Bill Russell NEVER even missed the playoffs...

[CavaliersFTW]

http://i.imgur.com/Mz2TD.jpg

In fact, he made the Finals every single season except 1, where he "only" made it to the ECF to be vanquished by prime Wilt-"most dominant force ever" -Chamberlain's record breaking 76ers which are considered one of the greatest teams in NBA history. The only NBA Finals he ever lost, he was injured and on the DNP list. In just 14 years he achieved 11 rings. 2 NCAA titles. An Olympic Gold. Anchoring every single squad. His final two rings he earned on the court he doubled as the HEAD COACH. There isn't a single "choking" or "failed to ____" blemish in his entire career. The guy was virtually invincible as the last-man-standing during any season or tournament he ever played in.

Let that sink in Lebron stans and Jordan loons. Every single other super star player in NBA history has LOST more seasons than they won. At times Jordan and Lebron couldn't even make it to the playoffs :oldlol: You guys don't even know what a real GOAT is.

This guys resume son's the sh*t outta everyone who's ever played. The ultimate goal in basketball is to win, period. Half the "awards" you guys boast about DIDN'T EVEN EXIST in Russell's time. Bill Russell just won, period. Today's NBA Finals award bears his name. Nobody else can even think of being the GOAT with Russell looming over their shoulder cuz they're only dreaming to crack half of what he accomplished.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6ougtScxo1qcx3szo1_1280.jpg
http://onlineathens.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full/12360401.jpg

[Trollsmasher]

The true GOAT:applause:

Those youngstas jizzing over Jordan just don't get it.

[livinglegend]

As I stated previously, he s the GOAT. Jordan being the GOAT is an allusion created by the media.
11 championships, 5 MVPs, the greatest defender of all time, the greatest leader of all time, the greatest winner of all time.

[chips93]

As I stated previously, he s the GOAT. Jordan being the GOAT is an allusion created by the media.
11 championships, 5 MVPs, the greatest defender of all time, the greatest leader of all time, the greatest winner of all time.

if you learned how to spell illusion correctly, i might believe your media mind control theory

[Is He Ill]

The true GOAT:applause:

Those youngstas jizzing over Jordan just don't get it.

:kobe:

[senelcoolidge]

Russell greatest team player, but not the greatest player of all time. Russell was placed in the perfect situation.

[chips93]

plus its a lot easier to make the playoffs when there is like 9 teams in the league, and 6 make the playoffs

[BoutPractice]

There are only two players with a convincing argument for GOAT over Jordan: Russell and Wilt, depending on how you see the game. Of the two, Russell is probably the easiest to argue.

[Electric Slide]

played against a bunch of white guys like this...

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg

[no pun intended]

So hasn't Tim Duncan if you include when he tore his meniscus at the end of the 99-00 season that prevented him from playing in the 00 playoffs.

[Trollsmasher]

played against a bunch of white guys like this...

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
That guy breaks an ankle with a little hesitation move (no one in today's league would do that), then splits a super solid and hard double team and you doubt that era?:kobe:

[Soundwave]

played against a bunch of white guys like this...

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg

And he played in an era with only 10 teams, 6 of which were guaranteed to make the playoffs, lol, and the Celtics were far and away the most talented team overall in that era. They had 4 or 5 good players whereas other teams (like the ones Wilt was stuck on) had maybe 1 or 2.

Basketball IMO really didn't "mature" into its modern iteration until the 1970s. From the 70s onwards, then I think the game takes on a shape and style of play (defensive strategies for example) that we would recognize today.

The ABA really changed basketball a lot and the NBA was forced to adapt a lot, as a a result the game evolved into basically what we know today.

[Psileas]

http://i.imgur.com/Mz2TD.jpg

In fact, he made the Finals every single season except 1, where he "only" made it to the ECF to be vanquished by prime Wilt-"most dominant force ever" -Chamberlain's record breaking 76ers which are considered one of the greatest teams in NBA history. The only NBA Finals he ever lost, he was injured and on the DNP list. In just 14 years he achieved 11 rings. 2 NCAA titles. An Olympic Gold. Anchoring every single squad. His final two rings he earned on the court he doubled as the HEAD COACH. There isn't a single "choking" or "failed to ____" blemish in his entire career. The guy was virtually invincible as the last-man-standing during any season or tournament he ever played in.

Let that sink in Lebron stans and Jordan loons. Every single other super star player in NBA history has LOST more seasons than they won. At times Jordan and Lebron couldn't even make it to the playoffs :oldlol: You guys don't even know what a real GOAT is.

This guys resume son's the sh*t outta everyone who's ever played. The ultimate goal in basketball is to win, period. Half the "awards" you guys boast about DIDN'T EVEN EXIST in Russell's time. Bill Russell just won, period. Today's NBA Finals award bears his name. Nobody else can even think of being the GOAT with Russell looming over their shoulder cuz they're only dreaming to crack half of what he accomplished.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6ougtScxo1qcx3szo1_1280.jpg
http://onlineathens.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full/12360401.jpg

Can CavsFTW or anyone else create for Bill Russell one of these posters that depict a player alongside all his awards earned in NBA-NCAA-HS - like the ones existing for Jordan and Kobe? Maybe you can also add some Finals MVP's and DPOY's in transparent form, since they didn't exist back then (probably like 8 from each award).

[Soundwave]

Russell is great, but he wasn't one of the top 2 scorers on his team.

The Celtics had Havlicek and Sam Jones who were their 1-2 punch on offense leading the team with 27 ppg and and 26 ppg in the 1967 season for example.

Russell was a distant no.3 offensive option for the Celtics.

And granted I'll give he was a great defensive player, but the Celtics still routinely allowed well over 100 ppg in an era without a 3 point line.

The playoffs were three rounds, with the 1st round being a best of 5 at that.

I'm looking at the 1964-65 NBA season and there are only like 7 players total who were 6'10 or taller in the entire league, lol and pretty much only 3 for the entire league who were 7 foot or taller.

He had some incredible rebounding numbers, but he was often doing so as probably the biggest/strongest player on the floor on any given night, who was a no.3 option on offense.

He played in an era where the Celtics routinely scored over 110 ppg/season, and yet he barely hit 18 ppg on most nights. And only shot over 46% from the field *once* in his career. In the 1965 season he wasn't even in the top 25 (25!!!!) in the league for scoring.

Yeah, yeah, I get that has was a beast on the glass, but one wonders how much he basically just saved his energy all game long to grab rebounds against smaller players most of the time.

[CavaliersFTW]

Russell is great, but he wasn't one of the top 2 scorers on his team.

The Celtics had Havlicek and Sam Jones who were their 1-2 punch on offense leading the team with 27 ppg and and 26 ppg in the 1967 season for example.

Russell was a distant no.3 offensive option for the Celtics.

And granted I'll give he was a great defensive player, but the Celtics still routinely allowed well over 100 ppg in an era without a 3 point line.

The playoffs were three rounds, with the 1st round being a best of 5 at that.

I'm looking at the 1964-65 NBA season and there are only like 7 players total who were 6'10 or taller in the entire league, lol and pretty much only 3 for the entire league who were 7 foot or taller.
Oh I'm sorry, I forgot again, is the ultimate achievement in basketball WINNING or scoring? Clear your mind of clutter, you poor little sheep - these trivial little sub-awards don't make players "better". They are just sad excuses for those who couldn't win like Russell did.

[CavaliersFTW]

played against a bunch of white guys like this...

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg
and black guys like this:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-8LjXn0YCsEk/UQydqoP2QbI/AAAAAAAAEUw/WaH1MKKYzpA/s800/Bellamy%2520Posterizes%2520Bill%2520Russell.gif

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-hULbTXhYwzY/UQygDXv4KZI/AAAAAAAAEU8/_sGA0MghHaY/s800/Green%2520posterizes%2520Nate%2520Thurmond.gif

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/--3oPwC10q_M/UQyi5dbDtCI/AAAAAAAAEWI/eeBwdhn2jxA/s800/Willis%2520Torching%2520Bill%2520Russell.gif

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Vy1F0VB7IwE/UQytNdg07JI/AAAAAAAAEVA/MptXJO3YD3o/s800/WiltFootwork1.gif

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-e6XHtpjYHns/URnTM6ocjYI/AAAAAAAAEVc/9HzzraF5qco/s800/Gus%2520Layup.gif

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-cyYttg3qgcQ/URnUQtxlCgI/AAAAAAAAEVk/UR2npHUCaF4/s800/Gus%2520Block.gif

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-WPxPfxWt8vQ/UQyTpLxGKUI/AAAAAAAAEUs/bARaNIhu07Q/s800/GusJohnsonDunk.gif



meanwhile Kobe couldn't even win an MVP cause Steve Nash was in the league
http://www.popsspot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/nash-kobe.jpg

and Lebron got sonned by this guy:
http://www.nba.com/media/act_dirk_nowitzki.jpg

[Soundwave]

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot again, is the ultimate achievement in basketball WINNING or scoring? Clear your mind of clutter, you poor little sheep - these trivial little sub-awards don't make players "better". They are just sad excuses for those who couldn't win like Russell did.

In a freaking 9 team league when you have 2 of the top five scorers (Havlicek and Jones) and the best overall depth, I would hope that would win quite a few championships.

[CavaliersFTW]

In a freaking 9 team league when you have 2 of the top five scorers (Havlicek and Jones) and the best overall depth, I would hope that would win quite a few championships.
How many other "stacked" teams in NBA history won 9 titles in a row? How many other players have won 11 titles? How many MVP votes did Sam Jones or John Havlicek win when Russell was their teammate? How many MVP's did Russell win with Sam Jones and John Havlicek as his "#1-2 option" teammates? How many titles did Havlicek and Jones win with Russell as their coach... AND center!?

[talkingconch]

How many other "stacked" teams in NBA history won 9 titles in a row? How many other players have won 11 titles? How many MVP votes did Sam Jones or John Havlicek win when Russell was their teammate? How many MVP's did Russell win with Sam Jones and John Havlicek as his "#1-2 option" teammates? How many titles did Havlicek and Jones win with Russell as their coach... AND center!?

Playing against 8 teams

[3LiftHeatCurse]

As a Chicago Bull, Jordan never missed the playoffs either.

[DatAsh]

plus its a lot easier to make the playoffs when there is like 9 teams in the league, and 6 make the playoffs

What does that even mean? Basketball is a team game.

[Soundwave]

Playing against 8 teams

Actually in looking at it, in some of the seasons, only 2 teams missed the playoffs.

Meaning you had to be absolutely terrible to miss the playoffs.

[LikeABosh]

Russell played in a league with ten teams, the NBA wasnt even developed back then. GOAT of his era? Sure. GOAT basketball player? **** no

[CavaliersFTW]

Actually in looking at it, in some of the seasons, only 2 teams missed the playoffs.

Meaning you had to be absolutely terrible to miss the playoffs.
All those players that weren't good enough to play in the NBA back then? They'd be in the NBA had the league been bigger... you know, kinda like the Samardo Samuel's and Joel Anthony's that fill the league today. Real quality competition he must have been missing out on right? :lol It doesn't matter how small the league was, the best players/teams in the world made the playoffs back then.

[DatAsh]

And granted I'll give he was a great defensive player, but the Celtics still routinely allowed well over 100 ppg in an era without a 3 point line.


Is that supposed to be some sort of slight?

You do realize they were the best defensive team in the league virtually every year he played, don't you?



Celtic DRtg
1957 - 6/8 (+1.5) <---- No Russell
1958 - 1/8 (-5.2)
1959 - 1/8 (-5.8)
1960 - 1/8 (-6.2)
1961 - 1/8 (-8.2)
1962 - 1/8 (-8.7)
1963 - 1/9 (-9.1)
1964 - 1/9 (-11.5)
1965 - 1/9 (-9.9)
1966 - 1/9 (-7.1)
1967 - 1/10 (-4.9)
1968 - 2/12 (-4.6)
1969 - 1/14 (-6.8)
1970 - 7/16 (+0.6) <---- No Russell



The Celtics had Havlicek and Sam Jones who were their 1-2 punch on offense leading the team with 27 ppg and and 26 ppg in the 1967 season for example.

Russell was lucky to have those guys, but the notion that Havlicek, Jones, Cousy, ect carried him to chamionships with their stellar offense kind of falls on it's face when you take a glance at those Celtic team's ORtgs.

[CODE]
1957

[KG215]

And he played in an era with only 10 teams, 6 of which were guaranteed to make the playoffs, lol, and the Celtics were far and away the most talented team overall in that era. They had 4 or 5 good players whereas other teams (like the ones Wilt was stuck on) had maybe 1 or 2.

Basketball IMO really didn't "mature" into its modern iteration until the 1970s. From the 70s onwards, then I think the game takes on a shape and style of play (defensive strategies for example) that we would recognize today.

The ABA really changed basketball a lot and the NBA was forced to adapt a lot, as a a result the game evolved into basically what we know today.
Yet the pre-merger 70's is generally considered the weakest era. D you think there was some drastic change in talent from the mid and late 60's to the early and mid-70's?

[millwad]

First of, Russell played in a weak era while playing with the best players of that era.

The lack of competition is so obvious, there were only 8 NBA teams when Russell played his first season in the NBA and only 5 players who were taller than 6'10.

In fact, for 5 seasons Russell played in a league with 8 teams. And he never played in a league with more than 12 teams.

[L.Kizzle]

And he played in an era with only 10 teams, 6 of which were guaranteed to make the playoffs, lol, and the Celtics were far and away the most talented team overall in that era. They had 4 or 5 good players whereas other teams (like the ones Wilt was stuck on) had maybe 1 or 2.

Basketball IMO really didn't "mature" into its modern iteration until the 1970s. From the 70s onwards, then I think the game takes on a shape and style of play (defensive strategies for example) that we would recognize today.

The ABA really changed basketball a lot and the NBA was forced to adapt a lot, as a a result the game evolved into basically what we know today.
False, the Royals led by Oscar Robertson also had Jack Twyman, Wayne Embry, Jerry Lucas, Guy Rogers and would have had Maurice Stokes if not for a freak accident.

Lakers had West and Baylor which was more than enough. They had another all star in Rudy LaRusso.

Hawks had Pettit, Hagan, Macualey, Lenny Wilkens.

Knicks had Reed, Frazier and earlier Richie Guerren.

76ers had Wilt, Greer, and earlier Dolph Schayes.

Warriors had Wilt first, Paul Arizin, Tom Gola.

Only bad teams back then were the Pistons and the current Washington franchise until Wes Unseld and Pearl Monroe came along. Pistons best players back then was Baiey Howell, Don Ohl and Gene Shue. Washington had the overrated Walt Bellamy and underrated Gus Johnson.

[Pointguard]

That is really misleading. Half of the years he played Six of Eight teams made the playoffs. The Lakers were once 25 and 50 and won in the WCSF. He had the best clutch shooters on his team along with the best point guard. They were also the toughest team. His great accomplishment was his 11 rings. But he's not Jordan.

[L.Kizzle]

That is really misleading. Half of the years he played Six of Eight teams made the playoffs. The Lakers were once 25 and 50 and won in the WCSF. He had the best clutch shooters on his team along with the best point guard. They were also the toughest team. His great accomplishment was his 11 rings. But he's not Jordan.
They had Elgin Baylor, who was unstoppable in 1959. Also, only five players played over 70 games (75 game season that year.) No one else played over 50, so it seems they were short most of the year. That really just shows how much of a beast Elgin Baylor was.

[millwad]

All those players that weren't good enough to play in the NBA back then? They'd be in the NBA had the league been bigger... you know, kinda like the Samardo Samuel's and Joel Anthony's that fill the league today. Real quality competition he must have been missing out on right? :lol It doesn't matter how small the league was, the best players/teams in the world made the playoffs back then.

Pure bogus, you're getting more and more delusional like Jlauber.

The reason why the teams were so few was because the game wasn't as developed as it is today, the whole league consisted of 5 players that were taller 6'10 or taller in Russell's first year.

International basketball was barely existing back then but hey, continue to spam about that those undersized, less skilled, less athletic white players back then would dominate today.

[Straight_Ballin]

9 teams
Not winning as the main man

Nothing to see here folks...

[Pointguard]

They had Elgin Baylor, who was unstoppable in 1959. Also, only five players played over 70 games (75 game season that year.) No one else played over 50, so it seems they were short most of the year. That really just shows how much of a beast Elgin Baylor was.

The point was that you shouldn't be 25 and 50 and making the playoffs.

[L.Kizzle]

The point was that you shouldn't be 25 and 50 and making the playoffs.
In the all mighty 80s, Jordans Bulls made the playoffs with a 30-52 record. Not much different.

[livinglegend]

9 teams
Not winning as the main man

Nothing to see here folks...

He was the main man. He was their leader on the court. 5 MVPs and the greatest defender of all-time. There s a reason why when he started entered the league, the Celtics improved greatly and when he left, they started to lose.

9 teams?
In today s NBA, there are 30 teams, but atleast 20 of them are irreleavant and have no chance of winning anything.

[Pointguard]

In the all mighty 80s, Jordans Bulls made the playoffs with a 30-52 record. Not much different.

True. But only two teams didn't make the playoffs Russell's first 6 years.

[TheTenth]

First of, Russell played in a weak era while playing with the best players of that era.

The lack of competition is so obvious, there were only 8 NBA teams when Russell played his first season in the NBA and only 5 players who were taller than 6'10.

In fact, for 5 seasons Russell played in a league with 8 teams. And he never played in a league with more than 12 teams.
5 players taller than 6'10 (without shoes) isn't too bad in a ten team league...

Depending on the year; however, that "fact" isn't true. Besides; adjusted to league average, players like West, Russell, Cousy, Sharman, Pettit, (I could go on for all hall of famers, save ones like Baylor who got injured) don't see a decline in any of their stats.

I would like to have an intelligent debate with you, but from looking at your previous posts it looks like you like to make unfounded claims interspersed with ad hominem attacks. Prove me wrong, I guess?

[CavaliersFTW]

5 players taller than 6'10 (without shoes) isn't too bad in a ten team league...
Eight team league at the season Russell joined. Not 10. Millwad was only referring to Russell's first season with his attempted insult at Russell's "competition". And take what he says with a grain of Salt, he often tries to negatively mislead on the subject of 60's players so as to counteract all the positive 60's discussions from the Jlauber era of ISH

[kNicKz]

Wouldn't there being less teams make competition greater? Everyone always talks about expansion teams like the charlotte hornets and timberwolves diluting the league

[livinglegend]

First of, Russell played in a weak era while playing with the best players of that era.

The lack of competition is so obvious, there were only 8 NBA teams when Russell played his first season in the NBA and only 5 players who were taller than 6'10.

In fact, for 5 seasons Russell played in a league with 8 teams. And he never played in a league with more than 12 teams.

Who cares?
He still had to compete with great talents like Wilt Chamberlain and Bob Petit.

[CavaliersFTW]

Wouldn't there being less teams make competition greater? Everyone always talks about expansion teams like the charlotte hornets and timberwolves diluting the league
yes.

[TheTenth]

Eight team league at the season Russell joined. Not 10. Millwad was only referring to Russell's first season with his attempted insult at Russell's "competition". And take what he says with a grain of Salt, he often tries to negatively mislead on the subject of 60's players so as to counteract all the positive 60's discussions from the Jlauber era of ISH
Ah yes, I wasn't sure when he was talking about. Being a hyper-critic is just as bad as being a fanboy.

[greymatter]

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot again, is the ultimate achievement in basketball WINNING or scoring? Clear your mind of clutter, you poor little sheep - these trivial little sub-awards don't make players "better". They are just sad excuses for those who couldn't win like Russell did.

But, but, but....10 teams! Short white guys!

Nevermind the fact that Russell always had to go through Wilt and then the very talented West/Baylor Lakers. Fcuking scrub teams I tell you!

Jordan had to go through 5 of the greatest teams of all time to EARN his 6 titles!!!11one!!

[CavaliersFTW]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF22xiRxHv8

b-b-b-but he's just a modern day Ben Wallace! :oldlol:

[CavaliersFTW]

http://suspectsinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/bill-russell-366x370.jpg

[fpliii]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF22xiRxHv8

b-b-b-but he's just a modern day Ben Wallace! :oldlol:

This is going to be an incredible mix (possibly the GOAT, fitting for Russell). It looks like his head is at rim level between 0:51-0:54, which would be an amazing find (and very lucky) given the small bank of footage available.

[ThaRegul8r]

Frankly, I don't see the point of such debates. No matter which side you stand on the matter, your mind is set and made up, and there's nothing anyone can tell you to dissuade you from whichever side you're own. So both sides engage in an utterly pointless back-and-forth that accomplishes nothing, until the next time it starts all over again.

:facepalm

[LeBird]

Oh I'm sorry, I forgot again, is the ultimate achievement in basketball WINNING or scoring? Clear your mind of clutter, you poor little sheep - these trivial little sub-awards don't make players "better". They are just sad excuses for those who couldn't win like Russell did.

The ultimate aim of basketball is to win but if you want to gauge how important a player is to their team just looking at wins is inaccurate. At the end of the day, people touting Russell as the greatest have to concede that they're doing so on the basis of very weak individual stats - when it comes to being called the GOAT.

[fpliii]

The ultimate aim of basketball is to win but if you want to gauge how important a player is to their team just looking at wins is inaccurate. At the end of the day, people touting Russell as the greatest have to concede that they're doing so on the basis of very weak individual stats - when it comes to being called the GOAT.

I like your posts in general, but I'm not sure that I agree with this one. His rebounding numbers are GOAT-level (raw, or adjusted for pace), and his passing is great for a big. I guess we don't have his blocks (though if you do a little digging, there are plenty of numbers on those available), but if you're not crediting him for his team's defenses, then who? The man anchored (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dE5jQnJyOG50ODNCZ0hpZFZpaGhnRW c&type=view&gid=3&f=true&colid0=2&filterstr0=NBA&sortcolid=16&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=15) four of the top 5 GOAT defenses (note - the 04 Pistons with Rasheed Wallace would be third, prorated for the season, on the basis of their performance with him in the regular season and in the playoffs), seven of the top 15, twelve of the top 50 (his "worst" checks in at #52).

I'm not interested in convincing you of his GOAT candidacy (nor is it my intent to start an argument), but numbers are available to support it (though in some cases, you have to do some digging/crunching). It's your list though, and ultimately your call what you want to look at when evaluating players.

[LeBird]

I like your posts in general, but I'm not sure that I agree with this one. His rebounding numbers are GOAT-level (raw, or adjusted for pace), and his passing is great for a big. I guess we don't have his blocks (though if you do a little digging, there are plenty of numbers on those available), but if you're not crediting him for his team's defenses, then who? The man anchored (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dE5jQnJyOG50ODNCZ0hpZFZpaGhnRW c&type=view&gid=3&f=true&colid0=2&filterstr0=NBA&sortcolid=16&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=15) four of the top 5 GOAT defenses (note - the 04 Pistons with Rasheed Wallace would be third, prorated for the season, on the basis of their performance with him in the regular season and in the playoffs), seven of the top 15, twelve of the top 50 (his "worst" checks in at #52).

I'm not interested in convincing you of his GOAT candidacy (nor is it my intent to start an argument), but numbers are available to support it (though in some cases, you have to do some digging/crunching). It's your list though, and ultimately your call what you want to look at when evaluating players.

The problem is just being the GOAT rebounder (and that's Rodman) isn't enough to make you the GOAT. The block stats are something we do not have nor do we know what they'd be adjusted. It is also something that would be weaker in this era where his physical prowess is less pronounced.

The other problem is that the offensive stats, the defensive stats or any win-loss stats dont isolate Russell. And he missed far too few matches in that span for the sample of games without him to matter too much or to be too persuasive.

What more, pointing to before he came and after he left is also a bit disingenuous as he played for a long time with those teammates. A lot of the stars that played with him and his fans dismiss also aged at this time and had their peaks/primes through the majority of the winning years. So you couldn't expect them to be the same side even after he retired.

The point is, when people tout Russell they are pointing to a lot of commentary and correlative stats. These aren't great predictors, they're flawed, and make comparison very difficult. If you're going to still hold that Russell is the GOAT, fine, but it should be acknowledged that he doesn't have a terribly strong case statistically and there is a good chance that people are giving him too much praise for simply winning in a team game.

[ThaRegul8r]

I like your posts in general, but I'm not sure that I agree with this one. His rebounding numbers are GOAT-level (raw, or adjusted for pace), and his passing is great for a big. I guess we don't have his blocks (though if you do a little digging, there are plenty of numbers on those available), but if you're not crediting him for his team's defenses, then who? The man anchored (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dE5jQnJyOG50ODNCZ0hpZFZpaGhnRW c&type=view&gid=3&f=true&colid0=2&filterstr0=NBA&sortcolid=16&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=15) four of the top 5 GOAT defenses (note - the 04 Pistons with Rasheed Wallace would be third, prorated for the season, on the basis of their performance with him in the regular season and in the playoffs), seven of the top 15, twelve of the top 50 (his "worst" checks in at #52).

I'm not interested in convincing you of his GOAT candidacy (nor is it my intent to start an argument), but numbers are available to support it (though in some cases, you have to do some digging/crunching). It's your list though, and ultimately your call what you want to look at when evaluating players.

You have to keep in mind that the only statistic that matters is points-per-game. Nothing else matters.

[CavaliersFTW]

You have to keep in mind that the only statistic that matters is points-per-game. Nothing else matters.
yah! :lol

[LongLiveTheKing]

Does it matter if there were only 8 teams?

[fpliii]

The problem is just being the GOAT rebounder (and that's Rodman) isn't enough to make you the GOAT. The block stats are something we do not have nor do we know what they'd be adjusted. It is also something that would be weaker in this era where his physical prowess is less pronounced.

The other problem is that the offensive stats, the defensive stats or any win-loss stats dont isolate Russell. And he missed far too few matches in that span for the sample of games without him to matter too much or to be too persuasive.

What more, pointing to before he came and after he left is also a bit disingenuous as he played for a long time with those teammates. A lot of the stars that played with him and his fans dismiss also aged at this time and had their peaks/primes through the majority of the winning years. So you couldn't expect them to be the same side even after he retired.

The point is, when people tout Russell they are pointing to a lot of commentary and correlative stats. These aren't great predictors, they're flawed, and make comparison very difficult. If you're going to still hold that Russell is the GOAT, fine, but it should be acknowledged that he doesn't have a terribly strong case statistically and there is a good chance that people are giving him too much praise for simply winning in a team game.

As I said earlier, I'm not interested in a debate or trying to convince you of my stance. A few notes though:

[LeBird]

@ fpliii, no probs. Personally, if I am talking about a player I haven't seen play I am reluctant to make big statements (x is GOAT) unless I have much more info. That's just how I see it.

[fpliii]

@ fpliii, no probs. Personally, if I am talking about a player I haven't seen play I am reluctant to make big statements (x is GOAT) unless I have much more info. That's just how I see it.

NP. From my understanding, this is all of the footage of Russell out there (PHILA's list):

1962 Finals Gm. 7 Lakers vs. Celtics (Incomplete)
1963 Finals Gm. 6 Celtics vs Lakers
1964 Finals Gm. 4 Celtics vs. Warriors (2nd Half)
1965 Finals Gm. 1 Lakers vs. Celtics (Incomplete)
1966 Playoffs Gm. 4 Celtics vs. Royals (2nd Half)
1966 Playoffs Gm. 5 Royals vs. Celtics (Incomplete)
1966 Finals Gm. 7 Lakers vs. Celtics (Incomplete)
1967 Playoffs Gm. 4 Sixers vs. Celtics (2nd Half)
1969 Finals Gm. 7 Celtics vs Lakers (4th Quarter)

+ 1955 vs Oregon (college), 1962 ASG, 1969 ASG. Aside from Globe articles + SI (as well as his books), there's not all that much out there. As such, Russell is incredibly difficult (at least for me) to evaluate/understand (though equally intriguing, for sure). That being said, there's even less available about some other great players (from what I can tell, Baylor does not have a single biography out, and though Pettit does, there's close to zero footage available; Wilt, Oscar, West have about as much available as does Russell), so I guess it could be worse.

[ThaRegul8r]

You have to keep in mind that the only statistic that matters is points-per-game. Nothing else matters.

yah! :lol

In general this is unfortunately true. It makes discussion frustrating at times, and makes one reconsider the value of the debate/conversation.

In my opinion, there is no value to be had in a GOAT debate/conversation.

1) The majority of people don't know enough to be able to knowledgeably have such a discussion to begin with, which is why I've been saying for years that people should have GIES (Greatest I've Ever Seen) discussions rather than GOAT discussions. I've seen about two people other than myself bring up this concept, but it hasn't caught on, and likely won't.

2) Most people's GOAT lists are nothing more than a means through which to stan their favorite players. Hence why people get so heated over it since they see any disagreement as an indictment against their taste, and thus take it personally.

3) Most people are extremely arrogant over their lists ("arrogant" in the sense of the actual definition, which is "[I]The taking of too much upon onself as one

[fpliii]

It's at the point where any conversation comparing two players is impossible, even if we're restricting it to certain aspects instead of an imaginary catch-all ranking. I gave up on the GOAT discussion last year, but I might refrain from comparing players at all on these types of forums. Even though nobody is impartial, I'm increasingly finding myself excessively defending certain players in reaction to these agendas, meaning I'm actually stanning players who aren't traditionally stanned, more or less (if that makes any sense). I think at this point, I can't even compare players on similar levels in this type of setting, and will have to resort to tier-based approaches for evaluating the quality of different facets of players. Then again, I've always been more interested in learning as much as I can about individuals/teams (and disseminating knowledge gained, when appropriate), so maybe it's for the better that I separate myself completely from these debates.

As for the G.I.E.S., excellent idea. It's worth noting that everybody has the opportunity to watch a large volume of games (complete ECF/WCF/Finals) and research a fair amount of print media going at the latest back to the beginning of the 3pt era, but if one isn't willing to watch/read (or still doesn't feel comfortable discussing thereafter), one should preface conversation by noting the limitations of his knowledge.

[madmax17]

Damn straight, uncle Drew could teach these youngsters a thing or two about rings, with old Bill by his side.

[D-Wade316]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF22xiRxHv8

b-b-b-but he's just a modern day Ben Wallace! :oldlol:
Holy sh1t! :rockon: :bowdown: :eek:

GOAT. No question.

[RRR3]

Inb4 sarcastic says "neither has melo"

[TheTenth]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]In my opinion, there is no value to be had in a GOAT debate/conversation.

1) The majority of people don't know enough to be able to knowledgeably have such a discussion to begin with, which is why I've been saying for years that people should have GIES (Greatest I've Ever Seen) discussions rather than GOAT discussions. I've seen about two people other than myself bring up this concept, but it hasn't caught on, and likely won't.

2) Most people's GOAT lists are nothing more than a means through which to stan their favorite players. Hence why people get so heated over it since they see any disagreement as an indictment against their taste, and thus take it personally.

3) Most people are extremely arrogant over their lists ("arrogant" in the sense of the actual definition, which is "[I]The taking of too much upon onself as one

[lilgodfather1]

Congratulations to Bill, who in his entire career played about 20% of the teams that modern players have to play, and who got to play with the all star starting lineup, and bench for his whole career.

[CavaliersFTW]

Congratulations to Bill, who in his entire career played about 20% of the teams that modern players have to play, and who got to play with the all star starting lineup, and bench for his whole career.
Congratulations to Kobe, who played against the likes of Michael Jordan, Lebron James, and Tim Duncan COMBINED literally only HALF the number of times Bill Russell squared off against competition like Wilt Chamberlain (and Kobe has played many more seasons) :roll:

[LeBird]

Congratulations to Kobe, who played against the likes of Michael Jordan, Lebron James, and Tim Duncan COMBINED literally only HALF the number of times Bill Russell squared off against competition like Wilt Chamberlain (and Kobe has played many more seasons) :roll:

Gotta say that's a great point. While many achievements are made easier by playing in a smaller league you definitely can't hide or pad your stats against weak teams as much because they are fewer.

[DirkNowitzki41]

played against a bunch of white guys like this...

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg

this.

Folks in the past are massively overrated.

[jongib369]

this.

Folks in the past are massively overrated.



https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-8LjXn0YCsEk/UQydqoP2QbI/AAAAAAAAEUw/WaH1MKKYzpA/s800/Bellamy%2520Posterizes%2520Bill%2520Russell.gif

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-hULbTXhYwzY/UQygDXv4KZI/AAAAAAAAEU8/_sGA0MghHaY/s800/Green%2520posterizes%2520Nate%2520Thurmond.gif

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/--3oPwC10q_M/UQyi5dbDtCI/AAAAAAAAEWI/eeBwdhn2jxA/s800/Willis%2520Torching%2520Bill%2520Russell.gif

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Vy1F0VB7IwE/UQytNdg07JI/AAAAAAAAEVA/MptXJO3YD3o/s800/WiltFootwork1.gif

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-e6XHtpjYHns/URnTM6ocjYI/AAAAAAAAEVc/9HzzraF5qco/s800/Gus%2520Layup.gif

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-cyYttg3qgcQ/URnUQtxlCgI/AAAAAAAAEVk/UR2npHUCaF4/s800/Gus%2520Block.gif

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-WPxPfxWt8vQ/UQyTpLxGKUI/AAAAAAAAEUs/bARaNIhu07Q/s800/GusJohnsonDunk.gif



meanwhile Kobe couldn't even win an MVP cause Steve Nash was in the league
http://www.popsspot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/nash-kobe.jpg

and Lebron got sonned by this guy:
http://www.nba.com/media/act_dirk_nowitzki.jpg ...

[CavaliersFTW]

...
thanks, beat me to it :lol

[Soundwave]

How come Havlicek is not in the top 10 GOAT discussion?

He was actually the no.1 option on many of the Celtics championship teams and won 8 titles.

If there was a Finals MVP back then, he would've won a few of them over Russell I'm sure.

[CavaliersFTW]

How come Havlicek is not in the top 10 GOAT discussion?

He was actually the no.1 option on many of the Celtics championship teams and won 8 titles.

If there was a Finals MVP back then, he would've won a few of them over Russell I'm sure.
Because sometimes being the "#1 (offensive) option" doesn't make you the best player on your team... let alone the best player in the league, which Bill Russell was many times through his career.

[Legends66NBA7]

How come Havlicek is not in the top 10 GOAT discussion?

No league MVP's (Top 5 in MVP voting twice, highest was 4th) and only 1 Finals MVP... he does have 11 All-NBA teams (4 First), 8 All-Defensive teams (5 First), and 13 All-Star selections. That should get Top 15-25 recognition.



He was actually the no.1 option on many of the Celtics championship teams and won 8 titles.

http://gyazo.com/f0f598126f8a606b6f5aec0f57b237ce.png

From 63-65 and 76, Hondo was not that good of a player. He wasn't even an all-star till 66 (though, he did make an All-NBA team in 64) and was well on the decline in 76.


If there was a Finals MVP back then, he would've won a few of them over Russell I'm sure.

I would agree, he might in reality would have won 3. But Russell has been many times argued on here to have 7-8 Finals MVP's if the award existed since the NBA existed.

[Legends66NBA7]

this.

Folks in the past are massively overrated.

Folks massively overrate today's players too.

It's both the young and old generation overrating and underrating something from another era.

[JellyBean]

I guess we are going to pretend like the NBA was stacked with 30 teams back in Russell's playing days.

1956 thru the 1960s there were only 8 or 9 teams. With a stacked squad, Russell should have made the playoffs each year.

[ThaRegul8r]

If there was a Finals MVP back then, he would've won a few of them over Russell I'm sure.

"Sure" because you've actually done some research into the topic, or sure due to the previously aforementioned undue assumption of knowledge, based on what you "feel"?

Unlike most who speak on the topic, I have every Finals of the Russell era in my notes and was the first person on the Internet to talk in specifics about them. Havlicek wins two at most. But since West actually won it in '69, that leaves exactly one that Havlicek could have won. One is not "a few."

It continues to baffle me why so many people are so sure about things based on absolutely nothing.

[ThaRegul8r]

I would agree, he might in reality would have won 3.

No, he wouldn't have in actual reality.

I have the Finals open right in front of me. Havlicek could have two Finals MVPs. No more. That's the last two. Thing is though, the Finals MVP actually existed in '69, and Havlicek didn't win it. West did. West said—and I quote, as I'm actually looking at it as I'm typing this, not going on speculation: "The award should have gone to a player on a winning team." If it had, then, as Associated Press sportswriter Bob Myers said, "The consensus: Havlicek" (May 5, 1969). Which leaves '68 as the only FMVP Havlicek could have won. Havlicek averaged 27.3 points, 8.7 rebounds and 6.7 assists during those Finals, and had 40/10/7 in the deciding game. That's the only one he could have won. And that's from actually going by the facts of what happened on the court. No one who's ever said he'd win "a few" has actually backed it up with any facts from what actually happened in the Finals.

[fpliii]

How come Havlicek is not in the top 10 GOAT discussion?

He was actually the no.1 option on many of the Celtics championship teams and won 8 titles.

If there was a Finals MVP back then, he would've won a few of them over Russell I'm sure.

Aside from 57 (Heinsohn, though Pettit would possibly get some votes), 68 (Havlicek, who would've won in 69 if it went to a winning player), and 64 (likely Jones, though Russ and Wilt would both get votes), Russell sweeps the rest. I've only been on this board for a year and change, but this conversation has been rehashed at least half a dozen times in that span.

OT - 57 and 64 are interesting, in that players from losing teams have a slight chance of winning. I don't think they do in either case, but at least a few votes should go to them.

[TheTenth]

Aside from 57 (Heinsohn, though Pettit would possibly get some votes), 68 (Havlicek, who would've won in 69 if it went to a winning player), and 64 (likely Jones, though Russ and Wilt would both get votes), Russell sweeps the rest. I've only been on this board for a year and change, but this conversation has been rehashed at least half a dozen times in that span.

OT - 57 and 64 are interesting, in that players from losing teams have a slight chance of winning. I don't think they do in either case, but at least a few votes should go to them.
Russell isn't a definite for 57, 59, 64, 68, or 69 for Boston's MVP : (he lost in 69)

[ThaRegul8r]

Aside from 57 (Heinsohn, though Pettit would possibly get some votes), 68 (Havlicek, who would've won in 69 if it went to a winning player), and 64 (likely Jones, though Russ and Wilt would both get votes), Russell sweeps the rest. I've only been on this board for a year and change, but this conversation has been rehashed at least half a dozen times in that span.

OT - 57 and 64 are interesting, in that players from losing teams have a slight chance of winning. I don't think they do in either case, but at least a few votes should go to them.

Russell isn't a definite for 57, 59, 64, 68, or 69 for Boston's MVP : (he lost in 69)

Four of those five years were explicitly mentioned in the very post you quoted.

:confusedshrug:

[ThaRegul8r]

Aside from 57 (Heinsohn, though Pettit would possibly get some votes), 68 (Havlicek, who would've won in 69 if it went to a winning player), and 64 (likely Jones, though Russ and Wilt would both get votes), Russell sweeps the rest. I've only been on this board for a year and change, but this conversation has been rehashed at least half a dozen times in that span.

OT - 57 and 64 are interesting, in that players from losing teams have a slight chance of winning. I don't think they do in either case, but at least a few votes should go to them.

Russell isn't a definite for 57, 59, 64, 68, or 69 for Boston's MVP : (he lost in 69)

Four of those five years were explicitly mentioned in the very post you quoted.

:confusedshrug:

As far as '59, Russell set the rebounding record, and after Game 2, it was specifically mentioned that Russell's rebounding was killing the Lakers' title hopes. Laker coach John Kundla said, "We tried as much as possible to keep him away from the boards, but there really isn't much you can do with the guy." Russell was "a human Gibraltar on defense," and "carried the ammunition" for the Celtics "by setting off the Celtics' break neck sweep down the court." In Game 3, "the Lakers fell hopelessly behind because they couldn't do much about Russell under the Celtic basket." One headline said he "flattened" the Lakers, and, once again, Kundla said, "I think it was Russell who beat us. He grabs that ball off the boards, wings it to Cousy and Boston has got three men breaking against our one back before we know what hit us." In Game 4, Russell had a triple double of 15 points, 30 rebounds and 12 blocks to finish the sweep. I suppose Frank Ramsey would be another candidate, but Russell's rebounding and defense are continually talked about as the key to Boston's attack.

[fpliii]

As far as '59, Russell set the rebounding record, and after Game 2, it was specifically mentioned that Russell's rebounding was killing the Lakers' title hopes. Laker coach John Kundla said, "We tried as much as possible to keep him away from the boards, but there really isn't much you can do with the guy." Russell was "a human Gibraltar on defense," and "carried the ammunition" for the Celtics "by setting off the Celtics' break neck sweep down the court." In Game 3, "the Lakers fell hopelessly behind because they couldn't do much about Russell under the Celtic basket." One headline said he "flattened" the Lakers, and, once again, Kundla said, "I think it was Russell who beat us. He grabs that ball off the boards, wings it to Cousy and Boston has got three men breaking against our one back before we know what hit us." In Game 4, Russell had a triple double of 15 points, 30 rebounds and 12 blocks to finish the sweep. I suppose Frank Ramsey would be another candidate, but Russell's rebounding and defense are continually talked about as the key to Boston's attack.

Question - I know we've talked about both of 57, 64 before, but do you think there's a nontrivial chance that a losing player wins FMVP?

[Linspired]

You can't compare era to era. You have to compare to his peers. Rocky Marciano would get smoked by Lennox lewis, but Marciano will always be ranked ahead of Lewis.

[Linspired]

All I know is Russell would be listed at 6ft 11 in today's nba and he will still be a winner.

[Legends66NBA7]

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]No, he wouldn't have in actual reality.

I have the Finals open right in front of me. Havlicek could have two Finals MVPs. No more. That's the last two. Thing is though, the Finals MVP actually existed in '69, and Havlicek didn't win it. West did. West said

[TheTenth]

Four of those five years were explicitly mentioned in the very post you quoted.

:confusedshrug:
Very observant.


As far as '59, Russell set the rebounding record, and after Game 2, it was specifically mentioned that Russell's rebounding was killing the Lakers' title hopes. Laker coach John Kundla said, "We tried as much as possible to keep him away from the boards, but there really isn't much you can do with the guy." Russell was "a human Gibraltar on defense," and "carried the ammunition" for the Celtics "by setting off the Celtics' break neck sweep down the court." In Game 3, "the Lakers fell hopelessly behind because they couldn't do much about Russell under the Celtic basket." One headline said he "flattened" the Lakers, and, once again, Kundla said, "I think it was Russell who beat us. He grabs that ball off the boards, wings it to Cousy and Boston has got three men breaking against our one back before we know what hit us." In Game 4, Russell had a triple double of 15 points, 30 rebounds and 12 blocks to finish the sweep. I suppose Frank Ramsey would be another candidate, but Russell's rebounding and defense are continually talked about as the key to Boston's attack.
That's nice and all but it's still not a definite no matter what a coach or a headline says (In fact, even Russell's greatest finals performances still don't warrant a definite finals MVP, because the vote never took place.) Performance isn't the only thing that goes into a finals MVP voting and who knows what factors could have played in a possible voting; a list of many includes voter's favorites (as in being a stan of a player), racial motivations, and stylistic preference (i.e.: a voter may prefer someone who scores rather than a rebounder.) To even further muddy the waters; Heinsohn, Sharman, and Ramsey had great shooting/scoring performances while Russell was rather abysmal from the field.

[jongib369]

Cavs, where do you have Bill Walton on your all time bigman list?