't true though. Those 11 titles is an EXTREMELY skewed and over valued accomplishment. That's what happens in a young 8 team league.

It's not a coincidence that that is what happens in every single sport. Green Bay has 2 different runs where they won 5 chips in a decade. Boston Celtics won 11 chips in 13 years. Yankees had a 5-peat and two 4-peats.

Whether it's the Montreal Canadiens, New York Yankees, Green Bay Packers or the Boston Celtics. You don't see teams putting up these large strings of championships in a short period of time in 30 team leagues.

It's not a coincidence that every sport before the modern age had 1 single team dominating the sport. 2 teams if your lucky. Every pre-mordern era sport has a Bill Russell and a bunch of Sam Jones/John Havlicek's. Montreal has 3 players with double digit chips and 4 more guys with 8 or 9. Yogi Berra won 10 rings as a player and there's like 30 other Yankees who have between 6-9 rings.

Bill Russell having 11 rings by itself is a really weak reason to count him among the best players of all time. "Greatest", maybe. naw lebrons mvps and 1 ring iz overrated

[NumberSix]

Yeah, so many players in so many sports have won 11 times.

So many.
A retard who obviously didn't read.

[ripthekik]

"Greatest" is usually some kind of blend between accomplishments and how good a player is..... It's not really that clear. Russell isn't some kind of absurd selection under that criteria.

There's one thing about Russell that people like to pretend isn't true though. Those 11 titles is an EXTREMELY skewed and over valued accomplishment. That's what happens in a young 8 team league.

It's not a coincidence that that is what happens in every single sport. Green Bay has 2 different runs where they won 5 chips in a decade. Boston Celtics won 11 chips in 13 years. Yankees had a 5-peat and two 4-peats.

Whether it's the Montreal Canadiens, New York Yankees, Green Bay Packers or the Boston Celtics. You don't see teams putting up these large strings of championships in a short period of time in 30 team leagues.

It's not a coincidence that every sport before the modern age had 1 single team dominating the sport. 2 teams if your lucky. Every pre-mordern era sport has a Bill Russell and a bunch of Sam Jones/John Havlicek's. Montreal has 3 players with double digit chips and 4 more guys with 8 or 9. Yogi Berra won 10 rings as a player and there's like 30 other Yankees who have between 6-9 rings.

Bill Russell having 11 rings by itself is a really weak reason to count him among the best players of all time. "Greatest", maybe.
So you're saying 11 rings is overrated because of the lack of competition he had.. yet you're not willing to say Lebron's ring is overrated because of the stacked team and weak eastern conference?

Pick a side man :oldlol:

[tazb]

Didn't read the OP but he won his rings when there were only like 8 teams in the league.:lol

[Bernie Nips]

A retard who obviously didn't read.

I read it. You said it happens so often, with the Yankees and Green Bay, etc.

Yet you haven't named one single other player who has won 11 times.

Not one.

[NumberSix]

I read it. You said it happens so often, with the Yankees and Green Bay, etc.

Yet you haven't named one single other player who has won 11 times.

Not one.
Henri Richard won 11 times. Now go away troll.

[jlip]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5327419&postcount=63

[Bernie Nips]

Henri Richard won 11 times. Now go away troll.

So two players in the history of professional sport, both considered champions of the game, in their respective hall of fames, etc.

Although along with his 11 titles, Bill Russell also won 5 MVPs and is still to this day recognised as quite comfortably in the top 10 greatest players of all time, most regarding him as top 5.

Are you sitting there frothing at the mouth because someone disagrees with your opinion? Get mad son, get mad!

[gengiskhan]

"Greatest" is usually some kind of blend between accomplishments and how good a player is..... It's not really that clear. Russell isn't some kind of absurd selection under that criteria.

There's one thing about Russell that people like to pretend isn't true though. Those 11 titles is an EXTREMELY skewed and over valued accomplishment. That's what happens in a young 8 team league.

It's not a coincidence that that is what happens in every single sport. Green Bay has 2 different runs where they won 5 chips in a decade. Boston Celtics won 11 chips in 13 years. Yankees had a 5-peat and two 4-peats.

Whether it's the Montreal Canadiens, New York Yankees, Green Bay Packers or the Boston Celtics. You don't see teams putting up these large strings of championships in a short period of time in 30 team leagues.

It's not a coincidence that every sport before the modern age had 1 single team dominating the sport. 2 teams if your lucky. Every pre-mordern era sport has a Bill Russell and a bunch of Sam Jones/John Havlicek's. Montreal has 3 players with double digit chips and 4 more guys with 8 or 9. Yogi Berra won 10 rings as a player and there's like 30 other Yankees who have between 6-9 rings.

Bill Russell having 11 rings by itself is a really weak reason to count him among the best players of all time. "Greatest", maybe.

If Bill Russell's 11 rings are overrated as celtic's main weapon, Kobe bryant's 5 rings are even more overrated as 2nd fiddle that could've been easily replaced.

[Real Men Wear Green]

There's one thing about Russell that people like to pretend isn't true though. Those 11 titles is an EXTREMELY skewed and over valued accomplishment. That's what happens in a young 8 team league. The most valuable accomplishment a player can achieve is to lead his team to a Championship. Tell Wilt Chamberlain or Jerry West that Russell's rings are overvalued. 8 teams in the league? Big deal. Right now there's only one team in the Eastern Conference that's a realistic contender. Does that mean Miami wining a ring this year would be less significant?

It's not a coincidence that that is what happens in every single sport. Green Bay has 2 different runs where they won 5 chips in a decade. Boston Celtics won 11 chips in 13 years. Yankees had a 5-peat and two 4-peats.Or you realize that certain franchises are better than others. Yankees dominated because they were committed to doing what it takes to win. They were the one team that was willing to do something like buying Babe Ruth from the Sox and so they reaped the benefit. Similarly here in Boston Auerbach had the vision of how he could create a great team with Russell as the centerpiece. It worked.


Whether it's the Montreal Canadiens, New York Yankees, Green Bay Packers or the Boston Celtics. You don't see teams putting up these large strings of championships in a short period of time in 30 team leagues.

It's not a coincidence that every sport before the modern age had 1 single team dominating the sport. 2 teams if your lucky. Every pre-mordern era sport has a Bill Russell and a bunch of Sam Jones/John Havlicek's. Montreal has 3 players with double digit chips and 4 more guys with 8 or 9. Yogi Berra won 10 rings as a player and there's like 30 other Yankees who have between 6-9 rings.Forgot MJ's Bulls? If not for retirements he could have put together even more historic streaks than the two three-peats in one decade.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Kobe bryant's 5 rings are even more overrated as 2nd fiddle that could've been easily replaced.
There have been 1-3 players any given season that could replace Bryant's level of production. But acting like it'd be "easy" to get one of those guys is stupid, and the length of time he's performed at his level is what separates him from them.

(I try to talk to every troll once. But only once)

[kNicKz]

If Bill Russell's 11 rings are overrated as celtic's main weapon, Kobe bryant's 5 rings are even more overrated as 2nd fiddle that could've been easily replaced.

size 32 text

http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/a/image/1354/42/1354425776160.gif

[teddytwelvetoes]

Didn't read the OP but he won his rings when there were only like 8 teams in the league.:lolah, so you're saying it was more difficult back then, no? if the NBA had eight teams right now imagine the quality...

[KyrieTheFuture]

Undefeated in elimination games. Can't discredit that.

[ThaRegul8r]

So two players in the history of professional sport, both considered champions of the game, in their respective hall of fames, etc.

And ask him how many seasons Richard played in order to get his 11, versus how many Russell played in order to get his.

[ThaRegul8r]

Attempting to discredit past greats is overrated.

[dh144498]

So you're saying 11 rings is overrated because of the lack of competition he had.. yet you're not willing to say Lebron's ring is overrated because of the stacked team and weak eastern conference?

Pick a side man :oldlol:

this. :lol
lebron d1ckriders always finding a way to prop up their boy. :roll:

[La Frescobaldi]

Let's see a 10 team NBA right now.

All those guys that ain't 1 of the 150 because they aren't good enough...... aren't good enough. Gone.

Who on the Raptors, Bobcats, Hornets, T-Wolves and any bench member of any team........ is still in the league? At all.
Would a guy like Chase Budinger have a contract after he ripped his knee? Maybe, maybe not.

Pay the players by increasing amounts based on how they perform instead of a bloated union scale with some extra frilly payday if they perform great for one season before their contract.

Give them All-Star paydays that can be like 10% of their annual salary because they were good enough to make the team.

Make playoff money real important income for their families.

Get rid of free agency. Make contract law actual law instead of some kind of a nuisance for players lawyers to just rip up on the regular.

Put a guy like Shaq in his prime on THE weakest team in the NBA and see if he can drag his dead wood teammates to a 7th game in the Conference Finals against the champion squad. Like Chamberlain did.

Put guys like Kobe Bryant or LeBron James on one of the weakest teams in the NBA for his entire career and refuse to trade him like they did to Oscar Robertson for like 12 years.

Then you can start to compare some things.

[NumberSix]

Let's see a 10 team NBA right now.

All those guys that ain't 1 of the 150 because they aren't good enough...... aren't good enough. Gone.

Who on the Raptors, Bobcats, Hornets, T-Wolves and any bench member of any team........ is still in the league? At all.
Would a guy like Chase Budinger have a contract after he ripped his knee? Maybe, maybe not.

Pay the players by increasing amounts based on how they perform instead of a bloated union scale with some extra frilly payday if they perform great for one season before their contract.

Give them All-Star paydays that can be like 10% of their annual salary because they were good enough to make the team.

Make playoff money real important income for their families.

Get rid of free agency. Make contract law actual law instead of some kind of a nuisance for players lawyers to just rip up on the regular.

Put a guy like Shaq in his prime on THE weakest team in the NBA and see if he can drag his dead wood teammates to a 7th game in the Conference Finals against the champion squad. Like Chamberlain did.

Put guys like Kobe Bryant or LeBron James on one of the weakest teams in the NBA for his entire career and refuse to trade him like they did to Oscar Robertson for like 12 years.

Then you can start to compare some things.
This. And just prey to god you don't end up on one of those 8 teams who aren't too keen on having "too many" black players.

[Greg Oden 50]

"Greatest" is usually some kind of blend between accomplishments and how good a player is..... It's not really that clear. Russell isn't some kind of absurd selection under that criteria.

There's one thing about Russell that people like to pretend isn't true though. Those 11 titles is an EXTREMELY skewed and over valued accomplishment. That's what happens in a young 8 team league.

It's not a coincidence that that is what happens in every single sport. Green Bay has 2 different runs where they won 5 chips in a decade. Boston Celtics won 11 chips in 13 years. Yankees had a 5-peat and two 4-peats.

Whether it's the Montreal Canadiens, New York Yankees, Green Bay Packers or the Boston Celtics. You don't see teams putting up these large strings of championships in a short period of time in 30 team leagues.

It's not a coincidence that every sport before the modern age had 1 single team dominating the sport. 2 teams if your lucky. Every pre-mordern era sport has a Bill Russell and a bunch of Sam Jones/John Havlicek's. Montreal has 3 players with double digit chips and 4 more guys with 8 or 9. Yogi Berra won 10 rings as a player and there's like 30 other Yankees who have between 6-9 rings.

Bill Russell having 11 rings by itself is a really weak reason to count him among the best players of all time. "Greatest", maybe.


NOT EVEN CLOSE TO LEBRON'S OVERRATED,DOMINANT IN A WEAK EAR WHITHOUT ANY DECENT CNETER :rockon:

[Legends66NBA7]

And ask him how many seasons Richard played in order to get his 11, versus how many Russell played in order to get his.

For anybody who was curious:

20 seasons for Richard to get his 11.

vs

13 seasons for Russell to get his 11.

Also, on the competition part:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7283084&postcount=76

Thanks jlip for that link. I would add more to this, but I seem to have lost some of my work concerning Bill Russell and those Celtics.

[ripthekik]

lol numbersix gets punked in this thread, ignores all the questions that tore his opening argument apart, and only answer the ones he can :oldlol:

shoulda went to school man, you had potential

[j3lademaster]

So two players in the history of professional sport, both considered champions of the game, in their respective hall of fames, etc.

Although along with his 11 titles, Bill Russell also won 5 MVPs and is still to this day recognised as quite comfortably in the top 10 greatest players of all time, most regarding him as top 5.

Are you sitting there frothing at the mouth because someone disagrees with your opinion? Get mad son, get mad!lol, how many do u want? Only so many people have an opportunity to be born in the right time into an expansion league of a sport that happened to become a global sport.

I agree to an extent. I remember reading a post somewhere (and later looked it up) that Russel said to MJ that Paxson wouldn't have made that championshipwinning shot in his era, because Paxson wouldn't be on a roster. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't, but one thing's for sure is that we didn't have the largest pool of talent in the nba back then. Players weren't making even close to what players make today (even factoring in inflation), so kids weren't growing up with hoop dreams. Basketball wasn't globalized. There could have been some 7'0 kid in Africa with Wilt's physical gifts that we didn't know about, because no one scouted internationally.

But this is a "not guilty until proven beyond a reasonable doubt" argument to me, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt because he dominated what was put in front of him; so Russ being in the top 5 from 11 rings alone is valid in my eyes.

[NumberSix]

lol, how many do u want? Only so many people have an opportunity to be born in the right time into an expansion league of a sport that happened to become a global sport.

I agree to an extent. I remember reading a post somewhere (and later looked it up) that Russel said to MJ that Paxson wouldn't have made that championshipwinning shot in his era, because Paxson wouldn't be on a roster. Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't, but one thing's for sure is that we didn't have the largest pool of talent in the nba back then. Players weren't making even close to what players make today (even factoring in inflation), so kids weren't growing up with hoop dreams. Basketball wasn't globalized. There could have been some 7'0 kid in Africa with Wilt's physical gifts that we didn't know about, because no one scouted internationally.

But this is a "not guilty until proven beyond a reasonable doubt" argument to me, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt because he dominated what was put in front of him; so Russ being in the top 5 from 11 rings alone is valid in my eyes.
Then how come nobody gives a shit about Sam Jones' 10 rings?

The thing about Russell's rings is that nobody even cares that it's Bill Russell. They just feel obligated to add him because he's the guy with the most. Sam Jones only has 1 less and nobody gives a fcuk about him at all.

If there was some guy who won 12 rings, the same thing would have happened to Bill Russell. And I don't mean he'd drop down 1 spot below the 12 rings guy. He'd be completely disregarded like Sam Jones.

[tpols]

Then how come nobody gives a shit about Sam Jones' 10 rings?

The thing about Russell's rings is that nobody even cares that it's Bill Russell. They just feel obligated to add him because he's the guy with the most. Sam Jones only has 1 less and nobody gives a fcuk about him at all.

If there was some guy who won 12 rings, the same thing would have happened to Bill Russell. And I don't mean he'd drop down 1 spot below the 12 rings guy. He'd be completely disregarded like Sam Jones.
Nah.. Because bill Russell was the best player on his winning teams. If he still had 11 rings and some other dude had more that would logically mean that player would have to be on his team.. Since his team won the vast majority of the rings. And if that player wasn't better than him, then no, he wouldn't get the same credit.

A good comparison would be if jerry west had 10 rings.. He'd be considered a top 5 goat.

[ThaRegul8r]

Then how come nobody gives a shit about Sam Jones' 10 rings?

Most people don't know about anything that took place before they became interested or before they were born, and Sam Jones didn't become a significant contributor to the Celtics' championship run until 1962, when he made the All-Star team for the first time, averaged 36 minutes a game in the postseason, and hit the series-winner in Game 7 of the EDF. Prior to that, he hardly played, and thus didn't contribute much to the rings. Most people who cite Jones don't know that because they didn't bother to check, including you. Beginning in '62 on, Jones was a significant contributor, at which point Russell already had four titles.

[Legends66NBA7]

Most people don't know about anything that took place before they became interested or before they were born, and Sam Jones didn't become a significant contributor to the Celtics' championship run until 1962, when he made the All-Star team for the first time, averaged 36 minutes a game in the postseason, and hit the series-winner in Game 7 of the EDF. Prior to that, he hardly played, and thus didn't contribute much to the rings. Most people who cite Jones don't know that because they didn't bother to check, including you. Beginning in '62 on, Jones was a significant contributor, at which point Russell already had four titles.

Exactly. The first 4 years were almost K.C. Jones-esque contribution towards those titles. Same goes with Hondo, although he contributed more than both Jones's in his first 3 titles.

Along with that, Sam Jones didn't win any major individual awards, only a 5x all-star, and 3x all NBA teamer (all second team), etc... There's no comparing what Russell did for those Celtic teams vs what Jones did for those Celtic teams and the proof is there.

[Ballin416]

There's no need to bring down the reputation or ability of an NBA legend. Can't we just recognize and appreciate the contributions that he's made to the game. The epic Wilt rivalry, defence vs offence, and greatest winner in professional sports. It was a long time ago so I say let the old man have his praise.

[NumberSix]

Most people don't know about anything that took place before they became interested or before they were born, and Sam Jones didn't become a significant contributor to the Celtics' championship run until 1962, when he made the All-Star team for the first time, averaged 36 minutes a game in the postseason, and hit the series-winner in Game 7 of the EDF. Prior to that, he hardly played, and thus didn't contribute much to the rings. Most people who cite Jones don't know that because they didn't bother to check, including you. Beginning in '62 on, Jones was a significant contributor, at which point Russell already had four titles.
What do you mean "Russell already had four titles"? The Celtics won titles, not Bill Russell. You forget that the first title Bill Russell his team mate Bob Cousy was the league MVP. It's not like it was just Bill Russell and a bunch of role players. Those Celtic teams were completely lopsided compared to the rest of the league. The rest of the NBA teams were still hesitant about having too many black players on their teams.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Bill Russell in today's era: high school janitor

[Burgz V2]

i find it ridiculous to hold this argument against Russell. It's not like he had a choice who he could play against. The league was in its (relative) infancy as was the sport itself. 11 rings is untouchable, sure, because the league will never be 8 teams with two super teams. But I credit him for more than just that, he revolutionized the sport and was a pioneer for black athletes at the same time.

In an era where players were paid peanuts, and recognition paled in comparison today, I think it is only fitting for him to get the praise he gets for the 11 rings, heck, he's got nothing else

[Burgz V2]

i find it ridiculous to hold this argument against Russell. It's not like he had a choice who he could play against. The league was in its (relative) infancy as was the sport itself. 11 rings is untouchable, sure, because the league will never be 8 teams with two super teams. But I credit him for more than just that, he revolutionized the sport and was a pioneer for black athletes at the same time.

In an era where players were paid peanuts, and recognition paled in comparison today, I think it is only fitting for him to get the praise he gets for the 11 rings, heck, he's got nothing else

[willds09]

Queen jamez is tha most overrated superstar finals mvp in NBA history :lol

[jlip]

Please stop. You're just digging yourself into bigger holes by showing how little you actually know about that era.


What do you mean "Russell already had four titles"? The Celtics won titles, not Bill Russell.

The title of this thread created by you is, "Bill Russell's 11 Rings...", but when someone mentions the fact that Russell had already won titles before Sam Jones became an important contributor, all of a sudden the rings become the Celtics' now? :confusedshrug:


You forget that the first title Bill Russell his team mate Bob Cousy was the league MVP. It's not like it was just Bill Russell and a bunch of role players.

There are so many factors that figure into Russell not winning MVP or ROY that season that I'm certain you know very little about. That's info you can't get from just looking at the Celtics' profile on bball-reference.com. Also, no one ever claimed that Russell was winning titles alone. No team becomes a dynasty with just one good player. Any dynasty has to have several good/ great players, but it is basically irrefutable that Russell was the best player on at least 8 if not more of his championship teams, including the first one. Even the coach, Red Auerbach, admitted that Russell was the best player on the first championship team (the season Cousy won the MVP.)

The following are quotes from teammates, coaches, and opposing players regarding Russell's impact. Observe that most of these quotes/ statements were from the 1960

[dh144498]

The title of this thread created by you is, "Bill Russell's 11 Rings...", but when someone mentions the fact that Russell had already won titles before Sam Jones became an important contributor, all of a sudden the rings become the Celtics' now? :confusedshrug:



lebron d1ckriders always flip flop with their arguments. :lol

Lebon without a ring: "rings are a team accomplishment."
lebron with a ring: "lebron won this all by himself."

:lol :lol :lol :lol

[NumberSix]

The title of this thread created by you is, "Bill Russell's 11 Rings...", but when someone mentions the fact that Russell had already won titles before Sam Jones became an important contributor, all of a sudden the rings become the Celtics' now? :confusedshrug:
This is a intellectually dishonest point and you know it.

What do you mean "all of a sudden"? It was the initial point in the first place.

The entire point of the thread is that IMO, Bill Russell having 11 rings is over-valued. I'm obviously arguing against the idea of "Bill Russell's 11 Rings". Is it not pretty obvious that my entire point is that I don't agree with him single-handedly being credited for team success?

I mean, seriously, how else would you have me phrase it? If I were to say "Robert Horry's 7 rings" and explained how his rings alone don't make him an all time great, would you be like "Oh, you said the where Horry's rings but now you wanna argue that it's a team accomplishment" even though that was my initial point in the first place?

Again, how else would you propose I phrase? "The 11 championships that the Celtics won when Russell was a member of the team and being that Russell was a member of the team he received a ring to commemorate each title the team won is overrated in regards to Russell being credited as being single handedly the winner of 11 titles disregarding the fact that it is a team achievement"?