If a young Bill Russell and Michael Jordan were time traveled to the same draft...

[CavaliersFTW]

...and you had the #1 pick, AND the gift of your current hindsight of how their historical careers panned out, who would you choose? The other player goes to another franchise. Do you risk passing up the mythical winning powers of Bill Russell to take Michael Jeffery Jordan simply because you saw him play and knew what he could do? Or do you go the Phil Jackson route and take Bill Russell anyways because you 'can't argue with 11 rings/2 NCAA/1 Gold/etc'?

[NumberSix]

Jordan. Not even close. If you time travelled Bill Russell to 2014, he'd be no better than Joakim Noah.

[KyrieTheFuture]

I think it would be incredibly easier to build around Bill from a talent and locker room point of view. Michael was a hard person to have on a team it seems, plus centers suck now and a lockdown rim protector is incredibly beneficial.

[Rubio2Gasol]

Jordan. He'd average 40 a game in this league, minimum.

[moe94]

Jordan.

[CavaliersFTW]

Jordan. He'd average 40 a game in this league, minimum.
how many championships would he average though, in comparison to Bill Russell who has now made his way to another franchise since you just passed him up?

[Budadiiii]

Russell.

greatest teammate of all time. His competitiveness was on par with MJ's... if not greater and he had more impact on the game... easier to build around.

[Pushxx]

I think it would be incredibly easier to build around Bill from a talent and locker room point of view. Michael was a hard person to have on a team it seems, plus centers suck now and a lockdown rim protector is incredibly beneficial.

Bill Russell gets the edge purely because of this.

[KyrieTheFuture]

You want asses in the seats you choose Jordan, you want banners in the rafters you choose Russell.

[JohnMax]

I take Lebron. He would team up with Wilt Chamberlain.

[CavaliersFTW]

You want asses in the seats you choose Jordan, you want banners in the rafters you choose Russell.
based on how their actual careers turned out this might be accurate

[RichieW]

I think any player from 1956 drafted in to this league would struggle. The game has moved on so much, Russell would be lacking so many fundamentals of the modern game.

Now take Russell being born in 1995, growing up and learning the modern game and still having the same attitude and ability? Now that's a much more difficult question.

[Railgun]

Bill Russel is slightly better than Kyle O'Quinn in this era. His ceiling is probably Dwight Howard with less offensive skills, so Jordan easily.

[Fazotronic]

bill would be luol deng today.

[Akrazotile]

Jordan. Not even close. If you time travelled Bill Russell to 2014, he'd be no better than Joakim Noah.

Trolling at its finest.

Noah is a legit MVP candidate in the modern era, Russell played in a nine team league against 5'9 used car salesmen, AT BEST he would be today's equivalent of Kosta Koufos.


lol, comparing Noah to bill russell....


:hammerhead:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Building around MJ: rebounding, shooters, perimeter defense and some sorta shot-blocking presence.

Building around Russell: scoring (lots of it), perimeter defense and playmaking (someone w/ the ball in their hands),

I actually think its easier to build around Mike, who as a player, is better simply because he's elite on BOTH ends ...

[jongib369]

Trolling at its finest.

Noah is a legit MVP candidate in the modern era, Russell played in a nine team league against 5'9 used car salesmen, AT BEST he would be today's equivalent of Kosta Koufos.


lol, comparing Noah to bill russell....


:hammerhead:
Trolling at it's worst

[Eric Cartman]

Bill Russell in 2014 = Bismack Biyombo

[fpliii]

Anybody who says this isn't close is a joke of a poster. I'm not sure, honestly.

[Bob Dole]

Jordan

[Fazotronic]

russell with his frame wouldn't want anything to do with guys like hibbert, healthy bynum and esp. dwight let alone being able to deal with the shaqs and hakeems.

i don't even think he is stronger than mutombo and that guy got pushed around left and right by shaq
he would be kevin durant without any offensive skills.

[fpliii]

russell with his frame wouldn't want anything to do with guys like hibbert, healthy bynum and esp. dwight let alone being able to deal with the shaqs and hakeems.

i don't even think he is stronger than mutombo and that guy got pushed around left and right by shaq
he would be kevin durant without any offensive skills.
Russell and Hakeem have identical frames.

[Psileas]

Bill Russel is slightly better than Kyle O'Quinn in this era. His ceiling is probably Dwight Howard with less offensive skills, so Jordan easily.

I'll take Kyle O'Quinn.

[Rubio2Gasol]

It really isn't close.

I'm not sure why people find that offensive. Bill was in a different time, he beat what was in front him and deserves respect for that. But transporting a player from that nascent NBA to now is a different kettle of fish. It would hamper him.

Doesn't take away from what he did, he was probably the best winner of his time, and top 10 all time for it, but his game just wouldn't translate well.

All these people want to troll Bill and Wilt and their generation, it's pathetic, but so is ignoring the reality that the two eras diverge.

[CavaliersFTW]

russell with his frame wouldn't want anything to do with guys like hibbert, healthy bynum and esp. dwight let alone being able to deal with the shaqs and hakeems.

i don't even think he is stronger than mutombo and that guy got pushed around left and right by shaq
he would be kevin durant without any offensive skills.
He played against Wilt... who nobody you mentioned outside of Shaq even comes close to physically. He'd be fine.

[Budadiiii]

He played against Wilt... who nobody you mentioned outside of Shaq even comes close to physically. He'd be fine.
He dominated Wilt on numerous occasions.

Wilt said Bill was the best. Bill is the best.

Period.

[jongib369]

He played against Wilt... who nobody you mentioned outside of Shaq even comes close to physically. He'd be fine.
B b but hibbert is so massive and one of the best centers TODAY. Everybody knows a 6'11 incredibly athletic and smart center has no business in the league today

[Budadiiii]

B b but hibbert is so massive and one of the best centers TODAY. Everybody knows a 6'11 incredibly athletic and smart center has no business in the league today
You mean the greatest defender ever by a huge margin?

No business at all.

[DonDadda59]

He played against Wilt... who nobody you mentioned outside of Shaq even comes close to physically. He'd be fine.

Yeah but let's not make believe Bill didn't get drafted by the absolute most stacked team of the era (and possibly ever). They were so well manned that Russell spent his whole career as the 3-5 best scorer on the team. And the league only had a relative handful of teams and the Celtics were winning championships after only 2 rounds of playoffs in some instances.

Hate to sound like one of 'those' posters, but I honestly don't see what the difference between Russell and Rodman is. Bill may have had more offensive skill, but not much.

And I would most definitely not take Dennis Rodman over Michael Jordan in a draft. I doubt anyone would.

[LAZERUSS]

A college and an early NBA Russell was a very good offensive player. Not an elite scorer, but clearly a good one. The Russell nay-sayers obviously are not aware that he had better offensive Finals in his career than Ewing or Robinson.

In his 61-62 Finals, he averaged 23 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .543 from the floor.

In his 64-65 Finals, he averaged 18 ppg, 25 rpg, and shot ... .702 from the field.

And in his 65-66 Finals, he led his team in scoring at 24 ppg with 24 rpg, and on a .538 FG%.

And people forget that the Celtic offense ran thru Russell after Cousy retired, and that he was leading his team in assists in several seasons.

And all of that along with the best half-court defense ever played by a big man, and a top 2 rebounder of all-time.

BTW, he was basically 6-10, and would be listed at 6-11 today, with a 7-4 wingspan, and was a world-class high jumper.

I don't see how you could go wrong with either one, but those that claim that MJ is a no-brainer have absolutely zero knowledge of the game.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Some of the answers from these ignorant children :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

The dominant college player who was the leader of his title team.

[Nikola_]

Gotta go with big man, more impactful

[IncarceratedBob]

If I get pippen then Jordan

[tpols]

I think any player from 1956 drafted in to this league would struggle. The game has moved on so much, Russell would be lacking so many fundamentals of the modern game.

Now take Russell being born in 1995, growing up and learning the modern game and still having the same attitude and ability? Now that's a much more difficult question.
The only fundamentals that are different are ball handling and traveling rules and long range shooting. Big man fundamentals have regressed.. Russell wouldn't be missing anything

[Akrazotile]

The interesting thing is that when I watch footage of Bill Russell, the guy he really does remind me of in terms of stature/fluidity/skill set is Noah.



http://www.sportsinblackandwhite.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Bill-Russell-3.jpghttp://www.slamonline.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/joakim_noah.jpg


Obviously Russell appears more "dominant" on film because he's playing against a much less significant talent pool. But I honestly believe the actual talent/physical comparison by today's NBA standards is Joakim Noah. Which is no slight, really. Afterall Noah is a 2014 MVP candidate :pimp:

[Fazotronic]

Russell and Hakeem have identical frames.

pfffffffffffffffffffffff
russell doesn't have anywhere near as much agility as hakeem did.
he would never develop the skill set of a hakeem just based on his god given talents.
everybody that tries to imitate hakeem ends up forcing those moves which makes them look completly unnatural.


He played against Wilt... who nobody you mentioned outside of Shaq even comes close to physically. He'd be fine.

yea wilt who was a mental miget in the playoffs and played on way lesser teams.
easy for a guy like russell on the best team to talk shit in his ear and keep him in check.
but iam glad wilt wasn't on those celtics or he had all them rings plus all the crazy stats which would make him GOAT for ever. at least for some ppl like you that would be enough.

much easier to discredit a russell and his 11 rings so its all good.

[Myth]

Give me Russell 1970s and earlier, and Jordan 1980 and later.

[iamgine]

Definitely Michael Jordan.

You can argue ability wise, most people think MJ's definitely better.

But you can't argue on the $$$ impact MJ made.

[Johnny Jones]

Bill Russel is slightly better than Kyle O'Quinn in this era. His ceiling is probably Dwight Howard with less offensive skills, so Jordan easily.
:roll:

[fpliii]

pfffffffffffffffffffffff
russell doesn't have anywhere near as much agility as hakeem did.
he would never develop the skill set of a hakeem just based on his god given talents.
everybody that tries to imitate hakeem ends up forcing those moves which makes them look completly unnatural.



yea wilt who was a mental miget in the playoffs and played on way lesser teams.
easy for a guy like russell on the best team to talk shit in his ear and keep him in check.
but iam glad wilt wasn't on those celtics or he had all them rings plus all the crazy stats which would make him GOAT for ever. at least for some ppl like you that would be enough.

much easier to discredit a russell and his 11 rings so its all good.
Really?

I say this as a big, big Hakeem fan, but he does not have a massive edge in terms of agility over Russell. He may not be better at all in that regard.

[Fazotronic]

Really?

I say this as a big, big Hakeem fan, but he does not have a massive edge in terms of agility over Russell. He may not be better at all in that regard.

whatever makes you sleep better

[russwest0]

People picking Bill Russell, especially for this era, are retarded.

Jordan playing in Russell's era would be unfair as hell

[NumberSix]

The interesting thing is that when I watch footage of Bill Russell, the guy he really does remind me of in terms of stature/fluidity/skill set is Noah.



http://www.sportsinblackandwhite.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Bill-Russell-3.jpghttp://www.slamonline.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/joakim_noah.jpg


Obviously Russell appears more "dominant" on film because he's playing against a much less significant talent pool. But I honestly believe the actual talent/physical comparison by today's NBA standards is Joakim Noah. Which is no slight, really. Afterall Noah is a 2014 MVP candidate :pimp:
This is what I've been saying for a while but people keep thinking I'm trolling or trying to be funny. I'm not. Bill Russell is basically Joakim Noah playing against worse competition.

[LAZERUSS]

This is what I've been saying for a while but people keep thinking I'm trolling or trying to be funny. I'm not. Bill Russell is basically Joakim Noah playing against worse competition.

From the mid-60's until the end of his career, he was playing in 9-12 team leagues. The best centers of that era were Beaty (go ahead an look up his entire career), Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, and Chamberlain. And even Unseld and Hayes in his last season.

He was battling those guys 8-10 times each, per season.

[fpliii]

whatever makes you sleep better
:confusedshrug: Quips like that won't prove anything.

What makes you think he's levels above Russell in terms of agility? I'm legitimately curious, since we've both probably seen the same tape on both guys.

I would draft Hakeem in the top 5 ever in an all-time in a draft, I just don't know where you're coming from here.

[DonDadda59]

The interesting thing is that when I watch footage of Bill Russell, the guy he really does remind me of in terms of stature/fluidity/skill set is Noah.



http://www.sportsinblackandwhite.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Bill-Russell-3.jpghttp://www.slamonline.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/joakim_noah.jpg


Obviously Russell appears more "dominant" on film because he's playing against a much less significant talent pool. But I honestly believe the actual talent/physical comparison by today's NBA standards is Joakim Noah. Which is no slight, really. Afterall Noah is a 2014 MVP candidate :pimp:

Russell = hybrid of Rodman, Ben Wallace, Bill Walton.

Gotta give it to those old school players though- look at those kicks. Must've been hell on the ole bunions to run up and down the court with those(Celtics routinely got 120+ possessions per game in the 50s-60s). Modern footwear is something people overlook in discussions about different eras. If Lebron is bitching about wearing some sleeves now, imagine if he had to play in some 1960s Converse all stars instead of his laboratory tailor crafted Nikes :lol

[Akrazotile]

This is what I've been saying for a while but people keep thinking I'm trolling or trying to be funny. I'm not. Bill Russell is basically Joakim Noah playing against worse competition.


I agree.


Funny thing is in 50 years when the average player is built like Lebron and some Mega Freak is dominating the league, people will look back at Lebron and be like "pssshhh.... dude played against a bunch of string beans and plodders. Kirk Hinrich? Zach Randolph? :roll: In today's league this guy would be no better than LaTyrondel Jackson"



And maybe it'll be true.

[Budadiiii]

Why the **** are we comparing 60's players to 2010 players?

If Russell had a similar skill set to someone who played 50 years after him.... is that not a good thing?

Bill Russell invented the chase down block, not LeBron. Hell, Bill Russell invented defense.

We're talking white people and black people here. Apples and Oranges.

Bill Russell is the GOAT big man and MJ is the GOAT perimeter player.

The GOAT big man has a bigger impact.

[Akrazotile]

From the mid-60's until the end of his career, he was playing in 9-12 team leagues. The best centers of that era were Beaty (go ahead an look up his entire career), Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, and Chamberlain. And even Unseld and Hayes in his last season.

He was battling those guys 8-10 times each, per season.


Yeah and that's impressive but a ton of his reputation comes from blocking shots at the rim by guys who dribbled up to their chest and ran like girls and smoked cigarettes and read the newspaper at halftime.

[LAZERUSS]

Yeah and that's impressive but a ton of his reputation comes from blocking shots at the rim by guys who dribbled up to their chest and ran like girls and smoked cigarettes and read the newspaper at halftime.

Interesting though, that Kareem came into the league a year after Russell left, and, in his peak/prime, struggled FAR more against an aging Thurmond, than a KAJ at 39 did against a 23 year old Hakeem.

[CavaliersFTW]

From the mid-60's until the end of his career, he was playing in 9-12 team leagues. The best centers of that era were Beaty (go ahead an look up his entire career), Reed, Bellamy, Thurmond, and Chamberlain. And even Unseld and Hayes in his last season.

He was battling those guys 8-10 times each, per season.
Don't forget Luke Jackson when he wasn't playing along side Chamberlain, he was also a top talent I always forget about him. Recently found an NCAA game of his so he's fresh on my mind.

[Akrazotile]

Interesting though, that Kareem came into the league a year after Russell left, and, in his peak/prime, struggled FAR more against an aging Thurmond, than a KAJ at 39 did against a 23 year old Hakeem.


Some guys are a good matchup against a particular guy and always give them particular trouble.

Also, I'm not disputing Russell or any big man's ability to play straight up against other bigs. But from the perspective of dominating the game, dominating the entire paint and protecting the rim... there were no Lebron's or D-Wade's attacking the basket back then. That's just a fact. The handful of bigs in Russell's day were almost all the starting centers. Now there are guys across the league the size of Russell playing small forward.

It's just reality that Russell's size and athleticism was much more of a commodity back then and gave you a much bigger edge in affecting the overall game than what it would today.

[LAZERUSS]

BTW, let's give a 60's Russell a few months in the current NBA, to adapt to the game as it is played now, and with the same benefits of modern training, coaching, and medical technology. Furthermore, he was playing 45 mpg in many seasons of his era, and with schedules that were far more brutal.

[LAZERUSS]

Some guys are a good matchup against a particular guy and always give them particular trouble.

Also, I'm not disputing Russell or any big man's ability to play straight up against other bigs. But from the perspective of dominating the game, dominating the entire paint and protecting the rim... there were no Lebron's or D-Wade's attacking the basket back then. That's just a fact. The handful of bigs in Russell's day were almost all the starting centers. Now there are guys across the league the size of Russell playing small forward.

It's just reality that Russell's size was much more of a commodity back then and gave you a much bigger edge in affecting the overall game than what it would today.

Russell was 6-10, and an average size NBA center (and would be listed at 6-11 today...again, an average sized center of this era.) And players like Oscar, West, and even little "Stumpy" Goodrich, were attacking rims as much as anyone in today's NBA. Watch footage of Goodrich on YouTube...you will be impressed.

[fpliii]

This is what I've been saying for a while but people keep thinking I'm trolling or trying to be funny. I'm not. Bill Russell is basically Joakim Noah playing against worse competition.
If neither of those is the case, why do you feel the need to say the same thing EVERY single time Russell comes up, in any thread?

[Akrazotile]

BTW, let's give a 60's Russell a few months in the current NBA, to adapt to the game as it is played now, and with the same benefits of modern training, coaching, and medical technology. Furthermore, he was playing 45 mpg in many seasons of his era, and with schedules that were far more brutal.


Well what are you arguing, exactly? That Bill Russell, if he trained for the current NBA, would put Ben Wallace to shame or something?

Are you arguing Russell would surpass any current player's impact in defense/rebounding?

Who would you compare him to? Or do you think there literally hasn't been anyone with his talents since then? I guess that's the thing I'm not quite getting, is that people think he would still be a transcendent player in today's game. I just don't see that. Especially considering by TODAY's standard nobody who doesn't play offense well gets much credit. There is virtually zero chance Russell could possibly go down as a 'legend' without offensive game. The odds of him winning 11 rings is laughable. He's only the "greatest winner" bc of the uniqueness of his era. He'd never do that today.

[fpliii]

People picking Bill Russell, especially for this era, are retarded.

Jordan playing in Russell's era would be unfair as hell
I thought we were boys? Calling me retarded homie? That hurts. :(

[LAZERUSS]

Well what are you arguing, exactly? That Bill Russell, if he trained for the current NBA, would put Ben Wallace to shame or something?

Are you arguing Russell would surpass any current player's impact in defense/rebounding?

Who would you compare him to? Or do you think there literally hasn't been anyone with his talents since then?

I look at around at the centers of this era/world, and very few were/are on Russell's level.

And Ben Wallace struggled to hit 50% of his dunsk. He was nowhere near the offensive force that a prime Russell was.

[fpliii]

Well what are you arguing, exactly? That Bill Russell, if he trained for the current NBA, would put Ben Wallace to shame or something?

Are you arguing Russell would surpass any current player's impact in defense/rebounding?

Who would you compare him to? Or do you think there literally hasn't been anyone with his talents since then?
A better rebounding and shotblocking Celtics KG in 07-08 and 08-09 (before getting hurt).

[Pointguard]

...and you had the #1 pick, AND the gift of your current hindsight of how their historical careers panned out, who would you choose? The other player goes to another franchise. Do you risk passing up the mythical winning powers of Bill Russell to take Michael Jeffery Jordan simply because you saw him play and knew what he could do? Or do you go the Phil Jackson route and take Bill Russell anyways because you 'can't argue with 11 rings/2 NCAA/1 Gold/etc'?
I think a coach and a GM answer the question differently. I think every coach would love to coach Bill Russell. Heck even if they lost. No GM, is going to turn down a guy who could fly, entertain like no other and slayed giants for a living. Jordan's problems were with point guards, not centers.

[LAZERUSS]

For those that feel that Russell was some horribly impaired offensive player, ...

and thanks to CavsFTW...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnjC0nm2q5U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7LqNAletFU

Granted this is college footage, but we just don't have very much footage of an early NBA Russell.

[DonDadda59]

The GOAT big man has a bigger impact.

A) Kareem Abdul Jabbar is the GOAT big man.

B) Russell won his first championship in a season where his teammate was named league MVP and in all likelihood would've been named Finals MVP had the award existed. Russell was at best the #2 scorer on his own team, spent the vast majority as 3rd-5th. His last championship, he averaged 9.9 PPG, 9.1 in the finals (.397 FG, while grabbing 21 RPG).

Adjusted for pace, that's more or less what Rodman was doing for the Bulls. And the Celtics were winning in a league that featured as few as 8 teams where they could win the championship after playing only 2 playoff series. No way in hell the Bulls win anything with Jordan putting up less than 10 PPG or being the 5th scorer on the team.

[Budadiiii]

A) Kareem Abdul Jabbar is the GOAT big man.

B) Russell won his first championship in a season where his teammate was named league MVP and in all likelihood would've been named Finals MVP had the award existed. Russell was at best the #2 scorer on his own team, spent the vast majority as 3rd-5th. His last championship, he averaged 9.9 PPG, 9.1 in the finals (.397 FG, while grabbing 21 RPG).

Adjusted for pace, that's more or less what Rodman was doing for the Bulls. And the Celtics were winning in a league that featured as few as 8 teams where they could win the championship after playing only 2 playoff series. No way in hell the Bulls win anything with Jordan putting up less than 10 PPG or being the 5th scorer on the team.
Kareem wasn't the MVP/finalsMVP for how many of his championships?

And no way in hell the Celtics win anything without Bill Russell anchoring the paint for his 11 rings.

Apples and Oranges.

[Fazotronic]

:confusedshrug: Quips like that won't prove anything.

What makes you think he's levels above Russell in terms of agility? I'm legitimately curious, since we've both probably seen the same tape on both guys.

I would draft Hakeem in the top 5 ever in an all-time in a draft, I just don't know where you're coming from here.

iam not sure we saw the same tapes beacause i can see a big diffrence.
I'M the one that is curious to see what YOU saw that would make you think he has the same agility.

[DonDadda59]

Kareem wasn't the MVP/finalsMVP for how many of his championships?

For as stacked as the Lakers were in the 80s, they don't come close to the 50s-60s Celtics. Even the years that Kareem didn't win finals MVP, he had a bigger impact on the team winning. People see Russell's inflated rebounding stats but don't realize his best rebounding year, he had about 5 more than Rodman in his. The difference- the Celtics average about 35 more possessions than the Pistons did.

Russell was a player in that mold- Rodman/Wallace, w/ a bit more overall offensive skill. He averaged 15 PPG in an era where his team was getting 115-125 possessions per game and was winning rings putting up as little as 9-10 PPG. When you take that into consideration, his production doesn't really translate to a having a bigger impact than a Dennis Rodman.

Lakers/Bucks don't win with Kareem being the 5th best scorer on the squad. He was more talented and dominant by a very large margin. Just didn't play in an era where winning 2 playoff series in an 8 team league was enough to pile up rings.


And no way in hell the Celtics win anything without Bill Russell anchoring the paint for his 11 rings.

Apples and Oranges.

Not really apples and oranges seeing as how Jordan was a DPOY and wreaked havoc on that side of the ball while being the greatest offensive weapon in the game. Same with Kareem. Not like they were one trick ponies.

[fpliii]

iam not sure we saw the same tapes beacause i can see a big diffrence.
I'M the one that is curious to see what YOU saw that would make you think he has the same agility.
Russell seemed faster in the open court, they had similar lateral quickness, Russ had the better second jump and overall vert. Hakeem probably had quicker hands (and I'd say a superior first step), and they had similar reaction times.

I'm filling my brackets out right now, but there's plenty on Hakeem out there, and CavsFTW has some good videos on Russell:

http://www.youtube.com/user/dantheman9758/videos

If you let me know what specifically about Hakeem's agility you feel is superior, we can work from there. :cheers:

Not trolling at all BTW, just trying to figure out where you're coming from.

[FKAri]

Bill Russell and Red Auerbach revolutionized defensive basketball. They were ahead of the curve. If you bring Bill to today's NBA he loses that enormous advantage and is reduced to just a great basketball player.

On top of that, time travel is involved so Bill lacks modern fundamentals. His game would be archaic. He would have to learn alot but big men from the past wouldn't suffer as much as guards.

The answer is very easily Jordan.

[Fazotronic]

just the ability to change directions and twist your body.
hakeem could catch the ball outside and CROSS you over.
nothing in those videos shows me superior agility. the fact that most of the time he out runs not so fast players by the 80s/90s standarts doesn't help you even with speed being irrelevant in this case and he was def. not quicker than hakeem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22O2lApCBBs

[CavaliersFTW]

Bill Russell and Red Auerbach revolutionized defensive basketball. They were ahead of the curve. If you bring Bill to today's NBA he loses that enormous advantage and is reduced to just a great basketball player.

On top of that, time travel is involved so Bill lacks modern fundamentals. His game would be archaic. He would have to learn alot but big men from the past wouldn't suffer as much as guards.

The answer is very easily Jordan.
There is not a single fundamental of big man play that exists 'today' that Bill Russell had not seen and/or experienced in his own time... do you guys literally not know what 'fundamental's in basketball are, or when they were actually developed? I worry about some of you posters sometimes. :oldlol:

[3LiftHeatCurse]

MJ.

[NumberSix]

I look at around at the centers of this era/world, and very few were/are on Russell's level.

And Ben Wallace struggled to hit 50% of his dunsk. He was nowhere near the offensive force that a prime Russell was.
Based on what? They didn't play against similar competition or under similar rules. What possible measurement are you basing your opinion on? You don't think Birdman or Deandre Jordan could feast on the garbage men and grocery store clerks that Bill was playing against? Please.

[Mure]

Jordan and it's really a silly question and not even close tbh. Bill Russel in today's league would be Larry Sanders.

[The-Legend-24]

MJ in a heartbeat. Put Deandre Jordan in that era and he wins 11 rings too.

[fpliii]

just the ability to change directions and twist your body.
hakeem could catch the ball outside and CROSS you over.
nothing in those videos shows me superior agility. the fact that most of the time he out runs not so fast players by the 80s/90s standarts doesn't help you even with speed being irrelevant in this case and he was def. not quicker than hakeem.
I'd agree with the first part most likely (and body control in general), but the second bolded statement is over the top. Nothing conclusive enough to show that Hakeem had a marked advantage in general quickness.

[NumberSix]

MJ in a heartbeat. Put Deandre Jordan in that era and he wins 11 rings too.
Put Shaq on that Celtics team in Bill's place and not only do they win all 13 chips, but they also have multiple 82-0 seasons.

[livinglegend]

As a GM, i want to win. One of the biggest winners in the history of sports was Russell. Everywhere he went, he won. He won in NCAA, NBA, with team USA, as a player, as a coach. He had the best career possible. 11 championships, 5 MVPs and would have multiple FMVPs and DPOYs.

This is why I would easily take Russell over anyone else.

[NumberSix]

As a GM, i want to win. One of the biggest winners in the history of sports was Russell. Everywhere he went, he won. He won in NCAA, NBA, with team USA, as a player, as a coach. He had the best career possible. 11 championships, 5 MVPs and would have multiple FMVPs and DPOYs.

This is why I would easily take Russell over anyone else.
The British Empire's Navy won every battle from about 1497-1917. Doesn't mean they'd win against any modern day Navy.

[tgan3]

Bill Russell in modern era = Kwame Brown.
Just Trolling

[KOBE143]

MJ in this era would be close to Prime Kobe and Bill Russell would be Joel Anthony at best.. I even take the Russell of this era over Bill "Poor Mans Joel Anthony" Russell and its not even close..

[livinglegend]

The British Empire's Navy won every battle from about 1497-1917. Doesn't mean they'd win against any modern day Navy.

With modern technologies, they could win. We will never know.
These ''eye tests'' predictions dont mean anything, especially coming from ISH members who are mostly wrong with their predictions.

[DonDadda59]

As a GM, i want to win. One of the biggest winners in the history of sports was Russell. Everywhere he went, he won. He won in NCAA, NBA, with team USA, as a player, as a coach. He had the best career possible. 11 championships, 5 MVPs and would have multiple FMVPs and DPOYs.

This is why I would easily take Russell over anyone else.

Only way drafting Bill Russell works is if you have a team that's stacked to the rafters with offensive talent. Everyone forgets that Sam Jones has 10 rings, Havlicek has 8, Heinsohn has 8, Bob Cousy has six. These guys were all superstar/all star/MVP caliber players and when Russell played with them, he was usually in the 3rd-5th range in scoring on his own team. Putting up 15 PPG (44% FG) in a career played with a pace in the 115-125 range translates to probably 7-9 PPG in the modern era.

When you really break it down, Bill Russell's impact/production is more or less the same as Dennis Rodman's. That's not an insult to Russell mind you, it's not a coincidence that the Worm has 5 championships to his name, 2 DPOYs, a host of all NBA slots, etc. And he did it the same way Russell did- grabbing a ridiculous amount of boards, playing ATG defense, hustling every play while not being even the 3rd offensive option.

Only difference is that the league had more than 8 teams and you had to win more than 2 playoff series to win the championship during Rodman's era. But 5 rings under those circumstances is not bad at all.

[livinglegend]

Only way drafting Bill Russell works is if you have a team that's stacked to the rafters with offensive talent. Everyone forgets that Sam Jones has 10 rings, Havlicek has 8, Heinsohn has 8, Bob Cousy has six. These guys were all superstar/all star/MVP caliber players and when Russell played with them, he was usually in the 3rd-5th range in scoring on his own team. Putting up 15 PPG (44% FG) in a career played with a pace in the 115-125 range translates to probably 7-9 PPG in the modern era.

When you really break it down, Bill Russell's impact/production is more or less the same as Dennis Rodman's. That's not an insult to Russell mind you, it's not a coincidence that the Worm has 5 championships to his name, 2 DPOYs, a host of all NBA slots, etc. And he did it the same way Russell did- grabbing a ridiculous amount of boards, playing ATG defense, hustling every play while not being even the 3rd offensive option.

Only difference is that the league had more than 8 teams and you had to win more than 2 playoff series to win the championship during Rodman's era. But 5 rings under those circumstances is not bad at all.

How many MVPs does Rodman have?

and russell was very important to celtics offense:

''No rational person can look at his stats within the context of his team, which was often one of the top-scoring clubs in the league, and not think Russell was a pretty good offensive player. Factoring in his unique place on Boston’s defense-to-offense transition game (teammates often didn’t play great defense knowing Russell would neutralize the threat as it got closer to the hoop and so that they could already be sprinting down the court by the time Russell grabbed the board or block), it’s not a stretch to say he was the most important offensive player for many of these nine seasons.''

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/17/bill-russells-offense-was-better-than-you-think/

[Rose'sACL]

Anybody who says this isn't close is a joke of a poster. I'm not sure, honestly.
how? no one here saw russell play so this question is stupid in itself but believing in what you have seen is way better. Most things russell did according to people are things that you have to see to make a good judgement on him. Given that no one on this board saw russell play, i would say that anyone who takes russell is an idiot.
I would take Jordan 10 out of 10 times. Russell might have been even better than jordan but i have no proof of that and you don't either.
Wilt vs Jordan would actually be closer because even though i am sure no one here saw wilt play, his talent is easier to judge because his stats show his talent.

[fpliii]

You ******s think you're funny, but you're entertaining nobody but yourselves (or yourself, maybe you're all the same poster).

I'm done posting about past greats on this site, the immaturity is astounding. Taking pride in ignorance. Not even framing reasonable arguments against these dudes, just the same idiocy.

[CavaliersFTW]

You ******s think you're funny, but you're entertaining nobody but yourselves (or yourself, maybe you're all the same poster).

I'm done posting about past greats on this site, the immaturity is astounding. Taking pride in ignorance. Not even framing reasonable arguments against these dudes, just the same idiocy.
they're trolling man don't worry about it most of these posters aren't serious they just want to rile up the fans that actually know about that era and take time looking into it

[livinglegend]

how? no one here saw russell play so this question is stupid in itself but believing in what you have seen is way better. Most things russell did according to people are things that you have to see to make a good judgement on him. Given that no one on this board saw russell play, i would say that anyone who takes russell is an idiot.
I would take Jordan 10 out of 10 times. Russell might have been even better than jordan but i have no proof of that and you don't either.
Wilt vs Jordan would actually be closer because even though i am sure no one here saw wilt play, his talent is easier to judge because his stats show his talent.

You also havent seen Russell play and yet, you would pick Jordan 10 out of 10 times over him, doesnt that make you an idiot also?:oldlol:

[CavaliersFTW]

You also havent seen Russell play and yet, you would pick Jordan 10 out of 10 times over him, doesnt that make you an idiot also?:oldlol:
logic board fail, system overload :roll:

[fpliii]

how? no one here saw russell play so this question is stupid in itself but believing in what you have seen is way better. Most things russell did according to people are things that you have to see to make a good judgement on him. Given that no one on this board saw russell play, i would say that anyone who takes russell is an idiot.
I would take Jordan 10 out of 10 times. Russell might have been even better than jordan but i have no proof of that and you don't either.
Wilt vs Jordan would actually be closer because even though i am sure no one here saw wilt play, his talent is easier to judge because his stats show his talent.
You're at least more reasonable than the trolls, but I'm not interested in the back-and-forth with you, since you know where I stand. The bolded argument is boring and tired, not everybody agrees with what you deem necessary to make evaluations. The stats for Russell are there, I've posted the defensive numbers dozens of times. So little is captured in the basic box score it's not even funny.

15 years separated Hakeem's/MJ's and Russell's tenures in the league. That's it (and Russell retired in 69 after integration was complete, still at the top of his game). The same amount of time separating Barkley/Rodman and this year's draft class.

[NumberSix]

With modern technologies, they could win. We will never know.
These ''eye tests'' predictions dont mean anything, especially coming from ISH members who are mostly wrong with their predictions.
With modern technologies, they wouldn't be the British Empire Navy.


The problem with people who put Bill Russell on a pedestal is that there is an implication that his era of 8 teams and 1960's athletes is comparable to 30 teams and modern athletes. There's also the implication that he was somehow on a level playing field with the other players of his era. It's not the case. The Celtics had more elite players than the other 7 teams combined.

[CavaliersFTW]

With modern technologies, they wouldn't be the British Empire Navy.


The problem with people who put Bill Russell on a pedestal is that there is an implication that his era of 8 teams and 1960's athletes is comparable to 30 teams and modern athletes. There's also the implication that he was somehow on a level playing field with the other players of his era. It's not the case. The Celtics had more elite players than the other 7 teams combined.
nope, you're over complicating things... we're talking Bill Russell and Michael Jordan as draftee's nothing more. Your attempt at convoluting the argument and adding extra variables and straw men are all logical fallacies.

[fpliii]

With modern technologies, they wouldn't be the British Empire Navy.


The problem with people who put Bill Russell on a pedestal is that there is an implication that his era of 8 teams and 1960's athletes is comparable to 30 teams and modern athletes. There's also the implication that he was somehow on a level playing field with the other players of his era. It's not the case. The Celtics had more elite players than the other 7 teams combined.
Really? To quote myself:


Here are the ORtg/DRtg numbers relative to league averages:


Team O D pO pD
57 BOS -0% 6% -0% 6%
58 BOS -1% 6% -2% 8%
59 BOS 0% 6% -1% 10%
60 BOS 2% 6% -2% 10%
61 BOS -3% 8% 2% 10%
62 BOS -0% 9% -3% 9%
63 BOS -2% 9% -4% 8%
64 BOS -4% 12% -4% 15%
65 BOS -3% 11% -4% 11%
66 BOS -3% 8% 3% 5%
67 BOS 2% 5% -7% 9%
68 BOS -1% 5% 2% 4%
69 BOS -2% 7% 4% 6%

First two are regular season, final two are playoffs. Higher positive number is better.

The offenses were mediocre at best, and other than Russ, who was a great defender on those teams?

Also, there were 14 teams in Russell's last year (in which he won the title), 23 in MJ's/Hakeem's first year.

This is probably my last response to you on this board (not worth my time), just want to set the record straight in case somebody stumbles upon this thread and doesn't know better.

[NumberSix]

nope, you're over complicating things... we're talking Bill Russell and Michael Jordan as draftee's nothing more. Your attempt at convoluting the argument and adding extra variables and straw men are all logical fallacies.
Ok, I'll just put it very simply.

I would draft Michael Jordan. I know without a doubt that he'd be one of the greats in this era. No risk. Bill Russell is a maybe at best.

[fpliii]

they're trolling man don't worry about it most of these posters aren't serious they just want to rile up the fans that actually know about that era and take time looking into it
I suppose so. I don't believe in using ignore lists (kinda bitchmade to use them IMO), but it might be worth it to start if this is going to become the typical fare.

[Rose'sACL]

You're at least more reasonable than the trolls, but I'm not interested in the back-and-forth with you, since you know where I stand. The bolded argument is boring and tired, not everybody agrees with what you deem necessary to make evaluations. The stats for Russell are there, I've posted the defensive numbers dozens of times. So little is captured in the basic box score it's not even funny.

15 years separated Hakeem's/MJ's and Russell's tenures in the league. That's it (and Russell retired in 69 after integration was complete, still at the top of his game). The same amount of time separating Barkley/Rodman and this year's draft class.
i am saying that as a GM you'd be an idiot to take russell given that you would have to see his game to judge his talent. defensive numbers are never clear even in today's time. His main skill was defense and rebounding. to judge that you have to watch his full games against elite offensive teams. There are no 2 ways about it.

[MMM]

so MJ gets to time travel to the past with all the advantages of his era while Russell doesn't get the advantages of time travelling to a future era???? :confusedshrug: :confusedshrug: :confusedshrug:

I think a better question is on there development if they were born in the same year. Would MJ develop into a better player than Russell if he was born in 1934 or if Russell would develop into a better player if he was born in 1963.

It is not hard or remarkable to believe that they would be completely different players in different eras just due to the natural evolution of the game. For example, Bigs of the 2000s offensive numbers are deflated due the game becoming more guard oriented but if the offensive gifted players of this generation played in an era that focused on big man touches than i think they could match the offensive production we've seen from bigs in the past. So, Bill Russell for example would be a much better offensive weapon depending on which era his development took place.

[DonDadda59]

How many MVPs does Rodman have?

None. But put him on the Celtics in that era with only 8 or so teams in the league, who knows if he could've gotten any. Impossible to say.


and russell was very important to celtics offense:


I never said he wasn't. Just pointed out that he was always 3rd-5th (w/ the exception of one season when he was 2nd) on the Celtics in scoring. He's not a Jordan/prime Kareem type player who had to carry the offensive load. Yes the offense did run through him at times and he was a solid passer, but people forget the Cs had players like Heinsohn (who was a 20/10 caliber player), Bob Cousy (who won MVP with Russell on the team, won 8 assists titles), John Havlicek (perennial all star, one of the first 'two way' perimeter threats, who won a ring post Russell), Sam Jones (multiple all star and top 5 scorer in the league a few seasons).

Russell's numbers adjusted for modern pace come out to about 9 PPG (he shot 44% FG for his career) and 15-16 RPG. That's prime Dennis Rodman production. Again... that's not a knock on Russell. Rodman won multiple rings like Russell and won multiple DPOYs as Russell most likely would've.

Just pointing out the fact that any team taking a 9 PPG (44% FG) 15 RPG caliber defensive player better have some damn good offensive talent on their squad if they're going to take him over 30/6/5 (50% FG) two-way threat. Luckily the Celtics had that and more during that era.

[CavaliersFTW]

i am saying that as a GM you'd be an idiot to take russell given that you would have to see his game to judge his talent. defensive numbers are never clear even in today's time. His main skill was defense and rebounding. to judge that you have to watch his full games against elite offensive teams. There are no 2 ways about it.
his main skill was winning titles actually, thus you very easily can take the risk drafting him having never seen him play or seen very little of him play

[fpliii]

i am saying that as a GM you'd be an idiot to take russell given that you would have to see his game to judge his talent. defensive numbers are never clear even in today's time. His main skill was defense and rebounding. to judge that you have to watch his full games against elite offensive teams. There are no 2 ways about it.
What specifically do you want to see in these full games that won't be evidenced in the dozen or so we have already? What specifically about his game do you want to see more of? CavsFTW has a lot of footage and has said that after the Wilt scouting video was complete (34 minutes of complete plays, which translates to a very good number of games) he'd shift focus to Oscar and Russell. Let him know specifically what you want to see and he might be able to help you out.

[Psileas]

I suppose so. I don't believe in using ignore lists (kinda bitchmade to use them IMO), but it might be worth it to start if this is going to become the typical fare.

Trolling is the ultimate bitch move and ignorance/stupidity should never be promoted, so don't feel any guilt in using IL's. On the contrary, I believe that IL's should be made more functionary, by omitting the post and the poster's name - like Facebook's blocked users list.

[DonDadda59]

Also, there were 14 teams in Russell's last year (in which he won the title), 23 in MJ's/Hakeem's first year.

Averaging 9.9 PPG (7th on the team). 9.1 PPG (.397% FG) in the finals. Just further proof of how talented the Cs were.

And before anyone brings up the inflated rebounding stats- Bill averaged 21 per game in the finals... Wilt grabbed 25 per game in a losing effort.


This is probably my last response to you on this board

Same.

[Rose'sACL]

What specifically do you want to see in these full games that won't be evidenced in the dozen or so we have already? What specifically about his game do you want to see more of? CavsFTW has a lot of footage and has said that after the Wilt scouting video was complete (34 minutes of complete plays, which translates to a very good number of games) he'd shift focus to Oscar and Russell. Let him know specifically what you want to see and he might be able to help you out.
full games are a must to judge players. a few plays are not what i am going to go with if i am judging a player against any modern great let alone against Jordan.

[fpliii]

Averaging 9.9 PPG (7th on the team). 9.1 PPG (.397% FG) in the finals. Just further proof of how talented the Cs were.

And before anyone brings up the inflated rebounding stats- Bill averaged 21 per game in the finals... Wilt grabbed 25 per game in a losing effort.



Same.
They were still a below average offensive team in the playoffs. 9 or so points doesn't hurt the team if they're winning with their defense and he's carrying them defensively.

BTW that comment wasn't directed towards you, but NumberSix (not sure if you're going to ignore him, or it was aimed towards to me).

[zoom17]

Jordan

[Psileas]

Russell's numbers adjusted for modern pace come out to about 9 PPG (he shot 44% FG for his career) and 15-16 RPG. That's prime Dennis Rodman production. Again... that's not a knock on Russell. Rodman won multiple rings like Russell and won multiple DPOYs as Russell most likely would've.

1) Your ppg math is off. It's not as simple as pace adjustment, anyway.
2) You didn't adjust FG%'s. Partially a reason your ppg math is wrong.
3) Russell would still be light years above Rodman as a shot blocker and, secondary, a passer.
4) Russell, one of the GOAT leaders, would never come close to screwing up his teams' chemistry like the mentally unstable Rodman did.

Russell >> Rodman

[fpliii]

Trolling is the ultimate bitch move and ignorance/stupidity should never be promoted, so don't feel any guilt in using IL's. On the contrary, I believe that IL's should be made more functionary, by omitting the post and the poster's name - like Facebook's blocked users list.
Good point.

full games are a must to judge players. a few plays are not what i am going to go with if i am judging a player against any modern great let alone against Jordan.
I'm trying to be reasonable here. What do you want to see from these full games? Not sure why you're mentioning it as a throwaway statement, but there's generally a reason behind such sentiments.

When I'm talking about CavsFTW's videos, I'm not referring to a few plays. His Wilt video has 2% of Wilt's scoring, from games that are not handpicked. 2% is a representative sample by any measure, especially considering that those are full plays. If he can produce 2% of Russell's plays on defense, how would that not suffice?

[CavaliersFTW]

full games are a must to judge players. a few plays are not what i am going to go with if i am judging a player against any modern great let alone against Jordan.
a few full games or game fragments in addition to one or two more dozen games worth of clips is more than enough to 'see' how a player played... adding too it testimony, accolades and statistical analysis and you can get a pretty good picture how a player played even if you never saw them play or don't have many 'full' games to observe. If you weren't so concerned with deliberately trying to move the goal posts just out of reach, you'd realize there was/is potentially plenty if information out there available to evaluate the talent of someone like say, Bill Russell. The problem is no body with the means has been able to put something together all in one neat and tidy package. But it certainly is possible to get an idea how he played.

[fpliii]

a few full games or game fragments in addition to one or two more dozen games worth of clips is more than enough to 'see' how a player played... adding too it testimony, accolades and statistical analysis and you can get a pretty good picture how a player played even if you never saw them play or don't have many 'full' games to observe. If you weren't so concerned with changing goal posts, you'd realize there was/is potentially plenty if information out there available to evaluate the talent of someone like say, Bill Russell. The problem is no body with the means has been able to put something together.
Is he still on your shortlist of upcoming projects? :cheers:

[CavaliersFTW]

Is he still on your shortlist of upcoming projects? :cheers:
Oscar at the immediate moment but yes

[MMM]

if MJ was born in 1934 is it a guarantee that he becomes a better basketball player than the Big O, Baylor, Sam Jones, etc.

[Rose'sACL]

a few full games or game fragments in addition to one or two more dozen games worth of clips is more than enough to 'see' how a player played... adding too it testimony, accolades and statistical analysis and you can get a pretty good picture how a player played even if you never saw them play or don't have many 'full' games to observe. If you weren't so concerned with deliberately trying to move the goal posts just out of reach, you'd realize there was/is potentially plenty if information out there available to evaluate the talent of someone like say, Bill Russell. The problem is no body with the means has been able to put something together.
you can call a player great on basis of the things you pointed out but to judge those players against modern greats, you have to see full games. i never start these kind of threads for the same reason. Your videos show that russell was great but i can't judge if he was better than greats like bird, magic or jordan based on those videos.
Michael jordan, bird, magic are a safer bet than russell. full games show things that the player did as well as things the player didn't do.
what is so hard to understand?



if MJ was born in 1934 is it a guarantee that he becomes a better basketball player than the Big O, Baylor, Sam Jones, etc.
you should be mad at OP for starting this thread instead of people who are picking jordan because you just can't know these things.

[fpliii]

Oscar at the immediate moment but yes
Nice, Oscar deserves the same treatment. I'm a big West fan but I do think Oscar is probably the third most important player of the era. Looking forward to it. :cheers:

[NumberSix]

so MJ gets to time travel to the past with all the advantages of his era while Russell doesn't get the advantages of time travelling to a future era???? :confusedshrug: :confusedshrug: :confusedshrug:

I think a better question is on there development if they were born in the same year. Would MJ develop into a better player than Russell if he was born in 1934 or if Russell would develop into a better player if he was born in 1963.

It is not hard or remarkable to believe that they would be completely different players in different eras just due to the natural evolution of the game. For example, Bigs of the 2000s offensive numbers are deflated due the game becoming more guard oriented but if the offensive gifted players of this generation played in an era that focused on big man touches than i think they could match the offensive production we've seen from bigs in the past. So, Bill Russell for example would be a much better offensive weapon depending on which era his development took place.
That's the way time works. The present always has the benefit of the achievements of the past. What took many people decades to discover through trial and error can now be learned in a few hours because we already have the right answers. Your local mechanic knows more about cars than the people who invented them. Your local high school science teacher knows more about evolution and biology than Charles Darwin did.

It takes less time to read a book than it takes to write one.

[CavaliersFTW]

you can call a player great on basis of the things you pointed out but to judge those players against modern greats, you have to see full games. i never start these kind of threads for the same reason. Your videos show that russell was great but i can't judge if he was better than greats like bird, magic or jordan based on those videos.
Michael jordan, bird, magic are a safer bet than russell. full games show things that the player did as well as things the player didn't do.
what is so hard to understand?



you should be mad at OP for starting this thread instead of people who are picking jordan because you just can't know these things.
I watch full games in order to get the highlights I get, and I got all the full games online... you and anyone else have no less power than I to see these games. I draw clips from them. package them nicely with lots of additional documentary footage and testimony to showcase a particular set of abilities, and boom. You can get a very solid picture of how that player played.

[DonDadda59]

1) Your ppg math is off. It's not as simple as pace adjustment, anyway.

Probably off, didn't really do an actual scientific calculation. It was just an estimate. But I'm sure I was in the neighborhood. If you'd like to do the math, be my guest.


2) You didn't adjust FG%'s. Partially a reason your ppg math is wrong.

Chamberlain shot 54% for his career (as high as 68% during the mid 60s) which was mostly in the same era as Russell with some spillage into the early 70s. Russell shot 44% while being the team's 3rd-5th option. What adjustments would I need exactly?

Russell wasn't an effective scorer.


3) Russell would still be light years above Rodman as a shot blocker and, secondary, a passer.

Maybe, but Rodman was the better rebounder. 24.7 RPG (Russell's career high) on a pace of 125 is nowhere near as impressive as 18.7 (Rodman's career high) on a pace of 91.6. And Dennis was far more versatile defensively. He could guard Shaq as effectively as he could Jordan (as best as anyone could).


4) Russell, one of the GOAT leaders, would never come close to screwing up his teams' chemistry like the mentally unstable Rodman did.

Mental issues aside, Dennis was a winner just like Russell. 5 championships, 2 DPOYs, all NBA selections. Arguably the GOAT rebounder and an ATG defender. Can't take that away from him.


Russell >> Rodman

I'll concede that. Just pointing out that Russell's production in the modern era translates to Rodman's. Winning 5 rings isn't as great as winning 11, but given the circumstances... I'd say both did alright.

But I'm out for real now, should've been alseep like an hr ago :cheers:

[fpliii]

Probably off, didn't really do an actual scientific calculation. It was just an estimate. But I'm sure I was in the neighborhood. If you'd like to do the math, be my guest.



Chamberlain shot 54% for his career (as high as 68% during the mid 60s) which was mostly in the same era as Russell with some spillage into the early 70s. Russell shot 44% while being the team's 3rd-5th option. What adjustments would I need exactly?

Russell wasn't an effective scorer.



Maybe, but Rodman was the better rebounder. 24.7 RPG (Russell's career high) on a pace of 125 is nowhere near as impressive as 18.7 (Rodman's career high) on a pace of 91.6. And Dennis was far more versatile defensively. He could guard Shaq as effectively as he could Jordan (as best as anyone could).



Mental issues aside, Dennis was a winner just like Russell. 5 championships, 2 DPOYs, all NBA selections. Arguably the GOAT rebounder and an ATG defender. Can't take that away from him.



I'll concede that. Just pointing out that Russell's production in the modern era translates to Rodman's. Winning 5 rings isn't as great as winning 11, but given the circumstances... I'd say both did alright.

But I'm out for real now, should've been alseep like an hr ago :cheers:
You can't scale rebounds down linearly, there are diminishing returns as you play more minutes. His RPG would go down obviously, but you can't say definitively that Rodman was the better rebounder.

Basis for the second claim? By all accounts and from the tape we have, Russell guarded West and Oscar nearly as often as he did Wilt.

[Yao Ming's Foot]

I'd take the guy who didn't lose his motivation to play after winning a mere 3 championships. :confusedshrug:

[oarabbus]

11 rings doe as the man doe

Russell easily over Jordan

[Rose'sACL]

I watch full games in order to get the highlights I get, and I got all the full games online... you and anyone else have no less power than I to see these games. I draw clips from them. package them nicely with lots of additional documentary footage and testimony to showcase a particular set of abilities, and boom. You can get a very solid picture of how that player played.
and? what are you trying to say ? post those full game then. why would i judge players based on plays you chose to put in a video?
You can get a solid picture but not solid enough to make me choose that player over a true modern great who i have seen play many full games in videos or in person.

[fpliii]

and? what are you trying to say ? post those full game then. why would i judge players based on plays you chose to put in a video?
You can get a solid picture but not solid enough to make me choose that player over a true modern great who i have seen play many full games in videos or in person.
Here's a start (there are others but these are the ones that I've had at one point or another):

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)

Note that these are all playoff games as well. They're not too difficult to find, mostly on YouTube, some have torrents.

[NumberSix]

Here's a start (there are others but these are the ones that I've had at one point or another):

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)

Note that these are all playoff games as well. They're not too difficult to find, mostly on YouTube, some have torrents.
Ok. Now I'll pick out 9 Shaq games and we'll all agree he's the best ever.

[fpliii]

Ok. Now I'll pick out 9 Shaq games and we'll all agree he's the best ever.
So you respond to this to chime in with your ******ry, but not my previous post to you with data to ponder over? **** you. Popping my IL's cherry. Grow the **** up.

These aren't cherry-picked, these are the games out there. If you can find other games, be my guest.

You try so hard, get over yourself. Your agenda is so transparent.

[CavaliersFTW]

and? what are you trying to say ? post those full game then. why would i judge players based on plays you chose to put in a video?
You can get a solid picture but not solid enough to make me choose that player over a true modern great who i have seen play many full games in videos or in person.
you need to watch more than just games available, there aren't enough games available alone, you have to fill in the blanks as best you can with that era

you can't 'just' isolate to games any more than you can 'just' isolate to stats, or documentary footage, or some testimony or w/e - with that era it's critical you see as much as humanly possible... if you saw only games of Wilt for example, you'd literally miss out on the majority of his offensive moves they simply weren't all captured on the few broadcasts that exist. You have to watch every game, every documentary, listen to every testimonial, and analyze just as much as possible. The problem is in your hands if you're not putting forward the effort to do that, not me. I can make edits to showcase one particular thing or another, and you can trust that what you're seeing is an honest picture of what I'm attempting to show, or not trust it, that's on you. It's good enough for a lot of people, but you act like it isn't good enough for you, so be my guest and go out and find all the documentaries and games out there and give them a fair shake for yourself. They do exist nobody is hiding them from you.

[Rose'sACL]

Ok. Now I'll pick out 9 Shaq games and we'll all agree he's the best ever.
this is the what both fplii and cavsftw don't get. i need to see more than a few games to make a judgement on a player when i am comparing that player to other greats who have a pretty much all of their conference finals and finals on video along with a lot of regular season games.
How people don't get this is what baffles me.

[Rose'sACL]

you need to watch more than just games available, there aren't enough games available alone, you have to fill in the blanks as best you can with that era

you can't 'just' isolate to games any more than you can 'just' isolate to stats, or some testimony or w/e - with that era it's critical you see as much as humanly possible... if you saw only games of Wilt for example, you'd literally miss out on the majority of his offensive moves they simply weren't all captured on the few broadcasts that exist. You have to watch every game, every documentary, listen to every testimonial, and analyze just as much as possible. Problem is you if your not doing that, not me.
if i have to fill in the blanks then i would take a great player i have seen over a great player i have not seen.
what is hard to understand?

[fpliii]

this is the what both fplii and cavsftw don't get. i need to see more than a few games to make a judgement on a player when i am comparing that player to other greats who have a pretty much all of their conference finals and finals on video along with a lot of regular season games.
How people don't get this is what baffles me.
Jesus Christ...do I have to spell it out for you?

THOSE GAMES AREN'T CHERRY PICKED, THEY'RE WHAT'S AVAILABLE. HIS NUMBERS/PERFORMANCES IN THOSE GAMES AREN'T OUT OF THE ORDINARY FOR HIS CAREER.

Why would you want to piggyback on that guy's sentiments?

[Psileas]

Probably off, didn't really do an actual scientific calculation. It was just an estimate. But I'm sure I was in the neighborhood. If you'd like to do the math, be my guest.

Different time zone here, I don't have the time, but probably closer to the young, "high scoring" Rodman, who wasn't anywhere near as occupied with rebounding. Your claim of 9 ppg is like 60% of his actual production. It's like claiming that a team averaging 120 ppg back then is the equivalent of 72 ppg today.
Here's an important remainder: Pace only depends on the time it will take the ball handler to shoot the ball. And, as you know, main ball handlers had never been bigs. That's why I disagree that big men's numbers have to be adjusted the same way that smalls' are.


Chamberlain shot 54% for his career (as high as 68% during the mid 60s) which was mostly in the same era as Russell with some spillage into the early 70s. Russell shot 44% while being the team's 3rd-5th option. What adjustments would I need exactly?

Russell wasn't an effective scorer.

Adjustments that can't be objectively done, like considering the type of offenses run (people talk about changes in pace and defense, yet changes in offense rarely get mentioned). Russell's 44% was somewhat more impressive in his days than it looks nowadays. So was Wilt's 54% and everyone else's.


Maybe, but Rodman was the better rebounder. 24.7 RPG (Russell's career high) on a pace of 125 is nowhere near as impressive as 18.7 (Rodman's career high) on a pace of 91.6. And Dennis was far more versatile defensively. He could guard Shaq as effectively as he could Jordan (as best as anyone could).

Not sure about versatility. First of all, it wasn't the "same" Rodman the one who guarded Jordan and the one who guarded Shaq. Rodman who hunted Jordan wasn't even the rebounder he later became (="Shaq's Rodman") and couldn't back then guard, say, Kareem.
Second, Russell has the major advantage in team defense, the space he covers alone can't be covered by someone of Rodman's size. That, along with his flexibility is a reason he was great at stealing balls, as well - a la Hakeem.


Mental issues aside, Dennis was a winner just like Russell. 5 championships, 2 DPOYs, all NBA selections. Arguably the GOAT rebounder and an ATG defender. Can't take that away from him.

True. But I can't concede he won in the same fashion/way. He was only even slightly considered for the MVP of his team in one instance (1996 Finals). And this includes the Pistons and their less individualistic approach (no MJ, Shaq around).


But I'm out for real now, should've been alseep like an hr ago

Me, too. :D

[CavaliersFTW]

Jesus Christ...do I have to spell it out for you?

THOSE GAMES AREN'T CHERRY PICKED, THEY'RE WHAT'S AVAILABLE. HIS NUMBERS/PERFORMANCES IN THOSE GAMES AREN'T OUT OF THE ORDINARY FOR HIS CAREER.

Why would you want to piggyback on that guy's sentiments?
cause they're both trolling, or at least number 6 was number 6 knows all about logical fallacies, he uses them on purpose

[Rose'sACL]

cause they're both trolling, or at least number 6 was number 6 knows all about logical fallacies, he uses them on purpose
you are trolling with this thread. no GM is risking his job to pick russell over jordan given that he has the same things available to him to judge both players as posters on this site given that this thread is made here. Jordan is a way more sure thing than russell given the things we have on Russell to judge him against a great like jordan.
call me a troll but i wouldn't pick russell over shaq, duncan, hakeem and even lebron.
If i am picking a player then it means i am a GM and no good GM in today's league likes to go for unsure things with just talent that we get in every draft yearly and we are talking about all time greats in same draft.
may be russell is the GOAT but i can't prove that to myself. how will i prove it to the owner of the team?

[CavaliersFTW]

you are trolling with this thread. no GM is risking his job to pick russell over jordan given that he has the same things available to him to judge both players as posters on this site given that this thread is made here. Jordan is a way more sure thing than russell given the things we have on Russell to judge him against a great like jordan.
call me a troll but i wouldn't pick russell over shaq, duncan, hakeem and even lebron.
If i am picking a player then it means i am a GM and no good GM in today's league likes to go for unsure things with just talent that we get in every draft yearly and we are talking about all time greats in same draft.
may be russell is the GOAT but i can't prove that to myself. how will i prove it to the owner of the team?
Phil Jackson would take Russell over Jordan, so it's obviously not as one sided as you think

[jongib369]

Different time zone here, I don't have the time, but probably closer to the young, "high scoring" Rodman, who wasn't anywhere near as occupied with rebounding. Your claim of 9 ppg is like 60% of his actual production. It's like claiming that a team averaging 120 ppg back then is the equivalent of 72 ppg today.
Here's an important remainder: Pace only depends on the time it will take the ball handler to shoot the ball. And, as you know, main ball handlers had never been bigs. That's why I disagree that big men's numbers have to be adjusted the same way that smalls' are.



Adjustments that can't be objectively done, like considering the type of offenses run (people talk about changes in pace and defense, yet changes in offense rarely get mentioned). Russell's 44% was somewhat more impressive in his days than it looks nowadays. So was Wilt's 54% and everyone else's.



Not sure about versatility. First of all, it wasn't the "same" Rodman the one who guarded Jordan and the one who guarded Shaq. Rodman who hunted Jordan wasn't even the rebounder he later became (="Shaq's Rodman") and couldn't back then guard, say, Kareem.
Second, Russell has the major advantage in team defense, the space he covers alone can't be covered by someone of Rodman's size. That, along with his flexibility is a reason he was great at stealing balls, as well - a la Hakeem.



True. But I can't concede he won in the same fashion/way. He was only even slightly considered for the MVP of his team in one instance (1996 Finals). And this includes the Pistons and their less individualistic approach (no MJ, Shaq around).



Me, too. :D
I think his FG% is because of Red more so than Russell taking "bad" shots....He possibly had to shoot in areas he normally wouldnt just to be a threat when they run the play normally. Russell is literally woven into that team and depending on his team his stats would fluctuate dramatically.....Sounds familiar.

[CavaliersFTW]

I think his FG% is because of Red more so than Russell taking "bad" shots....He possibly had to shoot in areas he normally wouldnt just to be a threat when they run the play normally. Russell is literally woven into that team and depending on his team his stats would fluctuate dramatically.....Sounds familiar.
^- very plausible though it may not just be Red asking him to do a particular thing it could be Russell's own recognition but yes, he could be taking shots from a wide variety of areas simply to stretch the floor/keep defense honest, remain versatile/unpredictable offensively etc. Bill Russell has stated before he does not distort the defense or offense... he fits right in, he isn't some great weapon that can be shut down... then again, he isn't some liability that can be ignored. I will be watching his offense more keenly in the future after I'm done focusing on Oscar

[NumberSix]

So you respond to this to chime in with your ******ry, but not my previous post to you with data to ponder over? **** you. Popping my IL's cherry. Grow the **** up.

These aren't cherry-picked, these are the games out there. If you can find other games, be my guest.

You try so hard, get over yourself. Your agenda is so transparent.
So, you're telling me his BAD games aren't the ones that were recorded, saved for 40 years then posted on the internet? That's so weird.

[fpliii]

So, you're telling me his BAD games aren't the ones that were recorded, saved for 40 years then posted on the internet? That's so weird.
His numbers in those games are at or below his career averages. Can you read? I said that in response to Rose'sACL.

Anyhow, I'm putting you on my IL (first one there, congrats) and heading to bed.

[CavaliersFTW]

So, you're telling me his BAD games aren't the ones that were recorded, saved for 40 years then posted on the internet? That's so weird.
the games of his that exist from him back then are completely unremarkable by his standards, just like with Wilt, or West, or Baylor, or Robertson, or any other player back then... they didn't save games back then because 1 player happened to have a great game.

So if what you're facetiously asking is "you're telling me not ONE dominant/good/or even merely "above average" game exists back then of (name any big name 60s player)?"

Than the answer is yes. Not a single one. Sorry bud.

[NumberSix]

Phil Jackson would take Russell over Jordan, so it's obviously not as one sided as you think
Speaking of logical fallacies... This is what is called an appeal to authority.

[NumberSix]

His numbers in those games are at or below his career averages. Can you read? I said that in response to Rose'sACL.

Anyhow, I'm putting you on my IL (first one there, congrats) and heading to bed.
I'm sorry. I thought the argument for Bill was his defensive play. Tell me, does his defense in these games match numerically with his career?

[fpliii]

Speaking of logical fallacies... This is what is called an appeal to authority.
Nope, not at all. Caught this before ignoring you:


you are trolling with this thread. no GM is risking his job to pick russell over jordan given that he has the same things available to him to judge both players as posters on this site given that this thread is made here. Jordan is a way more sure thing than russell given the things we have on Russell to judge him against a great like jordan.
call me a troll but i wouldn't pick russell over shaq, duncan, hakeem and even lebron.
If i am picking a player then it means i am a GM and no good GM in today's league likes to go for unsure things with just talent that we get in every draft yearly and we are talking about all time greats in same draft.
may be russell is the GOAT but i can't prove that to myself. how will i prove it to the owner of the team?
He responded to the bolded.

Try harder.

[fpliii]

I'm sorry. I thought the argument for Bill was his defensive play. Tell me, does his defense in these games match numerically with his career?
Those were slightly below average defensive games for him, by DRtg. Against playoff teams though.

Gonna shift the goalposts anymore? CavsFTW will have to babysit you from here on out.

Peace nukka.

[NumberSix]

Nope, not at all. Caught this before ignoring you:


He responded to the bolded.

Try harder.
Oh, so Phil actually did draft Bill over Jordan? Damn. I never knew that. Risky play.

[NumberSix]

Those were slightly below average defensive games for him, by DRtg. Against playoff teams though.

Gonna shift the goalposts anymore? CavsFTW will have to babysit you from here on out.

Peace nukka.
I never shifted any goalposts. I never made an argument about numbers to begin with.

[CavaliersFTW]

Speaking of logical fallacies... This is what is called an appeal to authority.
I did not present an appeal to authority fallacy, if I did I would have attempted to use his opinion as a means to dismiss an actual body of evidence or anyone who presents one that is a non-authority, for example:

"Phil Jackson would pick Bill Russell over Michael Jordan therefore (anyone else on ISH) who picks Michael Jordan over Bill Russell is wrong"

^--- that would be an appeal to authority.

I responded to someone who gave no body of evidence to support his view, his view was based on his own assumptions, I provided a quote as a piece of evidence that his assumptions (that no GM would pick Jordan over Russell) is likely wrong. Not a logical fallacy. :cheers:

[NumberSix]

I did not present an appeal to authority fallacy, if I did I would have attempted to use his opinion as a means to dismiss an actual body of evidence or anyone who presents one that is a non-authority, for example:

"Phil Jackson would pick Bill Russell over Michael Jordan therefore (anyone else on ISH) who picks Michael Jordan over Bill Russell is wrong"

^--- that would be an appeal to authority.

I responded to someone who gave no body of evidence to support his view, his view was based on his own assumptions, I provided a quote as a piece of evidence that his assumptions might be wrong. Not a logical fallacy. :cheers:
To be truthful, I didn't even read the post you were responding to. My bad.

Being real though, if Phil told me to my face that he would pick Russell over MJ I'd look him in his eye and say "not buying it". Not chance in hell he doesn't pick MJ.

[Rose'sACL]

I did not present an appeal to authority fallacy, if I did I would have attempted to use his opinion as a means to dismiss an actual body of evidence or anyone who presents one that is a non-authority, for example:

"Phil Jackson would pick Bill Russell over Michael Jordan therefore (anyone else on ISH) who picks Michael Jordan over Bill Russell is wrong"

^--- that would be an appeal to authority.

I responded to someone who gave no body of evidence to support his view, his view was based on his own assumptions, I provided a quote as a piece of evidence that his assumptions (that no GM would pick Jordan over Russell) is likely wrong. Not a logical fallacy. :cheers:
i clearly wrote if those GMs had same things available to them as us. Phil played the game when russell was in the league. You clearly are trolling now. You are asking this question to us and not phil jackson.

To be truthful, I didn't even read the post you were responding to. My bad.

Being real though, if Phil told me to my face that he would pick Russell over MJ I'd look him in his eye and say "not buying it". Not chance in hell he doesn't pick MJ.
he is not. he changes the topic and cherry picks things to respond to.

[Big#50]

Rodman >>>>>>Russell
Shit... Horace Grant>>>Russell

[NumberSix]

Serge Ibaka > Russell.

[Dr.J4ever]

...and you had the #1 pick, AND the gift of your current hindsight of how their historical careers panned out, who would you choose? The other player goes to another franchise. Do you risk passing up the mythical winning powers of Bill Russell to take Michael Jeffery Jordan simply because you saw him play and knew what he could do? Or do you go the Phil Jackson route and take Bill Russell anyways because you 'can't argue with 11 rings/2 NCAA/1 Gold/etc'?
Not easy. But Russell. Russell would be a great starting point immediately. He's a great foundation for a winner. Not so with Jordan. You would need the players with the proper egos to handle Jordan's hero ball play.

It took Jordan years to figure out how to win in the NBA. Bill Russell won almost immediately.

[Dr.J4ever]

Not easy. But Russell. Russell would be a great starting point immediately. He's a great foundation for a winner. Not so with Jordan. You would need the players with the proper egos to handle Jordan's hero ball play.

It took Jordan years to figure out how to win in the NBA. Bill Russell won almost immediately.
One more thing. I know this might sound like heresy here in ISH, but is Jordan some untouchable god that we can't question? I mean the guy needed a top 50 player of all time in Pippen, an all time great defender and rebounder in Rodman, maybe the top coach of all time in Jackson, and weak opponents in the 90s to win 6 titles.

The 90s was a relatively weak era as compared to the 80s. The league had just expanded, and the talent was still diluted without the entry of the internationals. Shooting was weaker, iso-ball dominated, rougher defense yes but it led to ugly ball led by the Knicks.

Let's face it, Jordan didn't beat any legendary teams or legendary players. During the 60s, Russell defeated so many legendary players and teams like those great Laker teams or Sixer teams that were denied titles. Only really, really great teams like the 67 Sixers could emerge to defeat the Celts.

During the 80s, Magic had Bird, and Bird had Julius Erving, and then the Bad Boys got in the picture during the late 80s. Now those were legendary teams.

Who did Jordan beat? The Blazers, a shell of the 80s Lakers, a weaker Piston team, the flawed Knicks, and the flawed Jazz. Not great teams. Anyone willing to argue that those were all time teams? In fact, this was the feeling during that time. A Sport magazine cover had the title," Would Jordan and company Wilt in the face of the all-time great teams?". This was a story about a hypothetical GOAT tournament.

Even SI featured articles discussing the weakness of the league during Jordan's 72 win Bulls season. So this was documented during the time. NBA marketing hype and Nike, however, has a way of erasing and revising history.

Look, i'm not saying Jordan is not in Mount Rushmore. He is on everyone's list, but he is not untouchable. By the way, did he push off on Byron Russel for the game winning shot vs. the Jazz. It seems like it .

[Psileas]

The 90s was a relatively weak era as compared to the 80s. The league had just expanded, and the talent was still diluted without the entry of the internationals. Shooting was weaker, iso-ball dominated, rougher defense yes but it led to ugly ball led by the Knicks.

Let's face it, Jordan didn't beat any legendary teams or legendary players. During the 60s, Russell defeated so many legendary players and teams like those great Laker teams or Sixer teams that were denied titles. Only really, really great teams like the 67 Sixers could emerge to defeat the Celts.

During the 80s, Magic had Bird, and Bird had Julius Erving, and then the Bad Boys got in the picture during the late 80s. Now those were legendary teams.

Who did Jordan beat? The Blazers, a shell of the 80s Lakers, a weaker Piston team, the flawed Knicks, and the flawed Jazz. Not great teams. Anyone willing to argue that those were all time teams? In fact, this was the feeling during that time. A Sport magazine cover had the title," Would Jordan and company Wilt in the face of the all-time great teams?". This was a story about a hypothetical GOAT tournament.

Even SI featured articles discussing the weakness of the league during Jordan's 72 win Bulls season. So this was documented during the time. NBA marketing hype and Nike, however, has a way of erasing and revising history.

I've been saying the same thing for lots of time now. I told people to imagine how Jordan's era would be perceived if he never existed, and for 1.5 season, he really didn't exist (you can also argue the season immediately after his retirement) and the answer is, it wasn't perceived very well. People are talking about the Knicks, the Jazz, the Rockets, etc, and yet, with Jordan gone, the Knicks were not appealing to many outside N.Y and the whole usual N.Y hype, the Jazz were considered boring and chokers (Malone, more specifically, and Malone was Jordan's main adversary during Jordan's 2nd 3-peat), Hakeem's Rockets' rings were (and still are) discredited all the time because they didn't face Jordan's Bulls, despite the fact that they beat practically the same teams and all-time greats that Bulls beat (Drexler's Blazers, Barkley's Suns twice, Malone's+Stockton's Jazz twice, Ewing's Knicks, Robinson's Spurs, Shaq's Magic).
Contrast this with, say, 1989, when Bird, coming off an impressive 30/9/6 season, missed almost the whole year, yet nobody put any kinds of asterisks to the Pistons (true, they beat the Celtics in 1988, but who's to say a reasonably healthy Celtic team with a hungry Bird couldn't win back next season?) or to Magic's MVP and it's still considered a part of the "Golden 80's".

[Dr.J4ever]

I've been saying the same thing for lots of time now. I told people to imagine how Jordan's era would be perceived if he never existed, and for 1.5 season, he really didn't exist (you can also argue the season immediately after his retirement) and the answer is, it wasn't perceived very well. People are talking about the Knicks, the Jazz, the Rockets, etc, and yet, with Jordan gone, the Knicks were not appealing to many outside N.Y and the whole usual N.Y hype, the Jazz were considered boring and chokers (Malone, more specifically, and Malone was Jordan's main adversary during Jordan's 2nd 3-peat), Hakeem's Rockets' rings were (and still are) discredited all the time because they didn't face Jordan's Bulls, despite the fact that they beat practically the same teams and all-time greats that Bulls beat (Drexler's Blazers, Barkley's Suns twice, Malone's+Stockton's Jazz twice, Ewing's Knicks, Robinson's Spurs, Shaq's Magic).
Contrast this with, say, 1989, when Bird, coming off an impressive 30/9/6 season, missed almost the whole year, yet nobody put any kinds of asterisks to the Pistons (true, they beat the Celtics in 1988, but who's to say a reasonably healthy Celtic team with a hungry Bird couldn't win back next season?) or to Magic's MVP and it's still considered a part of the "Golden 80's".
It's like in boxing. The best fighters of all time are judged based on WHO they fought. Ali lost some fights, but he is generally deemed a better fighter than Marciano who never lost a fight. Ali fought in 2 decades against giants of the sport.

Same thing in basketball. The 1980's had 3 all-time great teams who all played side by side at their peaks. The 80s Celtics with their legendary front line, the Lakers with Magic and maybe the GOAT center KAJ and their massive fastbreak attack, and last, but not least 1980s Sixers with Doc, Moses, Andrew Toney, a young Barkley.

Russell, meanwhile, had those wars with another legendary team, the 67 sixers with Wilt and the Lakers.

So any teams the Bulls beat during the 90s that could be considered "all-time teams" or befits the word legendary?

[mehyaM24]

It's like in boxing. The best fighters of all time are judged based on WHO they fought. Ali lost some fights, but he is generally deemed a better fighter than Marciano who never lost a fight. Ali fought in 2 decades against giants of the sport.

Same thing in basketball. The 1980's had 3 all-time great teams who all played side by side at their peaks. The 80s Celtics with their legendary front line, the Lakers with Magic and maybe the GOAT center KAJ and their massive fastbreak attack, and last, but not least 1980s Sixers with Doc, Moses, Andrew Toney, a young Barkley.

Russell, meanwhile, had those wars with another legendary team, the 67 sixers with Wilt and the Lakers.

So any teams the Bulls beat during the 90s that could be considered "all-time teams" or befits the word legendary?

been saying this but people just label me a biased jordan hater/lebron fan.

....jordan an obvious GOAT candidate, wasnt facing legendary teams. im talking stacked ****ing teams with hof-laden talent

[dankok8]

Why is an 8-team league used as an argument against Russell?!? Today's championship teams don't face a real challenge until the Conference Finals in most cases anyways. Playing 4 rounds today is no tougher than playing 2 then because the last rounds today are the only ones that matter anyway.

Anyways to answer the OP... if box office success is a factor then I lean Jordan but if we're talking purely basketball then clearly I'd take Russell.

There are 3 main aspects to the game... offense, defense, and rebounding. As a perimeter player Jordan has small impact on the second and nil on the third while Russell is an all-star level offensive player who's GOAT-level at both defense and rebounding. In order for Noah to become Russell (LOL at that comparison :hammerhead: ) you'd have to give him Dwight's athleticism, KG's defensive awareness, Mutombo's shot-blocking, and MJ's killer instinct.

[red1]

jordan

[SHAQisGOAT]

One more thing. I know this might sound like heresy here in ISH, but is Jordan some untouchable god that we can't question? I mean the guy needed a top 50 player of all time in Pippen, an all time great defender and rebounder in Rodman, maybe the top coach of all time in Jackson, and weak opponents in the 90s to win 6 titles.

The 90s was a relatively weak era as compared to the 80s. The league had just expanded, and the talent was still diluted without the entry of the internationals. Shooting was weaker, iso-ball dominated, rougher defense yes but it led to ugly ball led by the Knicks.

Let's face it, Jordan didn't beat any legendary teams or legendary players. During the 60s, Russell defeated so many legendary players and teams like those great Laker teams or Sixer teams that were denied titles. Only really, really great teams like the 67 Sixers could emerge to defeat the Celts.

During the 80s, Magic had Bird, and Bird had Julius Erving, and then the Bad Boys got in the picture during the late 80s. Now those were legendary teams.

Who did Jordan beat? The Blazers, a shell of the 80s Lakers, a weaker Piston team, the flawed Knicks, and the flawed Jazz. Not great teams. Anyone willing to argue that those were all time teams? In fact, this was the feeling during that time. A Sport magazine cover had the title," Would Jordan and company Wilt in the face of the all-time great teams?". This was a story about a hypothetical GOAT tournament.

Even SI featured articles discussing the weakness of the league during Jordan's 72 win Bulls season. So this was documented during the time. NBA marketing hype and Nike, however, has a way of erasing and revising history.

Look, i'm not saying Jordan is not in Mount Rushmore. He is on everyone's list, but he is not untouchable. By the way, did he push off on Byron Russel for the game winning shot vs. the Jazz. It seems like it .

I'd still call Jordan the GOAT, definitely, but very well said.

[NumberSix]

It's like in boxing. The best fighters of all time are judged based on WHO they fought. Ali lost some fights, but he is generally deemed a better fighter than Marciano who never lost a fight. Ali fought in 2 decades against giants of the sport.

Same thing in basketball. The 1980's had 3 all-time great teams who all played side by side at their peaks. The 80s Celtics with their legendary front line, the Lakers with Magic and maybe the GOAT center KAJ and their massive fastbreak attack, and last, but not least 1980s Sixers with Doc, Moses, Andrew Toney, a young Barkley.

Russell, meanwhile, had those wars with another legendary team, the 67 sixers with Wilt and the Lakers.

So any teams the Bulls beat during the 90s that could be considered "all-time teams" or befits the word legendary?
Call the 90s as weak as you want. The 50s and 60s are still infinitely weaker. Al Jefferson would have been the GOAT in that era.

[Budadiiii]

Call the 90s as weak as you want. The 50s and 60s are still infinitely weaker. Al Jefferson would have been the GOAT in that era.
Newton sucks.

Your average American would've been the GOAT thinker in his era.

[CavaliersFTW]

Call the 90s as weak as you want. The 50s and 60s are still infinitely weaker. Al Jefferson would have been the GOAT in that era.
Al Jefferson would have a tough time fighting for a starting position over Lucious Jackson.

[NumberSix]

Newton sucks.

Your average American would've been the GOAT thinker in his era.
Your average college student in 2014 knows more than Newton did.


We're not talking about a level playing field here. That's what most of you fail to realize. People in the past are at a natural disadvantage compared to people in the present.

[Budadiiii]

Your average college student in 2014 knows more than Newton did.


We're not talking about a level playing field here. That's what most of you fail to realize. People in the past are at a natural disadvantage compared to people in the present.
I guess if you take OP's words literally, yah.

"were time traveled to the same draft"

I didn't even realize that's what the OP said until now. I would take Bill if they were born the same year and it was a level playing field.

[fpliii]

Caught some feelings in this thread yesterday. Obviously you guys were baiting, but I shouldn't have taken it.

NumberSix I know you're a big Wade fan too so you're my boy, but don't do me like that. :no:

[Black Mamba's B]

I've been saying the same thing for lots of time now. I told people to imagine how Jordan's era would be perceived if he never existed, and for 1.5 season, he really didn't exist (you can also argue the season immediately after his retirement) and the answer is, it wasn't perceived very well. People are talking about the Knicks, the Jazz, the Rockets, etc, and yet, with Jordan gone, the Knicks were not appealing to many outside N.Y and the whole usual N.Y hype, the Jazz were considered boring and chokers (Malone, more specifically, and Malone was Jordan's main adversary during Jordan's 2nd 3-peat), Hakeem's Rockets' rings were (and still are) discredited all the time because they didn't face Jordan's Bulls, despite the fact that they beat practically the same teams and all-time greats that Bulls beat (Drexler's Blazers, Barkley's Suns twice, Malone's+Stockton's Jazz twice, Ewing's Knicks, Robinson's Spurs, Shaq's Magic).
Contrast this with, say, 1989, when Bird, coming off an impressive 30/9/6 season, missed almost the whole year, yet nobody put any kinds of asterisks to the Pistons (true, they beat the Celtics in 1988, but who's to say a reasonably healthy Celtic team with a hungry Bird couldn't win back next season?) or to Magic's MVP and it's still considered a part of the "Golden 80's".
Insightful post

[MavsSuperFan]

Put Shaq on that Celtics team in Bill's place and not only do they win all 13 chips, but they also have multiple 82-0 seasons.
We lets be fair shaq would have taken a few nights off. 75-7

[MavsSuperFan]

With modern technologies, they wouldn't be the British Empire Navy.


The problem with people who put Bill Russell on a pedestal is that there is an implication that his era of 8 teams and 1960's athletes is comparable to 30 teams and modern athletes. There's also the implication that he was somehow on a level playing field with the other players of his era. It's not the case. The Celtics had more elite players than the other 7 teams combined.
:applause: :applause:


nope, you're over complicating things... we're talking Bill Russell and Michael Jordan as draftee's nothing more. Your attempt at convoluting the argument and adding extra variables and straw men are all logical fallacies.
He is saying bill Russell played in a lesser league. its why we dont hold the euroleague mvp in high esteem, no matter how many mvps/championships he wins.

[The-Legend-24]

People still trying to argue Russell over fvcking MJ?

You're comparing a borderline top 20 player to the GOAT. :facepalm

[Nevaeh]

It's like in boxing. The best fighters of all time are judged based on WHO they fought. Ali lost some fights, but he is generally deemed a better fighter than Marciano who never lost a fight. Ali fought in 2 decades against giants of the sport.

Same thing in basketball. The 1980's had 3 all-time great teams who all played side by side at their peaks. The 80s Celtics with their legendary front line, the Lakers with Magic and maybe the GOAT center KAJ and their massive fastbreak attack, and last, but not least 1980s Sixers with Doc, Moses, Andrew Toney, a young Barkley.

Russell, meanwhile, had those wars with another legendary team, the 67 sixers with Wilt and the Lakers.

So any teams the Bulls beat during the 90s that could be considered "all-time teams" or befits the word legendary?

Um, teams usually become "Legendary" after they win, not when they lose. Would the 86 Celtics be considered Legendary, had they managed to choke that year? Would the 91 Lakers be considered "legendary" had they been able to shut down Jordan in his first NBA finals? You damn right they would.

I posted it before, so I'll say it again. During the 80s, the league only saw 5 (yes, FIVE) different teams make it to the finals. The 90s, which constantly gets called "weak" for some reason, actually saw 10 different teams make it to the finals The reason the 90s looks "weak" in hindsight was because the Bulls were whooping everybody's ass, and not choking away finals chances like the Lakers, Celts, 76ers and even the Pistons were.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Um, teams usually become "Legendary" after they win, not when they lose. Would the 86 Celtics be considered Legendary, had they managed to choke that year? Would the 91 Lakers be considered "legendary" had they been able to shut down Jordan in his first NBA finals? You damn right they would.

I posted it before, so I'll say it again. During the 80s, the league only saw 5 (yes, FIVE) different teams make it to the finals. The 90s, which constantly gets called "weak" for some reason, actually saw 10 different teams make it to the finals The reason the 90s looks "weak" in hindsight was because the Bulls were whooping everybody's ass, and not choking away finals chances like the Lakers, Celts, 76ers and even the Pistons were.

Put the championship (90's) Bulls in the 80's and they ain't getting 4 titles, let alone 6, I'll leave it at that.

[DonDadda59]

Um, teams usually become "Legendary" after they win, not when they lose. Would the 86 Celtics be considered Legendary, had they managed to choke that year? Would the 91 Lakers be considered "legendary" had they been able to shut down Jordan in his first NBA finals? You damn right they would.

I posted it before, so I'll say it again. During the 80s, the league only saw 5 (yes, FIVE) different teams make it to the finals. The 90s, which constantly gets called "weak" for some reason, actually saw 10 different teams make it to the finals The reason the 90s looks "weak" in hindsight was because the Bulls were whooping everybody's ass, and not choking away finals chances like the Lakers, Celts, 76ers and even the Pistons were.

Exactly. The 60s, 80s, and even the league right now were/are very top heavy. All the talent in the league were on a handful of teams. Every final in the 80s featured either the Celtics or the Lakers. In the 90s (as well as the 70s and last decade), there was more parity in the game. Stars were spread out and not all clustered together.

How is an era where 1 of 2 teams was guaranteed to be in the finals every year of a decade great, but an era where there was more balance, competition, and better defense considered 'weak'?

[CavaliersFTW]

People still trying to argue Russell over fvcking MJ?

You're comparing a borderline top 20 player to the GOAT. :facepalm
Come on, Jordan isn't that bad :facepalm

[JohnFreeman]

Can't teach tall I suppose

[Nevaeh]

Put the championship (90's) Bulls in the 80's and they ain't getting 4 titles, let alone 6, I'll leave it at that.


Dude, second year MJ had the 86 Celtics spooked by himself, with the way that he was going off offensively, and that was the best version of that team during the 80s.

http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif

Now, you factor in experience, combined with a reliable second option and a coaching staff that actually preached and taught defense, and I can't see a reason why the Bulls couldn't have done close to the same thing.

[CavaliersFTW]

I think any player from 1956 drafted in to this league would struggle. The game has moved on so much, Russell would be lacking so many fundamentals of the modern game.

Now take Russell being born in 1995, growing up and learning the modern game and still having the same attitude and ability? Now that's a much more difficult question.
Name the specific fundamentals he's missing. We'll wait.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Seriously? Answer is the GOAT. Would've had a ring in '90 if Pippen wasn't so mentally fragile at that point to not be able to step up for supplemental help. Would've had a ring in '94 if he wasn't retired.

Possibly could've won in '95, and '99.

Won 6 rings in 8 seasons, never lost as favorites. Missed out on 2x rings due to retirement in his prime. Had basically 4x other rings sitting on the table because of circumstances. He's the best ever for a reason.

[tpols]

Um, teams usually become "Legendary" after they win, not when they lose. Would the 86 Celtics be considered Legendary, had they managed to choke that year? Would the 91 Lakers be considered "legendary" had they been able to shut down Jordan in his first NBA finals? You damn right they would.

I posted it before, so I'll say it again. During the 80s, the league only saw 5 (yes, FIVE) different teams make it to the finals. The 90s, which constantly gets called "weak" for some reason, actually saw 10 different teams make it to the finals The reason the 90s looks "weak" in hindsight was because the Bulls were whooping everybody's ass, and not choking away finals chances like the Lakers, Celts, 76ers and even the Pistons were.

Why would this be an argument for the 90s being stronger ??


If less teams make it, that means the same great teams are battling at the top every year.. it means more dynasties. The Bulls were the only dynasty in their era.. everyone of their opponents were scattered. No great team came up along side them like how bird C's came up with magic lakers or wilt russell etc

[CavaliersFTW]

Seriously? Answer is the GOAT. Would've had a ring in '90 if Pippen wasn't so mentally fragile at that point to not be able to step up for supplemental help. Would've had a ring in '94 if he wasn't retired.

Possibly could've won in '95, and '99.

Won 6 rings in 8 seasons, never lost as favorites. Missed out on 2x rings due to retirement in his prime. Had basically 4x other rings sitting on the table
Winning is the absolute stupidest angle to take if you are on the side of Jordan when comparing Russell to Jordan. Stick to trying to add value to scoring stats or something or your going to nuke your own argument... I mean... "could have's"!?... wow coulda shoulda woulda, too bad he didn't :oldlol:

[Nevaeh]

Why would this be an argument for the 90s being stronger ??


If less teams make it, that means the same great teams are battling at the top every year.. it means more dynasties. The Bulls were the only dynasty in their era.. everyone of their opponents were scattered. No great team came up along side them like how bird C's came up with magic lakers or wilt russell etc


I figured that an era being considered "weak" or strong" would be defined by how many teams were battling it out for that top spot. And the 90s simply saw twice as many teams as the 80s in the Finals. That's fact. The only constant during the 90s was the Bulls, and that was thanks to MJ's leadership on the team.

[Nevaeh]

Winning is the absolute stupidest angle to take if you are on the side of Jordan when comparing Russell to Jordan. Stick to trying to add value to scoring stats or something or your going to nuke your own argument... I mean... "could have's"!?... wow coulda shoulda woulda, too bad he didn't :oldlol:

Yeah, Swish could have just kept it stats based on that particular rebuttal, I agree. That's no different than all of the other "what if" threads we've been seeing latel..... hey wait a minute!! THIS is a "what if" thread!!!

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/images/smilies/rant.gif

http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif


I kid, I kid, but I see where you're coming from Cavs.

[tpols]

I figured that an era being considered "weak" or strong" would be defined by how many teams were battling it out for that top spot. And the 90s simply saw twice as many teams as the 80s in the Finals. That's fact. The only constant during the 90s was the Bulls, and that was thanks to MJ's leadership on the team.



If you transplanted Larry Bird and the C's from 81 to 91 theyd make the Finals at least 5 times during the decade.. if you threw in Magic's Lakers itd be the Bulls/Celtics/Lakers being featured in the Finals every single year.


What youre saying is completely backwards. Less teams making it means the same teams are being consistently dominant.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Dude, second year MJ had the 86 Celtics spooked by himself, with the way that he was going off offensively, and that was the best version of that team during the 80s.

http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif

Now, you factor in experience, combined with a reliable second option and a coaching staff that actually preached and taught defense, and I can't see a reason why the Bulls couldn't have done close to the same thing.

Spooked? :lol Bulls got swept, and in the 1st and final games they lost by 20 :oldlol:
Yea MJ was a beast and scored 63 in game 2, just crazy (it was in overtime though, with a bogus call that got them to it) but people tend to neglect what I first said plus in the final game they really focused to try and stop Jordan's scoring outputs, and he only had 19 points on 18 shots. Also, Jordan being very young and an athletic freak, in terms of speed and quickness especially, presented a tough "mismatch" for the Celtics because DJ was older and had lost a step or two in that department, still they dispatched them fairly easy and did a great job on him after his terrific scoring output.. no considerable weaknesses.

[Nevaeh]

If you transplanted Larry Bird and the C's from 81 to 91 theyd make the Finals at least 5 times during the decade.. if you threw in Magic's Lakers itd be the Bulls/Celtics/Lakers being featured in the Finals every single year.


What youre saying is completely backwards. Less teams making it means the same teams are being consistently dominant.

If you say so tpols (good to see you back too btw, real talk).
However, with your logic on this particular angle, the league may as well have been only 6 teams, based on the teams that were actually competing for titles during the 80s (the subject that I was initially responding to).

[tpols]

If you say so tpols (good to see you back too btw, real talk).
However, with your logic on this particular angle, the league may as well have been only 6 teams, based on the teams that were actually competing for titles during the 80s (the subject that I was initially responding to).

yea.. it might as well. Most of the teams arent competing anyway. Which is why its wierd people(not necessarily you) hate on Russels era. Less teams is only going to mean more stacked teams.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Yeah, Swish could have just kept it stats based on that particular rebuttal, I agree. That's no different than all of the other "what if" threads we've been seeing latel..... hey wait a minute!! THIS is a "what if" thread!!!

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/images/smilies/rant.gif

http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif


I kid, I kid, but I see where you're coming from Cavs.
That's the point. A what if for a what if topic. OP asks the question, gets the answer then argues with your answer to his question. WTF ... Stupid

[Nevaeh]

yea.. it might as well. Most of the teams arent competing anyway. Which is why its wierd people(not necessarily you) hate on Russels era. Less teams is only going to mean more stacked teams.

Oh I hear you, but I've never been one to "hate" on Russell's era. I may add some context to it, when guys like Lazerus get a bit overzealous, but hey, you play the hand you're dealt, no matter what era.

I just have a hard time seeing how the era that's been proven to be both statistically and commercially the most popular, can be considered "weak" by any stretch of the imagination.

[kshutts1]

Best way to compare eras is to do it relatively, IMO.

Where did Russell rank amonst his peers in terms of...
RPG?
FG%?
BPG?
PPG?
APG?
SPG?
Wins?
Championships?

Now rank Jordan on the same scale... add up their rankings... lowest number wins.

Honestly... Era weakness MUST be considered, but it's all relative anyway... so consider it relatively

[Dr.J4ever]

Um, teams usually become "Legendary" after they win, not when they lose. Would the 86 Celtics be considered Legendary, had they managed to choke that year? Would the 91 Lakers be considered "legendary" had they been able to shut down Jordan in his first NBA finals? You damn right they would.

I posted it before, so I'll say it again. During the 80s, the league only saw 5 (yes, FIVE) different teams make it to the finals. The 90s, which constantly gets called "weak" for some reason, actually saw 10 different teams make it to the finals The reason the 90s looks "weak" in hindsight was because the Bulls were whooping everybody's ass, and not choking away finals chances like the Lakers, Celts, 76ers and even the Pistons were.

Great teams become "legendary" when they are met with adversity, not just winning.

You didn't address my Ali-Marciano analogy. I would hope that you know Ali is considered a greater fighter almost universally by boxing aficionados. And yet, Ali lost a few times, while Marciano had a perfect record. I wonder why that is? Could it be because Ali is perceived to have fought the better fighters? Could it be because Ali lost his crown 3 times and recovered it 3 times? You start knowing a fighter, and his character once he losses to another great, and then watch how he recovers. Same thing with great NBA teams.

What made the Celts, Sixers, Lakers great NBA teams, and yes, all-time teams? Great regular season records, multiple top 50 players, multiple HOFers, great defenses, multiple great individual scorers, multiple ECFs or WCFs(long runs in the playoffs multiple times), NBA titles, players with regular season MVPs, FMVPS, and finally, they all played against each other, winning some, and losing some. All 3 teams are considered in NBA annals as all time teams. Need I say more? And yes, a bit like Ali-Frazier, Ali-Foreman, or Ali-Liston.

Did any team in the 90s(Bulls opponents) exhibit ALL of those qualities? Sorry the 90s was a diluted NBA after having just expanded. As I said, it was mentioned in several articles at the time. The Bulls were the 1 great team in that era. Some may argue that had they played in the 80s, they may have been 4th best in the decade.

[Pointguard]

I've been saying the same thing for lots of time now. I told people to imagine how Jordan's era would be perceived if he never existed, and for 1.5 season, he really didn't exist (you can also argue the season immediately after his retirement) and the answer is, it wasn't perceived very well. People are talking about the Knicks, the Jazz, the Rockets, etc, and yet, with Jordan gone, the Knicks were not appealing to many outside N.Y and the whole usual N.Y hype, the Jazz were considered boring and chokers (Malone, more specifically, and Malone was Jordan's main adversary during Jordan's 2nd 3-peat), Hakeem's Rockets' rings were (and still are) discredited all the time because they didn't face Jordan's Bulls, despite the fact that they beat practically the same teams and all-time greats that Bulls beat (Drexler's Blazers, Barkley's Suns twice, Malone's+Stockton's Jazz twice, Ewing's Knicks, Robinson's Spurs, Shaq's Magic).
Contrast this with, say, 1989, when Bird, coming off an impressive 30/9/6 season, missed almost the whole year, yet nobody put any kinds of asterisks to the Pistons (true, they beat the Celtics in 1988, but who's to say a reasonably healthy Celtic team with a hungry Bird couldn't win back next season?) or to Magic's MVP and it's still considered a part of the "Golden 80's".

Great post as always.

The 90's without Jordan would have been called the clash of the big men bruisers (Shaq, Ewing, Barkley, Malone, Robinson - he and Brad Daugherty weren't bruisers, Hakeem, A. Mourning, Davis guys in Indiana). That is clear. The Knicks would have followed up Detroit's tough guy thing perhaps until Hakeem stepped up. Then Utah would have followed up, then Alonzo's tough crew, then Indiana and San Anton finish up the year.

Side note, four really skilled big men that had evolved post games didn't pan out into their greatness in Kemp, Bowie, Tarpley and Daugherty. That decade was capable of having 8 HOF centers if health held up. Sabonis, Mutombo, Cartwright, Rik Smit, Divac and Seikley would be borderline Allstars today. Really wild when you contrast that with today.

It would have been the era of skilled big men. So Jordan should get a lot of credit for being a giant slayer.

[MavsPoke]

Give me the GOAT.

:coleman:

[SpecialQue]

Bill Russell. Only a fvcking retard would pick Jordan.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Great teams become "legendary" when they are met with adversity, not just winning.

You didn't address my Ali-Marciano analogy. I would hope that you know Ali is considered a greater fighter almost universally by boxing aficionados. And yet, Ali lost a few times, while Marciano had a perfect record. I wonder why that is? Could it be because Ali is perceived to have fought the better fighters? Could it be because Ali lost his crown 3 times and recovered it 3 times? You start knowing a fighter, and his character once he losses to another great, and then watch how he recovers. Same thing with great NBA teams.

What made the Celts, Sixers, Lakers great NBA teams, and yes, all-time teams? Great regular season records, multiple top 50 players, multiple HOFers, great defenses, multiple great individual scorers, multiple ECFs or WCFs(long runs in the playoffs multiple times), NBA titles, players with regular season MVPs, FMVPS, and finally, they all played against each other, winning some, and losing some. All 3 teams are considered in NBA annals as all time teams. Need I say more? And yes, a bit like Ali-Frazier, Ali-Foreman, or Ali-Liston.

Did any team in the 90s(Bulls opponents) exhibit ALL of those qualities? Sorry the 90s was a diluted NBA after having just expanded. As I said, it was mentioned in several articles at the time. The Bulls were the 1 great team in that era. Some may argue that had they played in the 80s, they may have been 4th best in the decade.

I believe the Bulls still win a couple titles in the 80's, however this is a fantastic post. Well said.

[fpliii]

How ****ing impactful could Bill Russell be in this era? He was 6'10 230 with no offensive skills, and he wouldn't even be a top 20 athlete. No amount of God Damn block shot timing could be able to get him the 10+ he was averaging back then. Realistically he was just some Dennis Rodman prototype AT BEST. The only thing that could possibly translate was his rebounds.

He wouldn't even be as good of a rim protector as Roy Hibbert.

And I mean that, and instead of saying "you're clueless" or some weightless garbage, prove me wrong, with evidence or ****ing something.
:oldlol:

Where's Deuce's thread?

[CavaliersFTW]

How ****ing impactful could Bill Russell be in this era? He was 6'10 230 with no offensive skills, and he wouldn't even be a top 20 athlete. No amount of God Damn block shot timing could be able to get him the 10+ he was averaging back then. Realistically he was just some Dennis Rodman prototype AT BEST. The only thing that could possibly translate was his rebounds.

He wouldn't even be as good of a rim protector as Roy Hibbert.

And I mean that, and instead of saying "you're clueless" or some weightless garbage, prove me wrong, with evidence or ****ing something.
Oh my goodness talk about catching feelings :oldlol:

Bill Russell's defensive impact and winning drive might actually have been greater than Michael Jordan's entire offensive and defensive impact combined, how can we conclude this? Through his insane resume of success that's how. Thus he is and always will be considered a GOAT caliber player, at least we know how this makes you feel, kind of amusing to see you get all bent out of shape over it :oldlol:

[Psileas]

How ****ing impactful could Bill Russell be in this era? He was 6'10 230 with no offensive skills, and he wouldn't even be a top 20 athlete. No amount of God Damn block shot timing could be able to get him the 10+ he was averaging back then. Realistically he was just some Dennis Rodman prototype AT BEST. The only thing that could possibly translate was his rebounds.

He wouldn't even be as good of a rim protector as Roy Hibbert.

And I mean that, and instead of saying "you're clueless" or some weightless garbage, prove me wrong, with evidence or ****ing something.

Yeah, that's sure the way it works: Spew out some crap like "Russell would be not even a top-20 athlete", "was a Rodman prototype at best", "wouldn't protect the rim as well as Hibbert", etc, then expect people to prove you wrong. :oldlol: The minor detail is that the burden of proof is on the person who makes extraordinary claims, not on the others to prove his exaggerations false.

[moe94]

Bill Russell's defensive impact and winning drive might actually have been greater than Michael Jordan's entire offensive and defensive impact combined:

:oldlol:

[NoGunzJustSkillz]

Jordan. Not even close. If you time travelled Bill Russell to 2014, he'd be no better than Joakim Noah.
why you gonna diss noah like that?

[Pointguard]

Great teams become "legendary" when they are met with adversity, not just winning.

You didn't address my Ali-Marciano analogy. I would hope that you know Ali is considered a greater fighter almost universally by boxing aficionados. And yet, Ali lost a few times, while Marciano had a perfect record. I wonder why that is? Could it be because Ali is perceived to have fought the better fighters? Could it be because Ali lost his crown 3 times and recovered it 3 times? You start knowing a fighter, and his character once he losses to another great, and then watch how he recovers. Same thing with great NBA teams.

What made the Celts, Sixers, Lakers great NBA teams, and yes, all-time teams? Great regular season records, multiple top 50 players, multiple HOFers, great defenses, multiple great individual scorers, multiple ECFs or WCFs(long runs in the playoffs multiple times), NBA titles, players with regular season MVPs, FMVPS, and finally, they all played against each other, winning some, and losing some. All 3 teams are considered in NBA annals as all time teams. Need I say more? And yes, a bit like Ali-Frazier, Ali-Foreman, or Ali-Liston.

Did any team in the 90s(Bulls opponents) exhibit ALL of those qualities? Sorry the 90s was a diluted NBA after having just expanded. As I said, it was mentioned in several articles at the time. The Bulls were the 1 great team in that era. Some may argue that had they played in the 80s, they may have been 4th best in the decade.
Solid post.

This is why I have Magic ranked top three. He defeated more of those teams than anybody proportionate to the years he played.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Not saying I would pick him (also depends on the team) but Russell is getting underrated like crazy here. Talk about ignorant people hating for the **** of it, talking out of their asses, clearly not knowing what they're talking about :facepalm

[SHAQisGOAT]

Bill Russell was literally a below the rim player. Most of his blocks from what I've seen were on pedestrian guards who were releasing the ball below the effing net. He'd get dunked on without mercy if he tried to contest shots with that lacking vertical today.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICT8PB5YZV8

It's truly pathetic how overrated this dude was. And on a sidenote, peep the dribbling ability, how do I know this dude wasn't at best a 6'9 DeAndre Jordan?
- 12 year old, ignorant boy who never once played organized basketball in his life, plus don't even know what he's talking about


:facepalm

[CavaliersFTW]

Bill Russell was literally a below the rim player. Most of his blocks from what I've seen were on pedestrian guards who were releasing the ball below the effing net. He'd get dunked on without mercy if he tried to contest shots with that lacking vertical today.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICT8PB5YZV8

It's truly pathetic how overrated this dude was. And on a sidenote, peep the dribbling ability, how do I know this dude wasn't at best a 6'9 DeAndre Jordan?
Him and Deandre Jordan are virtually the exact same height, Bill Russell 6-9 and 5/8ths without shoes, Deandre 6-9 and 3/4 without shoes... but holy shit did you just use that video in an effort to insult Bill Russell? That's some of the sickest most athletic defensive plays you'll ever see... and your using it in an effort to insult the guys athleticism? Fill in the blank... On a scale of 1-10 your level of delusion is a _____ ? :oldlol:

[jlip]

Bill Russell was literally a below the rim player. Most of his blocks from what I've seen were on pedestrian guards who were releasing the ball below the effing net. He'd get dunked on without mercy if he tried to contest shots with that lacking vertical today.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICT8PB5YZV8

It's truly pathetic how overrated this dude was. And on a sidenote, peep the dribbling ability, how do I know this dude wasn't at best a 6'9 DeAndre Jordan?

:roll: :roll: :roll:
Just stop. You are embarrassing yourself. Russell lacked "vertical ability?":roll: :roll:

Bill Russell was a high jumper in college who was invited to the Olympics. He was so good that he set meet records and "experts" were wondering if he could actually set the world record.
Link 1 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=N9FFAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cb0MAAAAIBAJ&pg=1576,5296455&dq=bill+russell+high+jump&hl=en)
Link 2 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=RnFQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8Q8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=7099,4599237&dq=bill+russell+high+jump&hl=en)

He also blocked prime Wilt Chamberlain's shot above the rim in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlNz0riiPWg&noredirect=1). So basically absolutely nothing you said in this post was true.

[fpliii]

:roll: :roll: :roll:
Just stop. You are embarrassing yourself. Russell lacked "vertical ability.":roll: :roll:

Bill Russell was a high jumper in college who was invited to the Olympics. He was so good that he set meet records and "experts" were wondering if he could actually set the world record.
Link 1 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=N9FFAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cb0MAAAAIBAJ&pg=1576,5296455&dq=bill+russell+high+jump&hl=en)
Link 2 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=RnFQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8Q8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=7099,4599237&dq=bill+russell+high+jump&hl=en)

He also blocked prime Wilt Chamberlain's shot above the rim in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlNz0riiPWg&noredirect=1). So basically absolutely nothing you said in this post was true.
This is without the Fosbory Flop as well, which adds ~7-10cm to the jump over the straddle approach from some quick searches, and without any training whatsoever.

[fpliii]

Actually, this isn't a very good source, but it seems Fosbury himself improved by 16cm with the new technique:

http://moti-athletics-hj-m.blogspot.com/2012/02/fosbury.html

Damn.

[Rocketswin2013]

:roll: :roll: :roll:
Just stop. You are embarrassing yourself. Russell lacked "vertical ability.":roll: :roll:

Bill Russell was a high jumper in college who was invited to the Olympics. He was so good that he set meet records and "experts" were wondering if he could actually set the world record.
Link 1 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=N9FFAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cb0MAAAAIBAJ&pg=1576,5296455&dq=bill+russell+high+jump&hl=en)
Link 2 (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=RnFQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8Q8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=7099,4599237&dq=bill+russell+high+jump&hl=en)

He also blocked prime Wilt Chamberlain's shot above the rim in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlNz0riiPWg&noredirect=1). So basically absolutely nothing you said in this post was true.
I'm not reading through that. Tell me where they said it.

And:………………………………LOL.......
That was the greatest block of his career.

Let's CLAP for Bill Russell. :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:
What top ten in blocks player this season is not making this play? Seriously. That's you guys problem, you fail to see Russell was ONLY good at defense, nothing he did makes me say"Wow, nobody else could make that play, he's GOAT" NOTHING he did on defense would make up for how terrible he was on offense, at least enough to say he was a top 100 player. And DEFINITELY not GOAT.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Another weightless comment.
:applause:
Dispute what I said.

Why? You're getting "exposed" time and time again in this thread, and what some are saying is just the tip of the iceberg, yet you keep posting ignorant shit, just hating and making yourself look like a fool. Why should I enter a discussion with you? You're just some ignorant child who knows nothing about the game of basketball itself or its history, and you just gonna "ignore" anything (even clear facts, "exposing" the shit out of you) while posting dumb stuff.

Go on with the program :lol :facepalm

[fpliii]

Why? You're getting "exposed" time and time again in this thread, and what some are saying is just the tip of the iceberg, yet you keep posting ignorant shit, just hating and making yourself look like a fool. Why should I enter a discussion with you? You're just some ignorant child who knows nothing about the game of basketball itself or its history, and you just gonna "ignore" anything (even clear facts, "exposing" the shit out of you) while posting dumb stuff.

Go on with the program :lol :facepalm
Damn you're going in on him lol.

[jlip]

Why? You're getting "exposed" time and time again in this thread, and what some are saying is just the tip of the iceberg, yet you keep posting ignorant shit, just hating and making yourself look like a fool. Why should I enter a discussion with you? You're just some ignorant child who knows nothing about the game of basketball itself or its history, and you just gonna "ignore" anything (even clear facts, "exposing" the shit out of you) while posting dumb stuff.

Go on with the program :lol :facepalm

What he's doing is beyond embarrassing. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for him.

[DonDadda59]

Let's be real here- no GM is going to pick a 6'9" Center with limited offensive skills over an ultra talented, explosive 2 way guard in this era. No way in hell.

Only way picking Russell over Jordan makes sense is if your team is stacked with offensive talent from the 1-4 and you just need a defensive/rebounding anchor (ie: Miami). It'd be more or less the same thing as drafting a prime Dennis Rodman over Jordan. Makes absolutely no sense

[LAZERUSS]

For an inept offensive player Russell did all right. Seasons of 18-19 ppg. Post-seasons of 22 ppg. Finals of 23 and 24 ppg. And a Finals of 18 ppg, 25 rpg, and on a .702 FG% (yes a .702 FG%, all while scoring 18 ppg.) Go ahead and look up Ewing's and the Admiral's performances in their Finals.


Furthermore, if a 6-7 Ben Wallace (yes, he was only 6-7) could win 4 DPOYs and 2 RPG titles, why wouldn't a near 6-10, 7-4 wingspan, world class leaper like Russell be dominant in today's NBA?

[CavaliersFTW]

Let's be real here- no GM is going to pick a 6'9" Center with limited offensive skills over an ultra talented, explosive 2 way guard in this era. No way in hell.

Only way picking Russell over Jordan makes sense is if your team is stacked with offensive talent from the 1-4 and you just need a defensive/rebounding anchor (ie: Miami). It'd be more or less the same thing as drafting a prime Dennis Rodman over Jordan. Makes absolutely no sense
lol this is such hyperbole, and un-educated hyperbole at that. Russell is 6-9 and 5/8ths without shoes (good for a 6-11 minimum modern list height) with a fantastic 7-4 inch wingspan and even greater relative standing reach and hand size for his height compared with typical players his size. He also was one of the most athletic players on the planet when he was young, and still would be today. World class high jumper, repeat, world class high jumper and ran the 440 in under 49 seconds. He could look down the rim when he was in his early 20's. Something even MJ could never do. He conditioned himself with drills to touch glass 20 times in a row in quick successive jumps, think it's easy, try it some time.

Show us Rodman doing this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2AlFrOj5Mc

Also, what's this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnjC0nm2q5U
A monstrous 26pt 27reb 20blk 3stl 1a double-triple double in his 2nd NCAA championship in a row after 55 straight wins?... yeah a GM is going to mistake this guy for nothing more than prime Dennis Rodman :biggums: :oldlol:

[CavaliersFTW]

For an inept offensive player Russell did all right. Seasons of 18-19 ppg. Post-seasons of 22 ppg. Finals of 23 and 24 ppg. And a Finals of 18 ppg, 25 rpg, and on a .702 FG% (yes a .702 FG%, all while scoring 18 ppg.) Go ahead and look up Ewing's and the Admiral's performances in their Finals.


Furthermore, if a 6-7 Ben Wallace (yes, he was only 6-7) could win 4 DPOYs and 2 RPG titles, why wouldn't a near 6-10, 7-4 wingspan, world class leaper like Russell be dominant in today's NBA?
b-b-but I thought Ben Wallace and Bill Russell were both the same height? after all list info must indicate their real size right? Wasn't Bill Rusell "T-mac's size" as others have tried to claim?

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-dpMmXPjkiFo/Um3cP0DUTpI/AAAAAAAAExQ/U09aaZg_7mU/s800/Bill%2520and%2520Ben%25201.jpg

:oldlol:

[DonDadda59]

Russell was the most overrated player in NBA history.

I don't know about all that, but he definitely gets an inordinate amount of credit for the Celtics 11 rings. He was the defensive anchor and rebounding leader, but he spent the vast majority of his career as their 3rd-5th best scorer (7th @ 9.9 PPG his final year/ring). For some reason, his ATG teammates have been completely forgotten and swept under the rug.

Sam Jones (5X all star, top 5 scorer in his prime) has 10 rings. John Havlicek (13X all star, 11X all NBA, 8X All NBA defense, 13th all time in scoring) has 8 rings, Tom Heinsohn (22/11 player at his peak, 6X all star, 4X All NBA), Bob Cousy (Won MVP, probably would've won finals MVP in Russell's first year/ring, 13X all star, 12X all NBA, 8 assist titles) has 6 rings.

Why are those guys never mentioned when people call Russell the greatest winner ever? Not saying he doesn't deserve the title, but the man played on teams so stacked they would LeBron James blush.

Russell won his last 2 rings putting up 11.2 PPG on 43% shooting and 18.9 RPG on teams that had a pace of 117-121. Dennis Rodman won his last 2 rings putting up 5 PPG on 44% shooting and 16 RPG on teams that were in the 89-90 pace range. And that was in an era, unlike Russell's, when you had to win more than just 2 playoff series to win the championship.

[LAZERUSS]

Russell in his LAST season in the league, and in his second-to-last playoff series...against Willis Reed, who would win the MVP the very next season...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1969_EDF.html#BOS-NYK

And games of 21 and 25 points...

[fpliii]

I don't know about all that, but he definitely gets an inordinate amount of credit for the Celtics 11 rings. He was the defensive anchor and rebounding leader, but he spent the vast majority of his career as their 3rd-5th best scorer (7th @ 9.9 PPG his final year/ring). For some reason, his ATG teammates have been completely forgotten and swept under the rug.

Sam Jones (5X all star, top 5 scorer in his prime) has 10 rings. John Havlicek (13X all star, 11X all NBA, 8X All NBA defense, 13th all time in scoring) has 8 rings, Tom Heinsohn (22/11 player at his peak, 6X all star, 4X All NBA), Bob Cousy (Won MVP, probably would've won finals MVP in Russell's first year/ring, 13X all star, 12X all NBA, 8 assist titles) has 6 rings.

Why are those guys never mentioned when people call Russell the greatest winner ever? Not saying he doesn't deserve the title, but the man played on teams so stacked they would LeBron James blush.

Russell won his last 2 rings putting up 11.2 PPG on 43% shooting and 18.9 RPG on teams that had a pace of 117-121. Dennis Rodman won his last 2 rings putting up 5 PPG on 44% shooting and 16 RPG on teams that were in the 89-90 pace range. And that was in an era, unlike Russell's, when you had to win more than just 2 playoff series to win the championship.
Call them stacked if you want to, the offenses were mediocre to poor:


Here are the ORtg/DRtg numbers relative to league averages:


Team O D pO pD
57 BOS -0% 6% -0% 6%
58 BOS -1% 6% -2% 8%
59 BOS 0% 6% -1% 10%
60 BOS 2% 6% -2% 10%
61 BOS -3% 8% 2% 10%
62 BOS -0% 9% -3% 9%
63 BOS -2% 9% -4% 8%
64 BOS -4% 12% -4% 15%
65 BOS -3% 11% -4% 11%
66 BOS -3% 8% 3% 5%
67 BOS 2% 5% -7% 9%
68 BOS -1% 5% 2% 4%
69 BOS -2% 7% 4% 6%

First two are regular season, final two are playoffs. Higher positive number is better.

The offenses were mediocre at best, and other than Russ, who was a great defender on those teams?

[Rocketswin2013]

I don't know about all that, but he definitely gets an inordinate amount of credit for the Celtics 11 rings. He was the defensive anchor and rebounding leader, but he spent the vast majority of his career as their 3rd-5th best scorer (7th @ 9.9 PPG his final year/ring). For some reason, his ATG teammates have been completely forgotten and swept under the rug.

Sam Jones (5X all star, top 5 scorer in his prime) has 10 rings. John Havlicek (13X all star, 11X all NBA, 8X All NBA defense, 13th all time in scoring) has 8 rings, Tom Heinsohn (22/11 player at his peak, 6X all star, 4X All NBA), Bob Cousy (Won MVP, probably would've won finals MVP in Russell's first year/ring, 13X all star, 12X all NBA, 8 assist titles) has 6 rings.

Why are those guys never mentioned when people call Russell the greatest winner ever? Not saying he doesn't deserve the title, but the man played on teams so stacked they would LeBron James blush.

Russell won his last 2 rings putting up 11.2 PPG on 43% shooting and 18.9 RPG on teams that had a pace of 117-121. Dennis Rodman won his last 2 rings putting up 5 PPG on 44% shooting and 16 RPG on teams that were in the 89-90 pace range. And that was in an era, unlike Russell's, when you had to win more than just 2 playoff series to win the championship.
So, yeah to say he is even top ten all-time makes him the most overrated player in NBA history. Period.

[CavaliersFTW]

Ok, who's calling Ben Wallace a top ten player all-time? That's where you clusterfcks lose the logical train of thinking.
You called Bill Russell 6-9, that's him standing next to a 6-9 player. That's where your cluster**** brain loses it's logical train of thinking. :cheers:

[DonDadda59]

For an inept offensive player Russell did all right. Seasons of 18-19 ppg. Post-seasons of 22 ppg. Finals of 23 and 24 ppg. And a Finals of 18 ppg, 25 rpg, and on a .702 FG% (yes a .702 FG%, all while scoring 18 ppg.) Go ahead and look up Ewing's and the Admiral's performances in their Finals.

Yeah, that's great and all but you forget (or never knew) the Celtics played at an unreal pace of 115-125, usually near or at the top of the league. 15 PPG for his career under those circumstances, shooting 44% (for comparison sake, Chamberlain shot at 54% and 68% during the mid 60s) isn't all that impressive. He was always in the 3-5 spot on the team in terms of scoring, was 2nd once, and during his last championship was 7th putting up 9.9 PPG (9.1 on 39.7% in the finals). Luckily for him, he had some great scorers on the team picking up that burden.



Furthermore, if a 6-7 Ben Wallace (yes, he was only 6-7) could win 4 DPOYs and 2 RPG titles, why wouldn't a near 6-10, 7-4 wingspan, world class leaper like Russell be dominant in today's NBA?

Yes, exactly. Russell would be a player in the mold of a Rodman/Wallace. Those guys pulled down crazy amounts of rebounds and played awesome defense on teams that had great offensive (and defensive) options. They were also winners who have championships to their name, in Rodman's case- 5.

But be honest- would you draft Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman over Michael Jordan... in this era where perimeter players are allowed to run free? Unless you have a team built like the Pistons or Heat that have a lot of scoring options from 1-4, no way.


Call them stacked if you want to, the offenses were mediocre to poor:

And Russell was the 3rd-5th, sometimes 7th option. So if their offenses were mediocre... what does that say about Bill offensively?

Do you think their ranking would be lower with say Wilt on the team? Would Wilt be the 5th option?


The offenses were mediocre at best, and other than Russ, who was a great defender on those teams?

Do you even know who John Havlicek was? :lol

And other guys made all D teams on the Celtics during their championship runs.

[CavaliersFTW]

Yeah, that's great and all but you forget (or never knew) the Celtics played at an unreal pace of 115-125, usually near or at the top of the league. 15 PPG for his career under those circumstances, shooting 44% (for comparison sake, Chamberlain shot at 54% and 68% during the mid 60s) isn't all that impressive. He was always in the 3-5 spot on the team in terms of scoring, was 2nd once, and during his last championship was 7th putting up 9.9 PPG (9.1 on 39.7% in the finals). Luckily for him, he had some great scorers on the team picking up that burden.




Yes, exactly. Russell would be a player in the mold of a Rodman/Wallace. Those guys pulled down crazy amounts of rebounds and played awesome defense on teams that had great offensive (and defensive) options. They were also winners who have championships to their name, in Rodman's case- 5.

But be honest- would you draft Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman over Michael Jordan... in this era where perimeter players are allowed to run free? Unless you have a team built like the Pistons or Heat that have a lot of scoring options from 1-4, no way.
Nobody is making the delusional connection that Rodman and Wallace are like Bill Russell except you, they aren't the same players nor do they have remotely the same sort of impact. Russell's impact is GOAT caliber, theirs isn't even close.

[fpliii]

And Russell was the 3rd-5th, sometimes 7th option. So if their offenses were mediocre... what does that say about Bill offensively?

Do you think their ranking would be lower with say Wilt on the team? Would Wilt be the 5th option?



Do you even know who John Havlicek was? :lol

And other guys made all D teams on the Celtics during their championship runs.
1) That he wasn't part of the offense, positive or negative. Burden goes on the offensive anchor (point guard, generally).

2) Wilt's defenses were great when he tried on that end, but not on the same level consistently:


Team O D pO pD
60 PHW -2% 5% -0% 12%
61 PHW -1% 2% -9% 8%
62 PHW 2% 1% 0% 5%
63 SFW 1% -3% -- --
64 SFW -2% 7% 1% 4%
65 SFW -3% -2% -- --
65 PHI 1% -1% 10% -3%
66 PHI 1% 4% 0% -4%
67 PHI 7% 2% 2% 9%
68 PHI 2% 6% 1% 3%
69 LAL 4% 0% -1% 6%
70 LAL -0% 2% 3% 3%
71 LAL 3% -0% -1% 5%
72 LAL 8% 3% 1% 9%
73 LAL 4% 4% 2% 6%

3) Right...and the results do not change defensively at all as Havlicek was drafted, and brought into the system. However, when Russell comes and goes, there's a clear arc with a rise, plateau, and fall.

4) All defensive teams weren't around until 68-69, so how is that possible "during their championship runs"?

[DonDadda59]

Nobody is making the delusional connection that Rodman and Wallace are like Bill Russell except you, they aren't the same players nor do they have remotely the same sort of impact. Russell's impact is GOAT caliber, theirs isn't even close.

How do you figure exactly? Neither guy played with teams as talented as the 60s Celtics, even having played for the Bad Boys/Jordan's Bulls, but Rodman still retired with 5 rings in an era with more than a handful of teams where you couldn't win the ring after just the second round of the playoffs.

The thing that Bill Russell did best- rebounding, Dennis Rodman did better. 24.7 RPG playing on a 125 pace team is not as impressive as 18.7 RPG on a pace of 91.6. Same with their scoring- 15 PPG (44%) on those paces isn't much more impressive, if at all, than the numbers Rodman was putting up. Wilt put up 50 PPG playing on teams playing similar paces as the Cs...

[CavaliersFTW]

How do you figure exactly?...
11 rings, 8peat, 2NBA titles as a player-coach, 2 NCAA titles with a 55 game win streak while being the leading scorer of the team and 1 Gold Medal while being the leading scorer and 5 MVP's make it quite obvious. Russell also holds an NBA Finals record for field goal percentage, not MJ, not Shaq, not Wilt, not even Jabbar hold that record. Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman combined are not worthy enough to sniff the jock strap of Bill Russell. Please take it easy on the consumption of ether, I fear you'll become an addict.

[fpliii]

Anyhow I really should stop posting in this thread. I have my opinion, and I respect other informed opinions as well. If people have all the information laid out in front of them (provided it is complete and accurate), they can make their own decisions.

[DonDadda59]

1) That he wasn't part of the offense, positive or negative. Burden goes on the offensive anchor (point guard, generally).

Someone here earlier was trying to convince me Russell was the most important offensive player for the Cs. I think he led them in APG after Cousy, which means they were running offense through him even if he was the primary scorer. So the burden was on him, but seems like his limited abilities on that end hurt their efficiency.

I doubt Wilt or even Pettit have a negative effect on that talented of a roster.


3) Right...and the results do not change defensively at all as Havlicek was drafted, and brought into the system. However, when Russell comes and goes, there's a clear arc with a rise, plateau, and fall.

Havlicek won a championship, finals MVP, and 5 all NBA D 1st teams after Russell retired. The man was the prototype for the 2 way perimeter threat. Let's not make believe Russell didn't have help on D.


All defensive teams weren't around until 68-69, so how is that possible "during their championship runs"?

My mistake, I knew that. Doesn't really change the fact that there were good-great defensive players on those squads. It wasn't just Russell blocking shots.

[Rocketswin2013]

Nobody is making the delusional connection that Rodman and Wallace are like Bill Russell except you, they aren't the same players nor do they have remotely the same sort of impact. Russell's impact is GOAT caliber, theirs isn't even close.
At a certain point, you have to want to believe that more than you actually do believe it. Just delusional.

[fpliii]

Someone here earlier was trying to convince me Russell was the most important offensive player for the Cs. I think he led them in APG after Cousy, which means they were running offense through him even if he was the primary scorer. So the burden was on him, but seems like his limited abilities on that end hurt their efficiency.

I doubt Wilt or even Pettit have a negative effect on that talented of a roster.



Havlicek won a championship, finals MVP, and 5 all NBA D 1st teams after Russell retired. The man was the prototype for the 2 way perimeter threat. Let's not make believe Russell didn't have help on D.



My mistake, I knew that. Doesn't really change the fact that there were good-great defensive players on those squads. It wasn't just Russell blocking shots.
1) Ah, probably not accurate. I think their bad offenses were by design partially (the goal was to take a lot of bad shots, force their opponents to make decisions. They were able to do this because of their pressure defense and Russ shutting taking the layup/dunk out of the game.

2) My question is, again, why are there no major changes to the team defensive results as other non-Russell players came and left? Havlicek was perhaps their second most important defensive player, but he didn't have a noticeable impact on the defensive trends. To be fair to Hondo, no perimeter players really have either.

[CavaliersFTW]

At a certain point, you have to want to believe that more than you actually do believe it. Just delusional.
Me and Phil Jackson both

[LAZERUSS]

Anyhow I really should stop posting in this thread. I have my opinion, and I respect other informed opinions as well. If people have all the information laid out in front of them (provided it is complete and accurate), they can make their own decisions.

This.

All anyone can do is put forth the information, and for those that have not already cemented their opinions. No amount of research, or video footage, or comments from peers, will change the opinions of those that have already decided that their opinions are right.

[DonDadda59]

11 rings, 8peat, 2NBA titles as a player-coach,

Tom Heinsohn has 8 rings as a player and won 2 rings as a coach as well (won coach of the year after leading Cs to 68-14 record). He won rookie of the year over Russell (teammate Cousy won MVP that same year). So I take it he would be drafted over Jordan today as well? :confusedshrug:

[CavaliersFTW]

Tom Heinsohn has 8 rings as a player and won 2 rings as a coach as well (won coach of the year after leading Cs to 68-14 record). He won rookie of the year over Russell (teammate Cousy won MVP that same year). So I take it he would be drafted over Jordan today as well? :confusedshrug:
And Tom Heinson and Cousy both would tell you themselves, it's because they piggy backed Bill Russell durr hurr :hammerhead:

[LAZERUSS]

BTW, I am not claiming that a GM should take Russell over MJ, had this been a real life scenario. But, it's not like MJ should have been a stone-cold lock, either. It's one thing to say MJ was a truly great player... it is quite another to claim that Russell was trash.

[jlip]

People do understand that Russell's defense was the key to the Celtics fast break, Right? When Russell got injured in the 1958 Finals and had to miss games, this is what Cousy had to say about his impact on their offense,


[I]

[tpols]

Tom Heinsohn has 8 rings as a player and won 2 rings as a coach as well (won coach of the year after leading Cs to 68-14 record). He won rookie of the year over Russell (teammate Cousy won MVP that same year). So I take it he would be drafted over Jordan today as well? :confusedshrug:

the robert horry argument eh?

You can do better.

[DonDadda59]

And Tom Heinson and Cousy both would tell you themselves, it's because they piggy backed Bill Russell durr hurr :hammerhead:

How does the MVP of the league 'piggy back' off a guy who lost rookie of the year to his teammate? :lol

And I was just using your 'logic' against you. Pretty much the comeback I expected :applause:



the robert horry argument eh?

You can do better.

See above. I wasn't the one using the 'Horry' argument. And for the record, Heinsohn was a 6X all star, beat out his teammate Russell for ROY and at his peak was a 22/11 player and the C's leading scorer. Not exactly a role player like Big Shot.

[CavaliersFTW]

BTW, I am not claiming that a GM should take Russell over MJ, had this been a real life scenario. But, it's not like he should be a stone-cold lock, either. It's one thing to say MJ was a truly great player... it is quite another to claim that Russell was trash.
^- yup. MJ and Russell are on a comparable level. To say Russell isn't comparable to MJ, Kareem, Wilt, and other GOAT candidates is pretty much a conscious effort at ignoring the actual history of basketball. You want to pick MJ? Great, there are reasons to pick MJ over Russell, you might simply prefer a flashier backcourt player that can score more points and put more fans in the seats. But nobody in the history of the sport could win or play defense like Bill Russell and few could rebound like him.

[CavaliersFTW]

How does the MVP of the league 'piggy back' off a guy who lost rookie of the year to his teammate? :lol

1950s Racism. Red Aurbach knew who the best player on the team was that year. He knew better than the mostly racist white fans and media of the 50's. Russell from day 1 was the most impactful player on the Celtics till the day he retired.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Ok, who's calling Ben Wallace a top ten player all-time? That's where you clusterfcks lose the logical train of thinking.

:facepalm

Russell has more than 2'' on Wallace, bigger wingspan, much higher IQ, better athlete, even more impactful on defense, better fundamentals, much more refined/better offensive game, miles ahead as a passer, superior scoring skills and more ways to score. Wallace managed to win 4 DPOY's, made all-nba 2nd teams, was top10 in MVP voting 3 times, champion too, now imagine Russell.. He'd be racking up all them DPOYs, making all-nba 1st (especially in this center-less league), winning MVPs, with a good team also getting rings and FMVPs. Even a player like Noah is getting MVP buzz, playing great while leading a not-so good team, and he's a really good all-around center but not even that close to Russell.
Facts are all there on Russell, and go watch him play, clear to see. Only ignorant, hating-ass children will underrate a player like that, others just :bowdown:

[SHAQisGOAT]

Not saying I would pick him over MJ, again, depends on the team also, but regarding Bill Russell:

> He's the NBA player with most rings, won 11 of them in his 13-year career, also won in college and at the Olympics;

> Celtics didn't win before him and they didn't win immediately after he left;

> He was winning MVPs, not his teammates.. Walked away with 5 of them;

> They were almost always the best defense in the league with him there, not before and not after, while having one of the "worst" offenses in the league.. They won mostly because of defense, and he was the main reason for that defense;

> His teammates, and many others, always give him the ultimate praise, saying he was the main responsible for the Celtics' success;

> There are countless stories of him working with teammates, trying to maximize their games, saying for them to work on their strengths while he would take care of their weaknesses.. That's why a player like Don Nelson really blossomed there, for example;

> He even won as player coach in his last 2 years.. Even in his 30s after many years of basketball - without modern "luxuries - he was impactful as hell, as a player, still;

> At 6'10 w/shoes with a 7'4 wingspan, he was just a phenomenal athlete, even excelling in other sports;

> He was a defensive juggernaut, fundamentals mixed with terrific athleticism and unreal IQ, just scary, the GOAT defensive player;

> Despite what some people say - for the **** of it - he was pretty skilled offensively, very versatile, could play various roles, one of the best bigmen passers, nice hook-shot, could take players off the dribble, and finished pretty well on the inside..
At his best he was top20 in scoring and considerably above league average in FG%, even amongst the top5, as far as that, in his 1st 4 seasons..
Finished top10 in assists 4 times..
In the 1965 Finals, for example, he scored 18 ppg on over 70% from the field..
He was also really clutch, I remember even reading here, a while ago, about his FT's in clutch situations, he was never what you call a good FT shooter but he made most of them when "it counted";

> He's simply one of the GOAT rebounders, check his estimated TRB%, even against a center like Wilt.. Had the upmost tenacity, hustled all-out and all the rebounding skills;

> He's one of the greatest competitors the game has ever seen, plus he was very smart and had lots of "basketball tricks", go read some of the stuff he said about some those "little tricks" on the court, you'd be amazed;

......

How the **** you gonna go against all of that? :wtf:
Go watch that man play (mostly on CavsFTW/Wilt Chamberlain Archive channel), read some articles, reports, quotes, and so on, go deep into the numbers, understand how great he was... That's all clear as day, if you know at least something about the game.
Stop underrating (better yet just hating-on) that man off of pure ignorance, stop saying dumb shit for the **** of it :facepalm

[CavaliersFTW]

Russell, pace considered would be putting up Joakim Noah stats in today's game. With probably less rebounds.
factually incorrect, what a stupid assumption to make

[jlip]

Tom Heinsohn has 8 rings as a player and won 2 rings as a coach as well (won coach of the year after leading Cs to 68-14 record). He won rookie of the year over Russell (teammate Cousy won MVP that same year). So I take it he would be drafted over Jordan today as well? :confusedshrug:

Heinsohn did not win rings as a player-coach. He won rings while playing with Russell as a player, and completely separate rings as a coach a decade after he retired as player. Russell was the starting center of the team he was playing and coached to two championships.

Also Heinsohn didn't particularly win ROY "over Russell". Russell missed the first month and a half of his rookie season so that he could maintain his amateur status allowing him to participate in the Olympics. Therefore he wasn't there for the entire season. Also it was widely reported that racism factored into Russell not winning the ROY.

Even with Cousy winning the MVP, trust me if you read the comments of the opposing players and coaches during the 1957 playoffs (Russell's rookie season), everyone feared Russell, not Heinsohn or Cousy. Coach Red Auerbach, blatantly told Russell at the end of his rookie season, "You are the best player in basketball."

[CavaliersFTW]

1. Russell played in the weakest competition era in the history of this league. Let that indisputable fact go through your ****ing head.

2. Dwight Howard for instance at his peak, at his the VERY least could have imposed his defensive will on the non-athletic scrubs Russell played against nightly like Russell did. Russell is literally only a faster straight line runner than Dwight. Lateral movement, length, strength, leaping ability it ISN'T EVEN CLOSE. So keep that in mind when talking about an even better defender than Dwight in Wallace.

Russell is a ****ing scrub for instance, on the 86' Celtics. He's simply overrated. He's not better than any of their rotational frontcourt players.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

this kid just compared Dwight Howard with centers from the golden age of big men

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/stephen-a-smith-laugh.gif

[Rocketswin2013]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

this kid just compared Dwight Howard with centers from the golden age of big men

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/stephen-a-smith-laugh.gif
It was no golden age. There were just a few guys who were ahead of their time from an athleticism standpoint, and padded stats and awards in a feeble LEAGUE, full of non-athletic scrub players who were intimidated by it. Put any top 5 current NBA center in that era and they crush it.

[CavaliersFTW]

It was no golden age. There were just a few guys who were ahead of their time from an athleticism standpoint, and padded stats and awards in a feeble LEAGUE, full of non-athletic scrub players who were intimidated by it. Put any top 5 current NBA center in that era and they crush it.
http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/stephen-a-smith-laugh.gifhttp://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/stephen-a-smith-laugh.gif
http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/stephen-a-smith-laugh.gifhttp://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/stephen-a-smith-laugh.gif

[Dr.J4ever]

Some of the opinions being posted here on this thread are downright embarrassing. Some aren't really worth an answer. A poster mentioned about Russell being a "below the rim" player. First of all, as pointed out here, it is not true. Second of all, as attested by Moses Malone himself, most rebounds are gathered below the rim. Proof --how bout Kevin Love.

Russell was far from being a "below the rim" player, but there is nothing at all wrong with being a "below the rim" player. After all, how many players were more dominant in the paint than the "below the rim" Moses?

[SHAQisGOAT]

Some of the opinions being posted here on this thread are downright embarrassing. Some aren't really worth an answer. A poster mentioned about Russell being a "below the rim" player. First of all, as pointed out here, it is not true. Second of all, as attested by Moses Malone himself, most rebounds are gathered below the rim. Proof --how bout Kevin Love.

Russell was far from being a "below the rim" player, but there is nothing at all wrong with being a "below the rim" player. After all, how many players were more dominant in the paint than the "below the rim" Moses?

Russ definitely wasn't a below the rim player, shows some of these dudes don't know what the **** they're talking about.

Anyways..
"Most rebounds are taken below the rim. That's where I get mine." - Larry Bird

[SHAQisGOAT]

It was no golden age. There were just a few guys who were ahead of their time from an athleticism standpoint, and padded stats and awards in a feeble LEAGUE, full of non-athletic scrub players who were intimidated by it. Put any top 5 current NBA center in that era and they crush it.

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

Stop embarrassing yourself.

[Rocketswin2013]

Some of the opinions being posted here on this thread are downright embarrassing. Some aren't really worth an answer. A poster mentioned about Russell being a "below the rim" player. First of all, as pointed out here, it is not true. Second of all, as attested by Moses Malone himself, most rebounds are gathered below the rim. Proof --how bout Kevin Love.

Russell was far from being a "below the rim" player, but there is nothing at all wrong with being a "below the rim" player. After all, how many players were more dominant in the paint than the "below the rim" Moses?
Oh yeah, being a below the rim player is not necessarily bad, but there's no way he could be a "GOAT" defender. And if you look at his blocks and not assume someone is wrong because they don't sound right, they were almost all below the rim, more than half below the net.


The era was feeble, dominance came easy for circa-2000 level athletes. There are much better rotational NBA players now.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Oh yeah, being a below the rim player is not necessarily bad, but there's no way he could be a "GOAT" defender. And if you look at his blocks and not assume someone is wrong because they don't sound right, they were almost all below the rim, more than half below the net.


The era was feeble, dominance came easy for circa-2000 level athletes. There are much better rotational NBA players now.

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

And yet he keeps on embarrassing himself.

[Dr.J4ever]

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

And yet he keeps on embarrassing himself.
:lol :roll:

[SamuraiSWISH]

How many HOFers did MJ play with?

How many HOFers did Russell play with?

Seems like MJ did more with less now doesn't it ...

MJ needed his sidekick Pippen, and for a period of time his rebound king Rodman. No doubt. But damn, look at the supporting cast Russell needed to do his winning. Significantly more help.

[Rocketswin2013]

Bill Russell was a below the rim player compared to players now. And different players from other eras.

[fpliii]

Bill Russell was a below the rim player compared to players now. And different players from other eras.
Won't be true no matter how many times you say it. :D

[fpliii]

How many HOFers did MJ play with?

How many HOFers did Russell play with?

Seems like MJ did more with less now doesn't it ...

MJ needed his sidekick Pippen, and for a period of time his rebound king Rodman. No doubt. But damn, look at the supporting cast Russell needed to do his winning. Significantly more help.
I respect your opinion Swish, but those were bad offensive teams (I posted the numbers a page or two ago). If you want to give some credit to defensive players (KC Jones, Sanders, Hondo, though the team defenses didn't get markedly better/worse except when Russ entered and left the lineups). Your argument is legitimate, but a lot of those guys shouldn't be HOFers. Realistically, probably only Cousy (for his work in the 50s, pre-shotclock too), Hondo (had big moments, great on the 68, 69 teams, and won two more titles), and Sam Jones (though he was perhaps only the fourth best guard of the decade, after Robertson, West, and Greer) should be in there with Russ.

[DonDadda59]

How many HOFers did MJ play with?

How many HOFers did Russell play with?

Seems like MJ did more with less now doesn't it ...

MJ needed his sidekick Pippen, and for a period of time his rebound king Rodman. No doubt. But damn, look at the supporting cast Russell needed to do his winning. Significantly more help.

Exactly why no one in their right mind would draft a 6'9" C w/ limited offensive skills over a 30/6/5 two way threat in the perimeter-oriented era. Only way it makes sense is if he's taken by an already offensively stacked lineup that needs a defensive anchor. Otherwise the GM who makes that pick will look like an absolute fool for taking a guy who would be putting up like 8-9 PPG (low 40s FG%) and 14-15 RPG (AKA 03-04ish Ben Wallace) over a guy who would be putting up Kevin Durant #s his rookie year.

EDIT- Peak Russell's production would translate to something roughly similar to 7'2" Mutombo during his DPOY '01 season. Probably noticeably lower offensive efficiency and maybe better passing #s. Same season Dike was sexually assaulted by Shaq to the tune of 33 PPG (57% FG)/ 16 RPG/ 5 APG/ 3 BPG.