Disgusting that everybody's discrediting Russell today

[fpliii]

****ing media and casual fans.

[Illuminati]

How?

[fpliii]

How?
I think out of 100 or so people who have given their "Mount Rushmores" today, <10% include him.

[qrich]

Paul Davis > Bill Russell

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c292/lilbigbrooks/noah_zps63036023.png

[Psileas]

I think out of 100 or so people who have given their "Mount Rushmores" today, <10% include him.

Let's just say that I wouldn't trust the architectural ideas of 90% of people.

[fpliii]

Paul Davis > Bill Russell

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c292/lilbigbrooks/noah_zps63036023.png
lol what's with these new smilies? I saw like 9-10 the other day.

[qrich]

lol what's with these new smilies? I saw like 9-10 the other day.

Sim league smilies being introduced to ISH.

[Cone]

:cletus:

[j3lademaster]

What would be "disrespecting" Russel? If your sources are media can you link?

[navy]

****ing media and casual fans.
Very few people watched Bill Russel play, and let's be honest, his highlights arent special.

[fpliii]

Very few people watched Bill Russel play, and let's be honest, his highlights arent special.
CavsFTW is working on a mix at the moment. :cheers:

[Johnny Jones]

:milton

[fpliii]

What would be "disrespecting" Russel? If your sources are media can you link?
No link, I've been home most of today because I had to pick up a buddy at the airport though, and have been listening to/watching ESPN all day.

Maybe they're like this every day and I'm just not watching.

[moe94]

He shoot poorly. He was offensively inept. He was a great rebounder, but still worse than Wilt. His defense was arguably worse than Wilt. He won a ton of titles in a depleted league with literal HoF lineups to the point he was arguably not even the best player, at times. He is still ranked ahead of Wilt, by some people due to the gravity of championships. I think he's overrated, if anything.

[Psileas]

Very few people watched Bill Russel play, and let's be honest, his highlights arent special.

The highlights of pretty much anyone wouldn't feel special if a random 1-2% of their career, if that, was available on film.

[fpliii]

He shoot poorly. He was offensively inept. He was a great rebounder, but still worse than Wilt. His defense was arguably worse than Wilt. He won a ton of titles in a depleted league with literal HoF lineups to the point he was arguably not even the best player, at times. He is still ranked ahead of Wilt, by some people due to the gravity of championships. I think he's overrated, if anything.
Agree to disagree homie. :cheers:

[ArbitraryWater]

Because he was an offensive bum.. overrated clearly

[jlip]

He shoot poorly. He was offensively inept. He was a great rebounder, but still worse than Wilt. His defense was arguably worse than Wilt. He won a ton of titles in a depleted league with literal HoF lineups to the point he was arguably not even the best player, at times. He is still ranked ahead of Wilt, by some people due to the gravity of championships. I think he's overrated, if anything.

In other words you know basically nothing about Russell that can't be deduced from looking at his player profile at bballreference.com. Gotcha.

[moe94]

In other words you know basically nothing about Russell that can't be deduced from looking at his player profile at bballreference.com. Gotcha.

In other words, you are angry and can never bring up an argument that says he's better than Wilt that doesn't revolve around titles. Gotcha.

[dankok8]

Offensively inept? The same Russell who was consistently among the league leaders in assists when Cousy retired? The same Russell who played all 5 positions on the floor? The same Russell who had 2 postseasons of 20+ ppg and 3 finals of 20+ ppg as well? A guy who could put the ball on the floor, had a killer first step, ran like a gazelle, and was probably the greatest jumper the league had ever seen before or since?

His defense was arguably worse than Wilt? That has to be the stupidest comment I've heard in a long time. Ignorant as hell...

Wilt Russell
Season Team DRtg DWS Team DRtg DWS
1957 - - 84.0 4.6 (3rd)
1958 - - 83.6 7.7
1959 - - 84.5 8.2
1960 86.8 (2nd of 8) 8.0 (2nd) 84.9 8.9
1961 90.5 (3rd of 8) 6.5 (3rd) 84.5 11.3
1962 92.4 (3rd of 9) 6.0 (2nd) 85.1 11.6
1963 96.8 (5th of 9) 5.0 (5th) 87.4 12.6
1964 88.6 (2nd of 9) 10.6 (2nd) 83.8 16.0
1965 93.5 (4th of 9) 5.5 (4th) 84.2 14.4
1966 91.5 (2nd of 9) 8.5 (2nd) 88.3 11.4
1967 93.9 (3rd of 10) 7.0 (2nd) 91.0 9.2
1968 91.2 10.7 92.4 (2nd of 12) 7.8 (2nd)
1969 94.9 (8th of 14) 5.3 (6th) 89.1 9.9
1970 97.4 (4th of 14) 1.0 (N/A) - -
1971 96.1 (8th of 17) 4.5 (12th) - -
1972 92.6 (2nd of 17) 7.9 - -
1973 91.8 (3rd of 18) 7.5 (3rd) - -
Average 92.7 6.7 86.4 10.3

Russell absolutely destroyed Wilt in terms of defensive impact.

[Johnny Jones]

Offensively inept? The same Russell who was consistently among the league leaders in assists when Cousy retired? The same Russell who played all 5 positions on the floor? The same Russell who had 2 postseasons of 20+ ppg and 3 finals of 20+ ppg as well? A guy who could put the ball on the floor, had a killer first step, ran like a gazelle, and was probably the greatest jumper the league had ever seen before or since?

His defense was arguably worse than Wilt? That has to be the stupidest comment I've heard in a long time. Ignorant as hell...

Wilt Russell
Season Team DRtg DWS Team DRtg DWS
1957 - - 84.0 4.6 (3rd)
1958 - - 83.6 7.7
1959 - - 84.5 8.2
1960 86.8 (2nd of 8) 8.0 (2nd) 84.9 8.9
1961 90.5 (3rd of 8) 6.5 (3rd) 84.5 11.3
1962 92.4 (3rd of 9) 6.0 (2nd) 85.1 11.6
1963 96.8 (5th of 9) 5.0 (5th) 87.4 12.6
1964 88.6 (2nd of 9) 10.6 (2nd) 83.8 16.0
1965 93.5 (4th of 9) 5.5 (4th) 84.2 14.4
1966 91.5 (2nd of 9) 8.5 (2nd) 88.3 11.4
1967 93.9 (3rd of 10) 7.0 (2nd) 91.0 9.2
1968 91.2 10.7 92.4 (2nd of 12) 7.8 (2nd)
1969 94.9 (8th of 14) 5.3 (6th) 89.1 9.9
1970 97.4 (4th of 14) 1.0 (N/A) - -
1971 96.1 (8th of 17) 4.5 (12th) - -
1972 92.6 (2nd of 17) 7.9 - -
1973 91.8 (3rd of 18) 7.5 (3rd) - -
Average 92.7 6.7 86.4 10.3

Russell absolutely destroyed Wilt in terms of defensive impact.:applause:

[FKAri]

People forget about a player when he's out. Eventually people are gonna realize that Ibaka can't be a solid second option and they're gonna be dieing to have Goatbrook back.
lol

[jlip]

In other words, you are angry and can never bring up an argument that says he's better than Wilt that doesn't revolve around titles. Gotcha.

:facepalm
Unfortunately for you I've researched Russell's career for years and already have rebuttals to your nonsense.

First of all I don't rank players in terms of a single GOAT. I use tiers. Secondly I have Wilt and Russell on the same tier. But let's just deal with several of your claims.


He shoot poorly.

Yes Russell shot 44% from the floor during his career as a center. His fg% must be understood in its context. Over the 13 seasons Russell played (

[Demitri98]

IMO the top 5 goes:
Kareem
Jordan
Russell
Magic
Bird

[moe94]

Other dude, while arrogant as hell, did a good job putting me in my place.^^

I still don't think he's better than Wilt as everything I said was relative to him. I don't think Russell is trash or anything. I just don't think he was a greater player than Wilt.


Offensively inept? The same Russell who was consistently among the league leaders in assists when Cousy retired? The same Russell who played all 5 positions on the floor? The same Russell who had 2 postseasons of 20+ ppg and 3 finals of 20+ ppg as well? A guy who could put the ball on the floor, had a killer first step, ran like a gazelle, and was probably the greatest jumper the league had ever seen before or since?

His defense was arguably worse than Wilt? That has to be the stupidest comment I've heard in a long time. Ignorant as hell...

:roll:

Jesus Christ

I think I died from the irony of you mocking anyone for their comments.

The disparity between their offense is far far far greater than anything in defense.

[BlackVVaves]

I agree fpliii. It's not just ignorant casual fans or dubious media pundits unfortunately. It's also deriving from agenda-driven individuals who slight him in an effort to galvanize their cherished players atop their proverbial GOAT list.

It's always entertaining to see those uneducated (in matters of NBA history) dunces get served a hot slap of reality through the presentation of empirical evidence, not opinion merely passed on as fact.

Like moe94, who seems to have made a hobby of getting virtually assaulted in threads by posters with knowledge and clout. That biased shit is way too transparent, bruh.

[moe94]

Hell are you talking about? A lot of the shit that got said here was "players said this so therefore it's true, even though the stats suggest otherwise".

Dudes talking about he moves like a gazelle. He looked pretty damn mechanical to me. It's all opinions in the end. To suggest there is anything objective about what was said is asinine.

You are tripping, dude.

All I'm saying is that Wilt was a greater player. When did this become such a taboo idea? Maybe we need to create a Wilt thread or does LAZ like him so much that it never needs to be done?

[buddha]

Bill Russell wouldn't even be a all-star in todays NBA.

[jlip]

Hell are you talking about? A lot of the shit that got said here was "players said this so therefore it's true, even though the stats suggest otherwise".

Dudes talking about he moves like a gazelle. He looked pretty damn mechanical to me. It's all opinions in the end. To suggest there is anything objective about what was said is asinine.

You are tripping, dude.

All I'm saying is that Wilt was a greater player. When did this become such a taboo idea? Maybe we need to create a Wilt thread or does LAZ like him so much that it never needs to be done?

I provided far more evidence than quotes. I provided stats to rebut your claims about Russell's alleged offensive defiencies. As it pertains to the quotes, eyewitness testimony by those who literally experienced Russell's impact carry far more weight than a fan who has never seen one full season of his career.

As to whether Russell was a greater player in the context of 5 on 5, team ball than Wilt, I honestly don't care. As I stated earlier I have them on the same tier.

[NumberSix]

Bill Russell is not one of the four best players of all time. It's that simple.

[moe94]

I provided far more evidence than quotes. I provided stats to rebut your claims about Russell's alleged offensive defiencies. As it pertains to the quotes, eyewitness testimony by those who literally experienced Russell's impact carry far more weight than a fan who has never seen one full season of his career.

As to whether Russell was a greater player in the context of 5 on 5, team ball than Wilt, I honestly don't care. As I stated earlier I have them on the same tier.

Russell averaged 15 PPG on 44% shooting
Wilt averaged 30 PPG 54% shooting

To say that is a colossal disparity is putting it lightly.

As for the bold, I couldn't care less. It really means nothing. Stop throwing that around as if it carries objective weight. It's fine but don't use it as a point in discussion. :confusedshrug:

You're making it seem like Russell could match Wilt, if it came to it. Is that what you believe? Are you going to use Wilt's playoff numbers? Even if Wilt dipped, it was still a lot better than Russell ever was.

[SHAQisGOAT]

It's sad really.

GOAT defensive player, one of the GOAT rebounders, one of the best bigmen passers, could more than hold his own with his scoring, top-notch intangibles, all-around and versatile, that man had tremendous impact, a great understanding of the game, terrific IQ on the court, a superb basketball player, competitive as hell, no joke.. They weren't winning before him, they didn't win right after he left, they were considerable worse without him, they were the best defense in the league mostly because of him and won because of it (weren't close to the best offense). He even worked with teammates to emphasize their strengths, Bill would "take care" of their weaknesses for them on the court.

Then some people say that he's too short to play center nowadays when he was like 6'10 w/o shoes, taller than someone like Dwight, plus weight of plenty of centers today (and back in the 60's), some ignorant people not even knowing how athletic he was too. Shameful :facepalm


IMO the top 5 goes:
Kareem
Jordan
Russell
Magic
Bird

Not in that particular order but same for me.

[NumberSix]

[B]one of the GOAT rebounders
I don't know about that. In his day, grabbing 25 rebounds wasn't some amazing out of the ordinary feat. It's not like that today. You don't have 1 guy grabbing all the rebounds. A guy in 2014 averaging 15 rebounds would be more impressive IMO.

[BlackVVaves]

It comes down to your weighted valuation on the objective of a basketball player. It's why many arbitrary lists ranking the Top 20 players in the history of the league differ, because while some attribute greater significance to individual talent, others place heavier emphasis on a player's impact on a culture of winning, crowned with championships as evidence to their profoundness.

As a complete weapon, Bill does not have the versatility of a Bird or LeBron, or exhilaratingly productive style of a Magic or Michael. And yet, all of the tools that he brandished in a NBA game and for a NBA team...from his defensive prowess, to his keen basketball mind that he exhibited as a player and a player-coach, to his ability to transcend his mastering of the shotblock into the ignition of his team's offense...were all pivotal structures to his 11....11....championships.

If the objective is to supplement your individual achievement with championships, it's difficult to not consider Bill one of the greatest. That's for me, anyway.

MJ, Kareem, Bill, Magic, Bird. Leaving any out of the discussion of Top GOAT players at this point in history is a crime.

[Psileas]

I don't know about that. In his day, grabbing 25 rebounds wasn't some amazing out of the ordinary feat. It's not like that today. You don't have 1 guy grabbing all the rebounds. A guy in 2014 averaging 15 rebounds would be more impressive IMO.

By any metric, he's among the GOAT rebounders. His rebounding %'s (=numbers accounting for minutes played + available rebounds) have been unofficially estimated and they are still among the very best ever (especially his playoff ones), and this is a player who rarely got a rest.

[DaSeba5]

Mt. Rushmore is 4 players out of thousands of players. Somebody is going to be left out in people's opinions. It's all subjective.

[NumberSix]

By any metric, he's among the GOAT rebounders. His rebounding %'s (=numbers accounting for minutes played + available rebounds) have been unofficially estimated and they are still among the very best ever (especially his playoff ones), and this is a player who rarely got a rest.
You need to account for pace and the low efficiency of the time though.

In Russell and wilts day, it was pretty normal to see like 140 missed shots per game. Somebody's gotta get those rebounds.

[Psileas]

You need to account for pace and the low efficiency of the time though.

In Russell and wilts day, it was pretty normal to see like 140 missed shots per game. Somebody's gotta get those rebounds.

I already mentioned "available rebounds". It accounts for exactly what you mentioned.

[SHAQisGOAT]

You need to account for pace and the low efficiency of the time though.

In Russell and wilts day, it was pretty normal to see like 140 missed shots per game. Somebody's gotta get those rebounds.

He just did :facepalm

[Warfan]

i dont know much about wilt or russell and haven't watched much footage, so don't flame me. But i'm just wondering how russell is the better player (if u agree with this) if wilt was way better offensively and was great defensively aswell. Is it because of championships, intangibles, his game contributing so much to team success along with his impact on the court?


Id probably have russell along with magic, larry and mj on the 'mt rushmore', but it's subjective and alot of greats would be left out.

[moe94]

Warfan, I got chewed out for wondering the same damn thing.

[Warfan]

Warfan, I got chewed out for wondering the same damn thing.

:lol really? i haven't read the thread yet. But yeah im not claiming that either is better because i don't know enough about them.

[NumberSix]

I already mentioned "available rebounds". It accounts for exactly what you mentioned.
No, it doesn't. "I think I heard somewhere" isn't convincing evidence.

[fpliii]

No, it doesn't. "I think I heard somewhere" isn't convincing evidence.
Season:
http://www14.zippyshare.com/v/99508915/file.html
Playoffs:
http://www14.zippyshare.com/v/90536375/file.html

[jlip]

i dont know much about wilt or russell and haven't watched much footage, so don't flame me. But i'm just wondering how russell is the better player (if u agree with this) if wilt was way better offensively and was great defensively aswell. Is it because of championships, intangibles, his game contributing so much to team success along with his impact on the court?


Id probably have russell along with magic, larry and mj on the 'mt rushmore', but it's subjective and alot of greats would be left out.

My position is that Russell and Wilt are on the same tier. Having said that, the bold underlined statement greatly contributes to why many have Russell ranked higher.

For years, I had a low opinion of Russell because all I knew about him was his stats, namely his scoring numbers. Coming of age in terms of my understanding of basketball during the MJ era, my assumption was that the best or most important player on the team was automatically the one who scored the most points. I didn't consider the importance of the defensive anchor or the facilitator of the offense who could easily be far more important to the team than the leading scorer. (Well, I started watching during Magic's prime, so I did have a high opinion of the team's facilitator.)

Then I spent a few years studying the 60's, Russell in particular. With my limited, post MJ understanding of what determined greatness, I was totally unaware of how Russell's contemporaries viewed him. I started reading how they were literally calling him the best player in the game and voting him MVP while Oscar was averaging triple doubles and Wilt was avg. 40+ppg. It is then I understood that during the 60's (and 70's to an extent), dominant scorers were often viewed as selfish players. Until MJ in 1991, only one leading scorer had ever led his team to a title, and that was Kareem in '71.

As a whole, many in the 60's and 70's felt that it was greater to impact your team scoring more points than the opponents than an individual player scoring more than everyone else. Consider this, Wilt's '67 season where he avg. "only" 24.1ppg in the RS and 21.7ppg in the playoffs is widely considered by knowledgeable fans to be better than his '62 season where he avg. 50.4ppg. He was his team's 3rd leading scorer in the '67 playoffs, and there was absolutely no question as to who the best player on the team was.

Bill Walton, whose career high in scoring was a mere 18.9 ppg, was receiving "best player in the game" talk in the mid-late 70's. Again, many back then understood, appreciated, and celebrated that there were ways to impact the game other than scoring yourself, especially as a big man. That's why Russell was so heralded. While Russell had 25 points this game, observe what the opposing coach said won the game for the Celtics:

[Psileas]

No, it doesn't. "I think I heard somewhere" isn't convincing evidence.

What are you doing here? Jumping from one matter to another? Just make up your mind what you're debating...

[fpliii]

What are you doing here? Jumping from one matter to another? Just make up your mind what you're debating...
I posted the links to download the excel documents. If he or anyone else wants to decide for himself after reviewing the numbers, that's fine.

[Psileas]

As a whole, many in the 60's and 70's felt that it was greater to impact your team scoring more points than the opponents than an individual player scoring more than everyone else. Consider this, Wilt's '67 season where he avg. "only" 24.1ppg in the RS and 21.7ppg in the playoffs is widely considered by knowledgeable fans to be better than his '62 season where he avg. 50.4ppg. He was his team's 3rd leading scorer in the '67 playoffs, and there was absolutely no question as to who the best player on the team was.

I want to note, however, that this "1967 Wilt > 1962 Wilt" trend is a view that re-surfaced somewhat recently. I remember that in the earlier days of the Internet, Wilt's 1962 season was typically the choice for his #1 season ever (and arguably the #1 season in general), and there wasn't that much dispute.

Of course, comparing the available info of then vs now isn't exactly fair...

[K Xerxes]

When I do GOAT rankings, I do it on the basis of how much impact they had on both sides of the court.

Going purely by that, I would rank players like Hakeem or even Duncan above Russell. Although Russell may have a slightly higher defensive impact than either, there is far more disparity in their offensive skills.

The problem with that - and it really only goes for Russell - is that he didn't need any of that. Basketball is a team game and the goal is to win. Now he pretty much won everything he could. 11 rings out of 13 years, and wasn't he injured in one of those years they didn't win?

He did exactly what was necessary (defense, rebounding and leadership) to win. I'm not usually one for 'intangibles', but IMO it makes up for his offensive deficiences. He's in the serious GOAT contender tier for me (along with Jordan, Kareem and Wilt) - as an individual player he might be inferior, but he exemplified the team game more than anyone else in history.

[Psileas]

I posted the links to download the excel documents. If he or anyone else wants to decide for himself after reviewing the numbers, that's fine.

The thing is, he hasn't even made clear what he wants to argue. Lack of a stat that takes available rebounds into account? Rebounding % estimates are just that. Lack of proof that the estimates are accurate enough? Honestly, even though we know that they are not 100% accurate (even the official estimates aren't 100% accurate), we also know that they are not inaccurate enough not to place Russell among the very best ever. There's no way the margin of error in those estimates is that big.

[Fire Colangelo]

Have you watched Russell play? How can you judge him based on a few highlight videos? Highlight videos can make scrubs like JR Smith look good, and it could do the same to Russell. How can we rank someone we've never seen?

Unless we have full footage of games from the 60's how can you say Russell > Wilt (or whoever)? Just based on Rings? What about Russell's HoF teammates? The ONLY thing he has over Wilt is ring #'s, FT % (not by much) and POSSIBLY defense (very arguable). Wilt is a better scorer, better rebounder, arguably as good as a defender based on his stats and you tell me to ignore all that and rank Russell ahead of him based on ring #s?

How would Russell's game transcend into the modern era? NOBODY knows because there are limited footage of Russell. I think he'd do well in the modern era but that's my OPINION. Some people don't think he'd do well and that's their OPINION. Who are you to say it's "disgusting" that everybody is discrediting Russell when you haven't seen him play a single game? It's not "disgusting" to think Russell won't transcend into the modern era, it's actually perfectly reasonable to think so. He's undersized as a centre, shitty FT shooter, subpar offense. Would he even be better than prime Ben Wallace? These are VERY reasonable opinions.

NOBODY knows what the game was like back then, so don't act like you do.

[tpols]

I still don't think he's better than Wilt as everything I said was relative to him. .

How do you know when you havent seen either play?

[fpliii]

Have you watched Russell play? How can you judge him based on a few highlight videos? Highlight videos can make scrubs like JR Smith look good, and it could do the same to Russell. How can we rank someone we've never seen?

Unless we have full footage of games from the 60's how can you say Russell > Wilt (or whoever)? Just based on Rings? What about Russell's HoF teammates? The ONLY thing he has over Wilt is ring #'s, FT % (not by much) and POSSIBLY defense (very arguable). Wilt is a better scorer, better rebounder, arguably as good as a defender based on his stats and you tell me to ignore all that and rank Russell ahead of him based on ring #s?

How would Russell's game transcend into the modern era? NOBODY knows because there are limited footage of Russell. I think he'd do well in the modern era but that's my OPINION. Some people don't think he'd do well and that's their OPINION. Who are you to say it's "disgusting" that everybody is discrediting Russell when you haven't seen him play a single game? It's not "disgusting" to think Russell won't transcend into the modern era, it's actually perfectly reasonable to think so. He's undersized as a centre, shitty FT shooter, subpar offense. Would he even be better than prime Ben Wallace? These are VERY reasonable opinions.

NOBODY knows what the game was like back then, so don't act like you do.
No need to be hostile.

I and plenty of others have responded to your questions and concerns posted above countless times in the past couple of years. You're not baiting me.

[moe94]

How do you know when you havent seen either play?

No one should have any opinions an anything they didn't witness live. Gotcha.

[tpols]

No one should have any opinions an anything they didn't witness live. Gotcha.

I mean what is an uninformed opinion really worth?

[moe94]

I mean what is an uninformed opinion really worth?

There's still footage and you can form an opinion from a multitude of resources. They're all-time great players and pioneers of the game. Acting like you can't speak on them because you never witnessed them is silly.

Are you saying most everyone here is full of sh*t? Big claim and kind of funny, in a good way because it might very well be true.

[tpols]

There's still footage and you can form an opinion from a multitude of resources. They're all-time great players and pioneers of the game. Acting like you can't speak on them because you never witnessed them is silly.

Are you saying most everyone here is full of sh*t? Big claim and kind of funny, in a good way because it might very well be true.

for the most part yes..

[fpliii]

There's still footage and you can form an opinion from a multitude of resources. They're all-time great players and pioneers of the game. Acting like you can't speak on them because you never witnessed them is silly.

Are you saying most everyone here is full of sh*t? Big claim and kind of funny, in a good way because it might very well be true.
This is generally the case. Even if it isn't, it shouldn't matter. I don't think my opinion should mean anything to anyone, and I don't think anybody's opinion should mean anything to me. Unless we're bringing something objective to the table, our posts are largely inconsequential.

:pimp:

[moe94]

In an ideal world, yes, fpliii. From this very thread, alone, you can see that is not the case.

[fpliii]

In an ideal world, yes, fpliii. From this very thread, alone, you can see that is not the case.
True.

[Fire Colangelo]

No need to be hostile.

I and plenty of others have responded to your questions and concerns posted above countless times in the past couple of years. You're not baiting me.

Not baiting, I haven't been around long enough to read those responses. I just find it perfectly normal and perfectly reasonable for casual fans to "discredit" Russell. It's just we have so little footage of him.

I used to watch 90% if not all Raps games, and I could tell you what kind of player Carter/Bosh was, what their tendencies were, what kind of impact they had on the court, what they were good at, what they weren't, etcetc.

Not trying to sound hostile, but I just don't understand how you can rank Russell ahead of other greats when we have such limited footage of him. Personally I'd like to see about 20 games before I rank/judge him as a player.

I respect your opinion though, I just feel like I need to see more of Russell before I judge/rank him as a player.

[fpliii]

Not baiting, I haven't been around long enough to read those responses. I just find it perfectly normal and perfectly reasonable for casual fans to "discredit" Russell. It's just we have so little footage of him.

I used to watch 90% if not all Raps games, and I could tell you what kind of player Carter/Bosh was, what their tendencies were, what kind of impact they had on the court, what they were good at, what they weren't, etcetc.

Not trying to sound hostile, but I just don't understand how you can rank Russell ahead of other greats when we have such limited footage of him. Personally I'd like to see about 20 games before I rank/judge him as a player.

I respect your opinion though, I just feel like I need to see more of Russell before I judge/rank him as a player.
I understand where you're coming from, no worries. :cheers:

[Fire Colangelo]

I understand where you're coming from, no worries. :cheers:

:cheers:

I have no doubt Russell is an all time great though. Wilt was still dominating the league past his prime and Russell was able to handle prime Wilt. I would just love to have some more footage of him and study how he played.

[DatAsh]

Bill Walton, whose career high in scoring was a mere 18.9 ppg, was receiving "best player in the game" talk in the mid-late 70's.

An interesting comparison of Walton and Kareem's teams from that period with and without them - originally posted by Elgee on another board



Portland Record PPG OppPPG Diff
Walton 61-21 112.0 102.9 +9.1
W/O Walton 31-51 103.0 106.7 -3.7
Total Diff +12.6




LA Record PPG OppPPG Diff
Kareem 52-30 111.9 107.8 +4.1
W/O Kareem 31-51 105.6 107.2 -1.7
Total Diff +5.7


Juding by the box scores
26/13/4 on 56-58% vs 19/14/4 on 52%, Kareem was better and it wasn't close. But was he really?

[Audio One]

[QUOTE=jlip]:facepalm
Unfortunately for you I've researched Russell's career for years and already have rebuttals to your nonsense.

First of all I don't rank players in terms of a single GOAT. I use tiers. Secondly I have Wilt and Russell on the same tier. But let's just deal with several of your claims.



Yes Russell shot 44% from the floor during his career as a center. His fg% must be understood in its context. Over the 13 seasons Russell played (

[Audio One]

[QUOTE=jlip]My position is that Russell and Wilt are on the same tier. Having said that, the bold underlined statement greatly contributes to why many have Russell ranked higher.

For years, I had a low opinion of Russell because all I knew about him was his stats, namely his scoring numbers. Coming of age in terms of my understanding of basketball during the MJ era, my assumption was that the best or most important player on the team was automatically the one who scored the most points. I didn't consider the importance of the defensive anchor or the facilitator of the offense who could easily be far more important to the team than the leading scorer. (Well, I started watching during Magic's prime, so I did have a high opinion of the team's facilitator.)

Then I spent a few years studying the 60's, Russell in particular. With my limited, post MJ understanding of what determined greatness, I was totally unaware of how Russell's contemporaries viewed him. I started reading how they were literally calling him the best player in the game and voting him MVP while Oscar was averaging triple doubles and Wilt was avg. 40+ppg. It is then I understood that during the 60's (and 70's to an extent), dominant scorers were often viewed as selfish players. Until MJ in 1991, only one leading scorer had ever led his team to a title, and that was Kareem in '71.

As a whole, many in the 60's and 70's felt that it was greater to impact your team scoring more points than the opponents than an individual player scoring more than everyone else. Consider this, Wilt's '67 season where he avg. "only" 24.1ppg in the RS and 21.7ppg in the playoffs is widely considered by knowledgeable fans to be better than his '62 season where he avg. 50.4ppg. He was his team's 3rd leading scorer in the '67 playoffs, and there was absolutely no question as to who the best player on the team was.

Bill Walton, whose career high in scoring was a mere 18.9 ppg, was receiving "best player in the game" talk in the mid-late 70's. Again, many back then understood, appreciated, and celebrated that there were ways to impact the game other than scoring yourself, especially as a big man. That's why Russell was so heralded. While Russell had 25 points this game, observe what the opposing coach said won the game for the Celtics:

[Asukal]

Russell is at least top 5. Number 2 for me. He doesn't have astounding PPG numbers like Wilt but Wilt doesn't have 11, nuff said. :bowdown:

[Bob Dole]

He would be the third best player in the league today.

In an all time draft no way I'm drafting him over Shaq, wilt, Kareem, or Hakeem. He would be around David Robinson orpatrick Ewing.

Just the truth. He simply wasn't on that level on offense.

Inb4 the few times he scored a lot. F outta here.

[CavaliersFTW]

He would be the third best player in the league today.

In an all time draft no way I'm drafting him over Shaq, wilt, Kareem, or Hakeem. He would be around David Robinson orpatrick Ewing.

Just the truth. He simply wasn't on that level on offense.

Inb4 the few times he scored a lot. F outta here.
Bill Russell's only important stat: 84.6% rings per season.

Robinson and Ewing aren't sniffing that, nobody is actually. He's better than them.

[joeyjoejoe]

He shoot poorly. He was offensively inept. He was a great rebounder, but still worse than Wilt. His defense was arguably worse than Wilt. He won a ton of titles in a depleted league with literal HoF lineups to the point he was arguably not even the best player, at times. He is still ranked ahead of Wilt, by some people due to the gravity of championships. I think he's overrated, if anything.

All of this

[Bob Dole]

Bill Russell's only important stat: 84.6% rings per season.

Robinson and Ewing aren't sniffing that, nobody is actually. He's better than them.

If you think bill wins 80% of rings in the modern era you're delusional. He'll if you think any player.

He's a level below Shaq wilt and Kareem. I honestly put Hakeem a level below with Patrick and David but would still take Hakeem before bill.

He doesn't impact the game on any random team better than the 4 I placed above him. Count as many rings as you want. Doesn't matter.

[jlip]

Russell is not just the greatest champion. He is tied with MJ with the 2nd most MVPs ever. He has statistical titles, 5 rebounding titles including 2 during Wilt's prime. He has the highest career apg average in the playoffs for any center. For all of the pace excuses, the highest era for assists was 1980-1994. Assists were actually harder to come by during his era. If blocks were officially counted during his era, he would have some blocks records also. His resume' is about more than just winning.

[Bob Dole]

Russell is not just the greatest champion. He is tied with MJ with the 2nd most MVPs ever. He has statistical titles, 5 rebounding titles including 2 during Wilt's prime. He has the highest career apg average in the playoffs for any center. For all of the pace excuses, the highest era for assists in 1980-1994. Assists were actually harder to come by during his era. If blocks were officially counted during his era, he would have some blocks records also. His resume' is about more than just winning.

Still only the fourth best center all time at best. I despise when I see him ranked the best.

[jlip]

Still only the fourth best center all time at best. I despise when I see him ranked the best.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion.

[dankok8]

Jlip really took a few of my points and expanded on them perfectly. :applause:

Bottom line is player testimonies, defensive stats, and team defensive records all indicate that Russell was WAY BETTER defender than Wilt. And yet you still see people saying Wilt > or = Russell on defense and such absurd claims.

Russell had 2 postseasons and 3 finals as good as Tim Duncan's best. Tell me even if Duncan who wasn't as good as Russell overall won 11 titles would people not put him in the GOAT convo? There is some stupid arguments against Russell like it was easy for him to win so people discount his titles. I've never heard one decent argument for why Russell's titles should be worth any less than others.

[sundizz]

Stupid to make an all-time top 4 list as it is. Nobody....literally none of us know how good he would be today. He could be Ben Wallace (which is amazing tbhonest), or he could be 10x better or 10x worse. We watch players from 16 to 21 with countless NCAA games/highlights etc and for the most part we really suck at picking who becomes to best.

The game from his era is just a different basketball game. We can't really take what he did there and translate it to the current era.

Of pre-modern NBA era (before 1980 i guess a few years after the merger) then of course he makes the Rushmore. Kareem is the only one who make/doesn't make either list as he literally straddled both eras of hoops so it is hard to place him.

Pre-merger
Russell
Wilt
...the rest

Post-merger
Jordan
Kobe
Shaq
Duncan
Bird
Lebron (and moving on up)
Magic
Hakeem