Larry Bird vs. Bill Russell?

[NumberSix]

The better player. Don't give any of that "greatness", "accomplishment" or "where he ranks on my list" bullshit.

Simple and plain. Who in your opinion was a better player.

[Black and White]

Bird, by far, he was much more skilled.

[fpliii]

Russell is the best player in league history in my book.

[moe94]

Russell is the best player in league history in my book.

That is flat out silly and you can never ever support such a claim without looking insane.

Wilt, alone, was better in every single facet of basketball.

[SHAQisGOAT]

What? Peak? Bird. Larry had a top5 peak along with Shaq, Wilt, MJ and KAJ. Arguably the GOAT overall shooter, just a great scorer in any way, arguably the GOAT non-guard passer, top3 all-time SF rebounder (he was more of a PF/SF hybrid though), top3 all-time clutch player, basketball genius, pretty good defensive impact, could work well in any strategy with every type of player, knew when to step aside and when to step up.

Russell won more (much more than any player of that caliber, ever), had more longevity and his impact was also simply amazing with a great peak, let's not bullshit about that either. So that puts Russell above for me, as far as overall careers.

I won't be mad if someone puts Bird above Russell, all-time, but I don't think so...

[Black and White]

Russell is the best player in league history in my book.

:roll: tell me where I find this "book"

[fpliii]

That is flat out silly and you can never ever support such a claim without looking insane.

Wilt, alone, was better in every single facet of basketball.

I've defended it before on here, not in the mood to do it again. You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine.

We'll just have to agree to disagree my good man. :cheers:

[Deuce Bigalow]

That is flat out silly and you can never ever support such a claim without looking insane.

Wilt, alone, was better in every single facet of basketball.
Fpliii is a basketball historian. I'm sure he's watched a bunch of Russell's games. Wilt was not a better team player than Bill Russell, and his game is more than just stats. Russell was voted the GOAT when he retired, a mistake simply because they forgot about Mikan of course.

[moe94]

Fpliii is a basketball historian. I'm sure he's watched a bunch of Russell's games. Wilt was not a better team player than Bill Russell, and his game is more than just stats.

Translation: Russell won more rings, despite being CLEARLY the worse INDIVIDUAL talent therefore he's better

It's an argument I will never ever support, but that's just me.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Translation: Russell won more rings, despite being CLEARLY the worse INDIVIDUAL talent therefore he's better

It's an argument I will never ever support, but that's just me.
Russell was unselfish and had the intangibles. Russell was the coach for the last 2 titles that the Celtics won in '68 and '69, and he was playing too.

[moe94]

You're pulling out every cliche in the book. It's almost like you're mocking Russell, at this point.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Explain to me why Wilt lost in 1969 if he was the much better individual player? Tell me why with HCA and the best player in the league as a teammate (West) did he lose to Russell and Sam Jones on their last legs? Keep in mind that West averaged 38 ppg in the series. Btw Russell never had a freethrow shooting weakness like Wilt.

[fpliii]

Translation: Russell won more rings, despite being CLEARLY the worse INDIVIDUAL talent therefore he's better

It's an argument I will never ever support, but that's just me.

I'm not going to get into a huge debate, but here's a start:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?pli=1&key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dF80TGxJQXliY0RlcXlxSHJXdGhjV3c&type=view&gid=3&f=true&colid0=2&filterstr0=NBA&sortcolid=16&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=25

top 25 defenses in the shotclock era relative to league average. The 04 Pistons after acquiring Sheed place third. Russell's teams fill out a good portion of this list.

I think if you give any player in the shotclock era a chance to adapt to the present league, he'll still be a star. Russell's game was built on athleticism (particularly jumping in succession, great vert, speed with and without the ball, and most importantly lateral quickness), intelligence, and his clutch gene.

Besides, if you read my posts enough you'll know that I have a heavy bigs bias and defense bias, so it should come as no surprise. Shaq's my favorite player all-time but I'd but Hakeem above him.

Not belittling Wilt here FWIW, just have Bill above him and everyone else in terms of ability/quality/talent as a player.

[Black and White]

I'm not going to get into a huge debate, but here's a start:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?pli=1&key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dF80TGxJQXliY0RlcXlxSHJXdGhjV3c&type=view&gid=3&f=true&colid0=2&filterstr0=NBA&sortcolid=16&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=25

top 25 defenses in the shotclock era relative to league average. The 04 Pistons after acquiring Sheed place third. Russell's teams fill out a good portion of this list.

I think if you give any player in the shotclock era a chance to adapt to the present league, he'll still be a star. Russell's game was built on athleticism (particularly jumping in succession, great vert, speed with and without the ball, and most importantly lateral quickness), intelligence, and his clutch gene.

Besides, if you read my posts enough you'll know that I have a heavy bigs bias and defense bias, so it should come as no surprise. Shaq's my favorite player all-time but I'd but Hakeem above him.

Not belittling Wilt here FWIW, just have Bill above him and everyone else in terms of ability/quality/talent as a player.

Where do you rank Kareem then?

[Deuce Bigalow]

I'm not going to get into a huge debate, but here's a start:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?pli=1&key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dF80TGxJQXliY0RlcXlxSHJXdGhjV3c&type=view&gid=3&f=true&colid0=2&filterstr0=NBA&sortcolid=16&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=25

top 25 defenses in the shotclock era relative to league average. The 04 Pistons after acquiring Sheed place third. Russell's teams fill out a good portion of this list.

I think if you give any player in the shotclock era a chance to adapt to the present league, he'll still be a star. Russell's game was built on athleticism (particularly jumping in succession, great vert, speed with and without the ball, and most importantly lateral quickness), intelligence, and his clutch gene.

Besides, if you read my posts enough you'll know that I have a heavy bigs bias and defense bias, so it should come as no surprise. Shaq's my favorite player all-time but I'd but Hakeem above him.

Not belittling Wilt here FWIW, just have Bill above him and everyone else in terms of ability/quality/talent as a player.
:applause:

Were his Celtics number 1 in defense every year he played?

[moe94]

Btw Russell never had a freethrow shooting weakness like Wilt.

No, he just had a debilitating offensive weakness, relative to his status as a player. Nothing major. Their disparity in offense is so vast, this comparison is laughable.

[fpliii]

Where do you rank Kareem then?

I don't keep a GOAT list. Among bigs, probably after Russell, Wilt, Hakeem, probably in the conversation with Shaq. I don't like running my offense through my bigs so I'd take the other three first, but Shaq/Kareem are too good offensively to drop any further, so I'd take them before Duncan/KG/Robinson/etc. All 5 of them before any wings though either way.

[Black and White]

I don't keep a GOAT list. Among bigs, probably after Russell, Wilt, Hakeem, probably in the conversation with Shaq. I don't like running my offense through my bigs so I'd take the other three first, but Shaq/Kareem are too good offensively to drop any further, so I'd take them before Duncan/KG/Robinson/etc. All 5 of them before any wings though either way.

:applause: Yea thats cool with me, i would just have Jordan, Magic and Bird in the mix

[fpliii]

:applause:

Were his Celtics number 1 in defense every year he played?

You can check using the dropdown menu on this page:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?pli=1&key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dF80TGxJQXliY0RlcXlxSHJXdGhjV3c&type=view&gid=3&f=true&colid0=1&filterstr0=1956-57&colid1=2&filterstr1=NBA&sortcolid=16&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=25

I'll do the years before and after he joined:

55-56 - 6th (+2.4% vs -4.1% ROC 1st)
56-57 - 1st (-5.9% vs -3.0% ROC 2nd)
57-58 - 1st (-6.3% vs -1.5% CIN 2nd)
58-59 - 1st (-6.1% vs -1.2% DET 2nd)
59-60 - 1st (-5.9% vs -4.7% PHW 2nd)
60-61 - 1st (-8.1% vs -4.0% STL 2nd)
61-62 - 1st (-8.7% vs -2.7% SYR 2nd)
62-63 - 1st (-8.8% vs -3.2% STL 2nd)
63-64 - 1st (-11.8% vs -7.2% SFW 2nd)
64-65 - 1st (-10.6% vs -2.1% STL 2nd)
65-66 - 1st (-7.5% vs -4% PHI 2nd)
66-67 - 1st (-5.4% vs -3.2% SFW 2nd)
67-68 - 2nd (-4.9% vs -5.8% PHI 1st)
68-69 - 1st (-7.1% vs -3.1% SDR 2nd)
69-70 - 7th (-0.5% vs -7.8% NYK 1st)

[fpliii]

:applause: Yea thats cool with me, i would just have Jordan, Magic and Bird in the mix

That's fine with me, I just value different things when determining who I'd take in an all-time draft. If we're doing a GOAT/legacy list, I'm sure some people have those as their top 3 in some order.

[Deuce Bigalow]

You can check using the dropdown menu on this page:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?pli=1&key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dF80TGxJQXliY0RlcXlxSHJXdGhjV3c&type=view&gid=3&f=true&colid0=1&filterstr0=1956-57&colid1=2&filterstr1=NBA&sortcolid=16&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=25

I'll do the years before and after he joined:

55-56 - 6th (+2.4% vs -4.1% ROC 1st)
56-57 - 1st (-5.9% vs -3.0% ROC 2nd)
57-58 - 1st (-6.3% vs -1.5% CIN 2nd)
58-59 - 1st (-6.1% vs -1.2% DET 2nd)
59-60 - 1st (-5.9% vs -4.7% PHW 2nd)
60-61 - 1st (-8.1% vs -4.0% STL 2nd)
61-62 - 1st (-8.7% vs -2.7% SYR 2nd)
62-63 - 1st (-8.8% vs -3.2% STL 2nd)
63-64 - 1st (-11.8% vs -7.2% SFW 2nd)
64-65 - 1st (-10.6% vs -2.1% STL 2nd)
65-66 - 1st (-7.5% vs -4% PHI 2nd)
66-67 - 1st (-5.4% vs -3.2% SFW 2nd)
67-68 - 2nd (-4.9% vs -5.8% PHI 1st)
68-69 - 1st (-7.1% vs -3.1% SDR 2nd)
69-70 - 7th (-0.5% vs -7.8% NYK 1st)
12/13 aint bad and his impact is clearly shown :cheers:

[LAZERUSS]

Fpliii is a basketball historian. I'm sure he's watched a bunch of Russell's games. Wilt was not a better team player than Bill Russell, and his game is more than just stats. Russell was voted the GOAT when he retired, a mistake simply because they forgot about Mikan of course.

True, Russell was voted GOAT on the 25th Anniversary team. BUT, that list did not include ACTIVE players...one of whom was Chamberlain.

The TRUTH was, Chamberlain was considered the better player, and by a huge margin, in the entire decade of the 60's. They split MVP voting, but Wilt was clearly robbed in '62 and '64. However, in the first-team All-NBA voting, Wilt held massive 7-2 margin in their ten years in the league together. Then,, think about this. Wilt won a dominating MVP title in his very first year...easily beating out Russell. He was even more dominant in '62, but obviously the players had an anti-Wilt bias. And from the mid-60's on, Chamberlain was running away with the MVP awards.

And, in Russell's last season, 68-69, while Russell finished ahead of Wilt (Wilt was nowhere to be found in the typical "anti-Wilt" voting), Chamberlain slaughtered Russell in their H2H's, (as he did to Reed and Unseld as well), led his Lakers to a better H2H record, 4-2 (which included a 108-73 massacre in Boston), and led LA to a better overall record, 55-27 to 48-34.

And finally, in their career H2Hs, Chamberlain just OVERWHELMED Russell. The two met 143 times...and think about these numbers:

Wilt averaged 28.7 ppg to Russell's 14.5.

Wilt averaged 28.7 rpg to Russell's 23.8.

Wilt shot about .500 to Russell's .400.

Chamberlain outscored Russell in 132 of those 143 games.

Wilt held a 92-43-8 margin in rebounding in those 143 games.

Wilt held a 5-0 margin in 50+ point H2H's (including a high of 62.)

Chamberlain held a 24-0 margin in 40 point games.

I won't bother looking up Wilt's margin in 30+ point games, except to say that Russell had three against Chamberlain...and was outscored by Wilt in all three.

Wilt held a 7-1 margin in 40+ rebound H2H's (with a high of 55.)

Wilt held a 23-4 margin in 35+ rebounding games.

Chamberlain had many seasonal and playoff series H2H's against Russell in which he shot over .500. Russell never had ONE against Chamberlain. Furthermore, Russell had several seasons and post-season series H2Hs against Wilt in which he shot .399 or less.

And finally, I have yet to see a rational explanation by an Russell-supporter for this:

In the clinching game five loss in the '66 EDF's, Chamberlain poured in 46 points on 19-34 shooting, with 34 rebounds (Russell had 18 points and 31 rebounds BTW.)

In the very next season, it was now Russell who was faced with the exact same scenario. His team was down 3-1 (and had narrowly avoided a sweep in game four), and his teammates, who were finally being nuetralized by Wilt's, desperately needed Russell to step it up in that game five. So, did Russell outscore Wilt by a 46-18 margin in that "must-win" game? Hell no, he quietly went like a lamb being led to slaughter. He scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, with 21 rebounds and 7 assists. How about "the choker" Wilt in that same game? 29 points, 22 of which came in the first half when the game was still close, on 10-16 shooting, with 36 rebounds, 13 assists, and seven blocked shots, in a crushing win.

So, if Russell were really this player that somehow "owned" Wilt, how could he allow Chamberlain to so thoroughly wipe the floor with him in a game in which broke his eight-year rings streak?

John Wooden said it best: Had Wilt had Russell's teammates, and Auerbach as a coach, and it likely would have been Wilt with all of Russell's rings.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

Larry was way better. Look at Bills team he had HOFs for his whole career while Wilt was stuck on crap.:facepalm

[moe94]

It was only a matter of time before Laz showed up. You guys said too much. I actually threw Wilt in to bait him.

[D-Wade316]

You can check using the dropdown menu on this page:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?pli=1&key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dF80TGxJQXliY0RlcXlxSHJXdGhjV3c&type=view&gid=3&f=true&colid0=1&filterstr0=1956-57&colid1=2&filterstr1=NBA&sortcolid=16&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=25

I'll do the years before and after he joined:

55-56 - 6th (+2.4% vs -4.1% ROC 1st)
56-57 - 1st (-5.9% vs -3.0% ROC 2nd)
57-58 - 1st (-6.3% vs -1.5% CIN 2nd)
58-59 - 1st (-6.1% vs -1.2% DET 2nd)
59-60 - 1st (-5.9% vs -4.7% PHW 2nd)
60-61 - 1st (-8.1% vs -4.0% STL 2nd)
61-62 - 1st (-8.7% vs -2.7% SYR 2nd)
62-63 - 1st (-8.8% vs -3.2% STL 2nd)
63-64 - 1st (-11.8% vs -7.2% SFW 2nd)
64-65 - 1st (-10.6% vs -2.1% STL 2nd)
65-66 - 1st (-7.5% vs -4% PHI 2nd)
66-67 - 1st (-5.4% vs -3.2% SFW 2nd)
67-68 - 2nd (-4.9% vs -5.8% PHI 1st)
68-69 - 1st (-7.1% vs -3.1% SDR 2nd)
69-70 - 7th (-0.5% vs -7.8% NYK 1st)
It would be nice if there's a column for Net%, to know which team is statistically the best offensively and defensively.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Lauber bringing up awards based on the regular season and stats again. It's well known that Russell was not remembered for his stats, and that he raises his game in the playoffs unlike Dipper.

[D-Wade316]

It would be nice if there's a column for Net%, to know which team is statistically the best offensively and defensively.
71 Bucks - +11.9
72 Lakers - +11.2
97 Bulls - +11.6
96 Bulls - +12.9 :eek:
92 Bulls - +10.6
13 Thunder - +9.6
08 Boston - +10.6
99 Spurs - +9.1
07 Spurs - +9.0

[97 bulls]

You can check using the dropdown menu on this page:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?pli=1&key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dF80TGxJQXliY0RlcXlxSHJXdGhjV3c&type=view&gid=3&f=true&colid0=1&filterstr0=1956-57&colid1=2&filterstr1=NBA&sortcolid=16&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=25

I'll do the years before and after he joined:

55-56 - 6th (+2.4% vs -4.1% ROC 1st)
56-57 - 1st (-5.9% vs -3.0% ROC 2nd)
57-58 - 1st (-6.3% vs -1.5% CIN 2nd)
58-59 - 1st (-6.1% vs -1.2% DET 2nd)
59-60 - 1st (-5.9% vs -4.7% PHW 2nd)
60-61 - 1st (-8.1% vs -4.0% STL 2nd)
61-62 - 1st (-8.7% vs -2.7% SYR 2nd)
62-63 - 1st (-8.8% vs -3.2% STL 2nd)
63-64 - 1st (-11.8% vs -7.2% SFW 2nd)
64-65 - 1st (-10.6% vs -2.1% STL 2nd)
65-66 - 1st (-7.5% vs -4% PHI 2nd)
66-67 - 1st (-5.4% vs -3.2% SFW 2nd)
67-68 - 2nd (-4.9% vs -5.8% PHI 1st)
68-69 - 1st (-7.1% vs -3.1% SDR 2nd)
69-70 - 7th (-0.5% vs -7.8% NYK 1st)
Wow. I have a new respect for Bill Russell. Simply amazing

[D-Wade316]

As for the title thread, Bill Russel is the answer. And it really isn't close.

[Pointguard]

You can check using the dropdown menu on this page:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?pli=1&key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dF80TGxJQXliY0RlcXlxSHJXdGhjV3c&type=view&gid=3&f=true&colid0=1&filterstr0=1956-57&colid1=2&filterstr1=NBA&sortcolid=16&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=25

I'll do the years before and after he joined:

55-56 - 6th (+2.4% vs -4.1% ROC 1st)
56-57 - 1st (-5.9% vs -3.0% ROC 2nd)
57-58 - 1st (-6.3% vs -1.5% CIN 2nd)
58-59 - 1st (-6.1% vs -1.2% DET 2nd)
59-60 - 1st (-5.9% vs -4.7% PHW 2nd)
60-61 - 1st (-8.1% vs -4.0% STL 2nd)
61-62 - 1st (-8.7% vs -2.7% SYR 2nd)
62-63 - 1st (-8.8% vs -3.2% STL 2nd)
63-64 - 1st (-11.8% vs -7.2% SFW 2nd)
64-65 - 1st (-10.6% vs -2.1% STL 2nd)
65-66 - 1st (-7.5% vs -4% PHI 2nd)
66-67 - 1st (-5.4% vs -3.2% SFW 2nd)
67-68 - 2nd (-4.9% vs -5.8% PHI 1st)
68-69 - 1st (-7.1% vs -3.1% SDR 2nd)
69-70 - 7th (-0.5% vs -7.8% NYK 1st)

In their first five years they weren't very high in ppg allowed and were higher in the ppg scored. The Drtg means that they played a faster game than most teams if they were average in ppg most of the first 5 years. This implies that part of the game was to impose chaos as part of the game plan. Boston could control the pace with Cousey, and control defense with Russell. Russell's outlet passes speeded the game up, and got them easy baskets while he probably stayed back on defense. In the later years Drtg and PPG reconcile with the Celtics.

Red was one step ahead of the other coaches at that time. He got a taste of his own medicine when Magic came into the league and did the exact same thing to him. Except Magic ran him into the ground.

[Round Mound]

Bird...Get Real :confusedshrug:

[moe94]

Bird...Get Real :confusedshrug:
RoundMound only deals in stats and facts.:bowdown:

[Legends66NBA7]

In context of what each did in their era and what they accomplished, I'd go with Bill Russell.

[D-Wade316]

71 Bucks - +11.9
72 Lakers - +11.2
97 Bulls - +11.6
96 Bulls - +12.9 :eek:
92 Bulls - +10.6
13 Thunder - +9.6
08 Boston - +10.6
99 Spurs - +9.1
07 Spurs - +9.0
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?pli=1&key=0At9OxyY2Zhw6dF80TGxJQXliY0RlcXlxSHJXdGhjV3c&type=view&gid=3&f=true&colid0=2&filterstr0=NBA&sortcolid=31&sortasc=false&rowsperpage=25

1. 96 Bulls - +12.9
2. 71 Bucks - +11.9
3. 97 Bulls - +11.6
4. 72 Lakers - +11.2
5. 08 Boston - +10.8
6. 92 Bulls - +10.6
7. 72 Bucks - +10.5
8. 09 Cavaliers - +9.6
9. 13 Thunder - +9.6
10. 94 Sonics - +9.3

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Must point out that the 3 point line would limit Russell's defensive impact in the modern era. Still this is a tough one.

[Marchesk]

Larry was way better. Look at Bills team he had HOFs for his whole career while Wilt was stuck on crap.:facepalm

Not saying Russell was better than Wilt, but how many of those Celtics make the HOF if Russell's pick wasn't traded from St Louis?

[Round Mound]

RoundMound only deals in stats and facts.:bowdown:

[B]Russell Was The Best Defender and 2nd Best Rebounder of his Generation but He Wasn

[riseagainst]

Fpliii is a basketball historian. I'm sure he's watched a bunch of Russell's games. Wilt was not a better team player than Bill Russell, and his game is more than just stats. Russell was voted the GOAT when he retired, a mistake simply because they forgot about Mikan of course.

:roll: :roll: