Bill Russell is GOAT based on ISH logic

[Skyscraper]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/325822-bill-russell-is-better-than-michael-jordan

kind of old, but this is the exact same logic that ISH uses for the Lebron Kobe Jordan Duncan pissing contest.



Respect Uncle Drew's uncle

[riseagainst]

the author is retarded as fck.

[CavaliersFTW]

Bill Russell has as strong a case of being "the" GOAT as any other player. Yes, if you play the champion/ring/success angle, it's definitely him and there's no arguing against it unless you admit to everyone that you feel championships and team success aren't all able to be boiled down to the success of one individual. If you play the individual dominance and NBA records angle it's Wilt. If you play the all-around success angle it could be Kareem or Jordan, or possibly Magic. If you play the best all-around abilities angle it could be Jordan, or Oscar or a multitude of others. There are also other players with their own unique attributes that one could argue makes them the "best" like being revolutionary in some form or another. Everyone's criteria is different. GOAT is a highly subjective opinion based discussion.

[HurricaneKid]

Bill Russell has as strong a case of being "the" GOAT as any other player. Yes, if you play the champion/ring/success angle, it's definitely him and there's no arguing against it unless you admit to everyone that you feel championships and team success aren't all able to be boiled down to the success of one individual. If you play the individual dominance and NBA records angle it's Wilt. If you play the all-around success angle it could be Kareem or Jordan, or possibly Magic. If you play the best all-around abilities angle it could be Jordan, or Oscar or a multitude of others. There are also other players with their own unique attributes that one could argue makes them the "best" like being revolutionary in some form or another. Everyone's criteria is different. GOAT is a highly subjective opinion based discussion.

We've bumped heads on this before. Every other player in the top 50 has been an elite offensive player. Russell was often the #3, even #4 offensive option on his team. No one in the top 20 was ever the #3/4 option at their peak. Why do we give Russell such a long leash on this?

Usually I am the one to prop up players because of their defense. But to jump a mediocre offensive player to the greatest of all time... No.

[Dragic4Life]

MJ
Russell
Magic
Bird
Duncan


Top 5 right there.

[fpliii]

We've bumped heads on this before. Every other player in the top 50 has been an elite offensive player. Russell was often the #3, even #4 offensive option on his team. No one in the top 20 was ever the #3/4 option at their peak. Why do we give Russell such a long leash on this?

Usually I am the one to prop up players because of their defense. But to jump a mediocre offensive player to the greatest of all time... No.
Goes both ways, plenty of mediocre to poor defensive players in the top 20. Defense is half the game.

EDIT: Typo.

[Iceman#44]

We've bumped heads on this before. Every other player in the top 50 has been an elite offensive player. Russell was often the #3, even #4 offensive option on his team. No one in the top 20 was ever the #3/4 option at their peak. Why do we give Russell such a long leash on this?

Usually I am the one to prop up players because of their defense. But to jump a mediocre offensive player to the greatest of all time... No.
This

[Iceman#44]

Goes both ways, plenty of mediocre to poor offensive players in the top 20. Defense is half the game.
Sorry but i have neverseen a top 20 list with mediocre ooffensive players, other than Russell of course

[played0ut]

you should put into account ISH's logic is all over the ****ing place

[K Xerxes]

Bill Russell has as strong a case of being "the" GOAT as any other player. Yes, if you play the champion/ring/success angle, it's definitely him and there's no arguing against it unless you admit to everyone that you feel championships and team success aren't all able to be boiled down to the success of one individual. If you play the individual dominance and NBA records angle it's Wilt. If you play the all-around success angle it could be Kareem or Jordan, or possibly Magic. If you play the best all-around abilities angle it could be Jordan, or Oscar or a multitude of others. There are also other players with their own unique attributes that one could argue makes them the "best" like being revolutionary in some form or another. Everyone's criteria is different. GOAT is a highly subjective opinion based discussion.

If you use a combination of all the criteria above, it's Jordan, possibly Kareem. #1 and #2 on most people's lists it seems.

[fpliii]

Sorry but i have neverseen a top 20 list with mediocre ooffensive players, other than Russell of course
But does it have mediocre defensive players?

[CavaliersFTW]

We've bumped heads on this before. Every other player in the top 50 has been an elite offensive player. Russell was often the #3, even #4 offensive option on his team. No one in the top 20 was ever the #3/4 option at their peak. Why do we give Russell such a long leash on this?

Usually I am the one to prop up players because of their defense. But to jump a mediocre offensive player to the greatest of all time... No.
So you feel you must be great at scoring in order to be the greatest of all time, great, but that's just your opinion and as such you are reinforcing my point not clashing with it. GOAT discussions are all highly subjective, based on people's own personal criteria (IE their opinions). Others can have Russell as the GOAT. You should at least learn to respect other people's opinions, even if you disagree with them. I don't have a problem with people selecting a wide range of players as their "GOAT" so long as they make their criteria clear, and so long as no other player that they may have overlooked better suits their own criteria.

[K Xerxes]

Goes both ways, plenty of mediocre to poor offensive players in the top 20. Defense is half the game.

I think you mean to say 'plenty of mediocre to poor defensive players in the top 20.

[fpliii]

I think you mean to say 'plenty of mediocre to poor defensive players in the top 20.
Yeah, sorry about that. :D

[BoutPractice]

We've bumped heads on this before. Every other player in the top 50 has been an elite offensive player. Russell was often the #3, even #4 offensive option on his team. No one in the top 20 was ever the #3/4 option at their peak. Why do we give Russell such a long leash on this?

Usually I am the one to prop up players because of their defense. But to jump a mediocre offensive player to the greatest of all time... No.

Bill Russell was a five time MVP, so to call him a "third option" is misleading.

The fact that he won MVPs indicates that he belongs to the group of players who won MVPs, not the group of players who are third/fourth options.

When you say "third option", you're thinking of a James Worthy type. But Russell was seen as being in the "same class" as Wilt Chamberlain or Oscar Robertson back when he was playing...

[RoundMoundOfReb]

He's certainly debatable

[HurricaneKid]

So you feel you must be great at scoring in order to be the greatest of all time, great, but that's just your opinion and as such you are reinforcing my point not clashing with it. GOAT discussions are all highly subjective, based on people's own personal criteria (IE their opinions). Others can have Russell as the GOAT. You should at least learn to respect other people's opinions, even if you disagree with them. I don't have a problem with people selecting a wide range of players as their "GOAT" so long as they make their criteria clear, and so long as no other player that they may have overlooked better suits their own criteria.

I have tremendous respect for your opinion. I just happen to disagree with you.

I don't think I have ever even answered the question because I have no idea who it is. I argue against pretty much everyone.

I just find it weird that we acknowledge Russell as an all time great but we barely include great defensive prowess of Duncan/Robinson/even Ben Wallace when we look at all time rankings.

[played0ut]

We've bumped heads on this before. Every other player in the top 50 has been an elite offensive player. Russell was often the #3, even #4 offensive option on his team. No one in the top 20 was ever the #3/4 option at their peak. Why do we give Russell such a long leash on this?

Usually I am the one to prop up players because of their defense. But to jump a mediocre offensive player to the greatest of all time... No.

Because Russell's impact goes way far and beyond offensive output.

>Defensive anchor
>Smartest player on the floor
>Leadership (it's not just throwing the word around-- he set the work ethic and winning culture on the team. He demanded the best from himself and expected it from his teammates)
>Ruthlessly competitive and would do ANYTHING to win.

This offensive output thing? That's an ego thing. If Bill Russell had the same mentality as most players now about big numbers he'd just be a crappier Wilt.


Havlicek on Russell. Havlicek's not an old nostalgia head either-- he admitted Bird was better than himself right off the bat.



Havlicek, another pragmatist – he identified Larry Bird as being his superior right from the get-go – agrees. “No doubt,” said Havlicek. “He’d be just as good. Remember that, in addition to being physically gifted, he was always the smartest player on the floor.



Russell would play in 164 more playoff games, where he would perform some of his greatest feats. He averaged 16 points and 24 rebounds a game in the postseason, but all who saw him know that the numbers are largely irrelevant. Bill Russell influenced basketball games as no man ever has, before or since.

“If I had a choice of any basketball player in the league,” Lakers guard Jerry West would say after losing a fifth Finals series to Boston in 1968, “my No.1 choice has to be Bill Russell. Bill Russell never ceases to amaze me.”



On Russell being smart. How many of today's centers to you see doing this? Definitely not Dwight lol.



“Say it was a 3-on-1,” Havlicek said. “He could take away a whole side of the floor. He would know the tendencies of everyone involved, and depending on whether the man with the ball was right-handed or left-handed he could make him do what he didn’t want to do. He could take a sequence in which there was a 90 percent scoring chance and reduce it to 50 percent. He would essentially say, ‘I’m going to take away one-half of the floor. Go ahead and see if you can score from the other side.'”


On Wilt/Kareem being more individually skilled, but not 'better':


“His will to win made the difference,” said Bob Cousy, a teammate for the first six of Russell’s Celtics championships. “He did not have the all-around skills of guys like Wilt (Chamberlain) or Kareem (Abdul-Jabbar). But, with his intensity, he raised himself to a level above both of them.”



Anyway, there's more.

http://www.nba.com/encyclopedia/players/bill_russell.html

[played0ut]

The appropriate definition of Russell as a player would be this excerpt:


Bill Russell was approximately 6-9. He weighed 220 pounds. There are bigger people we would label as “small forwards,” or “3-men,” in today’s game. But there has never been anyone at his size who combined jumping ability, timing, lateral mobility, quick-jumping capability, speed, intelligence and, perhaps most of all, intensity at his position. Everything Bill Russell did was channeled toward one goal – winning the basketball game. That was it. Win the game, and then win the appropriate sequence of games in order to win the championship.

[K Xerxes]

I think Russell has a strong case for GOAT, and here's why.

If anyone can give me a reasonable argument as to why Russell needed an all time great offensive game, I will concede that he is not top 4. However, as I assume we all agree that the point of basketball is to win and not just collect individual achievements, I don't understand why some of you are knocking a guy who won nine championships in his first ten years (and he was injured the year they didn't win) for focusing on defense and rebounding, and ultimately leading his team to victory almost every damn year he played. Should he have changed his game - and therefore perhaps disrupt the team's success - for the sake of pleasing those that rank players by individual ability?

From a purely individual basis, he might not even crack the top 10. But this is a team game, and he personified that better than anyone else in history. He deserves to be ranked this highly.

[CavaliersFTW]

Bill Russell was a five time MVP, so to call him a "third option" is misleading.

The fact that he won MVPs indicates that he belongs to the group of players who won MVPs, not the group of players who are third/fourth options.

When you say "third option", you're thinking of a James Worthy type. But Russell was seen as being in the "same class" as Wilt Chamberlain or Oscar Robertson back when he was playing...
Well put. And he was a middle of the road scorer, but perhaps the greatest defensive player AND rebounder ever, and one of the best passing centers ever. His teammates and Aurbach have all said he could have scored 20 ore more points a game had he wanted too (he scored over 20ppg in the NCAA on greater than 50%) but the team he came to needed rebounding and defense so that's what he concentrated on entirely, he didn't demand touches to score points. Magic Johnson is another player I've seen argued as GOAT, his scoring was certainly not great either, and his defense was diminutive. I still don't see a problem arguing him as a GOAT if a persons criteria fits his profile. GOAT caliber players have clearly impacted the game in areas in such a massive way that criticizing any one facet that they weren't spectacular at seems silly and comes off as agenda based. If you're winning the lion share of available accolades like title's, MVP's, or any other accolades you're probably going to end up talked about as one of the best ever.

[G.O.A.T]

I just find it weird that we acknowledge Russell as an all time great but we barely include great defensive prowess of Duncan/Robinson/even Ben Wallace when we look at all time rankings.

It's for the same reason we mention Larry Bird and Magic for their all-around play and not Grant Hill, Michael Ray Richardson and Jason Kidd. That we mention Wilt and MJs scoring by but not Gervin, Dantley or World b. Free.

No one else was the best defensive player in league on the best defensive team for a decade. Forget that that team won the title every year while being below average on offense. No one else has dozens of double digit shot block games in the NBA playoffs. None of those great defensive players has five MVP's or was considered the greatest ever by most their contemporaries.

It's not weird, it's logical.

[played0ut]

Why would the Heat want Kendrick Perkins when he averages .5 ppg a game


impact goes far beyond numbers

[CavaliersFTW]

I have tremendous respect for your opinion. I just happen to disagree with you.

I don't think I have ever even answered the question because I have no idea who it is. I argue against pretty much everyone.

I just find it weird that we acknowledge Russell as an all time great but we barely include great defensive prowess of Duncan/Robinson/even Ben Wallace when we look at all time rankings.
The results are what sets what Russell did apart from Duncan/Robinson/Wallace

It's like people who ignore Wilt's records - they'll act like he shouldn't be the GOAT cause he only won two titles... yeah but what about the 96 insane records, and how dominant were those two title teams? Individual dominance is the underlying point of Wilt. You can't miss it, just like you can't miss what Russell did.

5x NBA MVP, b2b NCAA titles as teams best player AND #1 scorer, 1 Gold as teams best player AND #1 scorer, 8-peat as teams best player, 2-peat as player-coach, 11 NBA titles in 13 NBA seasons. FMVP did not exist ...but is now named after him. One of the best rebounders ever and perhaps the greatest defensive player ever and one of the best passing centers ever. All of these accomplishments in just a 14 year span.

I mean, his body of work is absolutely extraordinary. Nobody is ignoring the body of work of other players like Duncan or Robinson... but those guys didn't do what Bill Russell did so if the things Bill Russell was accomplishing are the things you weigh heavily when determining GOAT that's how Bill Russell can end up being a GOAT candidate. You don't have to agree, but hopefully you can at least understand the angle.

[stanlove1111]

Bill Russell has as strong a case of being "the" GOAT as any other player. Yes, if you play the champion/ring/success angle, it's definitely him and there's no arguing against it unless you admit to everyone that you feel championships and team success aren't all able to be boiled down to the success of one individual. If you play the individual dominance and NBA records angle it's Wilt. If you play the all-around success angle it could be Kareem or Jordan, or possibly Magic. If you play the best all-around abilities angle it could be Jordan, or Oscar or a multitude of others. There are also other players with their own unique attributes that one could argue makes them the "best" like being revolutionary in some form or another. Everyone's criteria is different. GOAT is a highly subjective opinion based discussion.

THis is pretty simple and if someone doesn't understand it they are a moron..Simple as that..The greatest player is the one that adds the most ti a basketball team in terms of winning and losing. Russell added as much as anyone ever. Doesn't matter how they do whether it be offense or defense or a combination..Russell's game added as much value to a basketball team as anyone ever.

There is another way to look at it..Players should be judged by if they are the GOAT how many knocks do they have against them if they were to be considered GOAT..Russell only failed to win a title once when healthy when he should have if he was the GOAT. Kareem has knocks against him if he is the grestest ever, Getting swept in 83, losing in 73 to the Warriors..Magic has a few knocks, Bird has a few knocks, Wilt has a few knocks and so on and so on.. Russell only had one..Jordan might not have any. I think you could be the greatestt of all time and not beat the 1990 Pistons with the help that Jordan had.

[HurricaneKid]

Career .471TS%. Never once had TS% over .500. Never shot 47% from the field.

Rebounding overstated. Record for rebounds in a game was achieved AGAINST him when Wilt crushed him for 55 rebs.

I honestly believe I could score 20pts in the league. I hit a pretty impressive % from ~35 feet. Now we would lose 110-21 but I could do it. So saying he could score 20/ doesn't mean much when he was pretty inefficient on low FGAs as it is.

I don't even mind putting him in the top 5/10. I just think people need to acknowledge that if we do that we need to put other all time great defenders in the mix somewhere as well. Because the rules that apply to everyone else don't get administered to him.

[HurricaneKid]

The results are what sets what Russell did apart from Duncan/Robinson/Wallace

It's like people who ignore Wilt's records - they'll act like he shouldn't be the GOAT cause he only won two titles... yeah but what about the 96 insane records, and how dominant were those two title teams? Individual dominance is the underlying point of Wilt. You can't miss it, just like you can't miss what Russell did.

5x NBA MVP, b2b NCAA titles as teams best player AND #1 scorer, 1 Gold as teams best player AND #1 scorer, 8-peat as teams best player, 2-peat as player-coach, 11 NBA titles in 13 NBA seasons. FMVP did not exist ...but is now named after him. One of the best rebounders ever and perhaps the greatest defensive player ever and one of the best passing centers ever. All of these accomplishments in just a 14 year span.

I mean, his body of work is absolutely extraordinary. Nobody is ignoring the body of work of other players like Duncan or Robinson... but those guys didn't do what Bill Russell did so if the things Bill Russell was accomplishing are the things you weigh heavily when determining GOAT that's how Bill Russell can end up being a GOAT candidate. You don't have to agree, but hopefully you can at least understand the angle.

A huge part of this is its an age where hardly anyone still debating these things was watching. No real stats were kept. Not much video exists.

So we are left to extrapolate things. And for some reason there are completely different standards for him as opposed to every other all time great. Normally I would be the one to argue that defense is underrated but we are talking about someone who didn't have a lot of other attributes here.

Without the data, video, and all the other information we use to decide these things. He literally had HoFers coming off the bench in several of the years we are discussing. He had an all time coach. Its really hard to tell where all these wins originated.

I always get leery of anything that can't be quantified. When people talk about "will to win" and "commitment to excellence" its usually time to run away because you are replacing facts with emotional content. I see it happen over and over with Russell.

Do people really think that if Wilt was on those Celtics that he wouldn't have won a massive number of titles?

[CavaliersFTW]

A huge part of this is its an age where hardly anyone still debating these things was watching. No real stats were kept. Not much video exists.

So we are left to extrapolate things. And for some reason there are completely different standards for him as opposed to every other all time great. Normally I would be the one to argue that defense is underrated but we are talking about someone who didn't have a lot of other attributes here.

Without the data, video, and all the other information we use to decide these things. He literally had HoFers coming off the bench in several of the years we are discussing. He had an all time coach. Its really hard to tell where all these wins originated.

I always get leery of anything that can't be quantified. When people talk about "will to win" and "commitment to excellence" its usually time to run away because you are replacing facts with emotional content. I see it happen over and over with Russell.

Do people really think that if Wilt was on those Celtics that he wouldn't have won a massive number of titles?
No... but that isn't the topic. And Wilt himself doesn't think he'd have won 11. A lot, yes, but not 11. And what do you mean no real stats were kept? Stats were kept... and they aren't fake stats either. Enough video exists to debunk any assumptions or myths that Russell was inept or unskilled on offense or played against poor competition or w/e else might be thrown his way in an attempt to sell him short.

Why are some of Russell's teammates HOF'ers... Sure with Bob Cousy, Sam Jones and John Havlicek it is obvious they'd be great on any team. But do you think KC Jones body of work as a player would have been enough to make him a HOF'er had he not won say, 8 championships riding the coat tails of Bill Russell? How about Satch Sanders, would he have been a HOFer had he played for say, the Detroit Pistons instead of the Boston Celtics? What you are doing is just brushing Russell's accomplishments under the rug. His accomplishments are what make him a GOAT candidate. It's no different than people who try to brush Wilt Chamberlain's individual dominance under the rug. You can't take away the thing that makes a player great than attempt to say "see take that away and he's clearly not GOAT caliber". Doesn't work that way. Bill Russell in a 14 year stretch was more dominant at winning the game than any player in history, at every level. And he was a tops-all-time rebounder, passer, and perhaps the best ever defensive player. Who cares that Wilt outrebounded him, Wilt is the most individually dominant player ever, that's what Wilt does and that's why Wilt also has a case as GOAT. Their rebounding numbers against other opponents are virtually the same. You can't ignore Russell's achievements. They are exactly what makes him as solid a GOAT candidate as anyone.

[livinglegend]

Great thread.

[NumberSix]

So you feel you must be great at scoring in order to be the greatest of all time, great, but that's just your opinion and as such you are reinforcing my point not clashing with it. GOAT discussions are all highly subjective, based on people's own personal criteria (IE their opinions). Others can have Russell as the GOAT. You should at least learn to respect other people's opinions, even if you disagree with them. I don't have a problem with people selecting a wide range of players as their "GOAT" so long as they make their criteria clear, and so long as no other player that they may have overlooked better suits their own criteria.
He's a wild idea. You'd think somebody who is regarded as one of the best players ever would be good at, you know, both halves of the game.

[NumberSix]

Anybody who actually believes that Bill Russell was a better basketball player than David Robinson is a lost cause. He's the only one that we not only disregard our knowledge of how faulty ring counting is, but we rank him EXCLUSIVELY on ring counting.

[livinglegend]

Anybody who actually believes that Bill Russell was a better basketball player than David Robinson is a lost cause. He's the only one that we not only disregard our knowledge of how faulty ring counting is, but we rank him EXCLUSIVELY on ring counting.

5 MVPs
and he was the best player on those teams.

[CavaliersFTW]

He's a wild idea. You'd think somebody who is regarded as one of the best players ever would be good at, you know, both halves of the game.
Bill Russell was good at offense, he was skilled and scored when he needed to score, he just wasn't dominant at it, and wasn't needed to be showcased often given how the Celtics team ran their offense. Flip the script and how many typical players found an average top 10 or 20 list are dominant offensive players but merely good at defense? ... Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Charles Barkley, Shaquille O'Neal, Bob Pettit? The list goes on but guess what, their dominant scoring didn't translate to as many collective MVP's or championships as Bill Russell's dominant defense did. Maybe players as good as Russell was defensively are just valuable, and maybe Russell was one of a kind, and nobody else has ever been that good at what he was doing. These are maybe's, what is for certain is nobody won like Russell. Thus GOAT candidate.

[NumberSix]

5 MVPs
Uncompetitive era.

If you put Joakim Noah in an 8 team league full of butchers, janitors and delivery men, he'd win a bunch of MVPs too.

If Noah's team was the only team in the league that was willing to have a majority black roster, yeah, he'd win all the titles as well.

Bill Russell's Celtics honestly wouldn't have a shot in hell of winning against the current D-League.

[CavaliersFTW]

Anybody who actually believes that Bill Russell was a better basketball player than David Robinson is a lost cause. He's the only one that we not only disregard our knowledge of how faulty ring counting is, but we rank him EXCLUSIVELY on ring counting.
He was a better defensive player than Robinson

...to the point that it made him a better player.

Go ahead and write me off as a lost cause, I'll do the same for you.

[NumberSix]

Bill Russell was good at offense, he was skilled and scored when he needed to score, he just wasn't dominant at it, and wasn't needed to be showcased often given how the Celtics team ran their offense. Flip the script and how many typical players found an average top 10 or 20 list are dominant offensive players but merely good at defense? ... Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Charles Barkley, Shaquille O'Neal, Bob Pettit? The list goes on but guess what, their dominant scoring didn't translate to as many collective MVP's or championships as Bill Russell's dominant defense did. Maybe players as good as Russell was defensively are just valuable, and maybe Russell was one of a kind, and nobody else has ever been that good at what he was doing. These are maybe's, what is for certain is nobody won like Russell. Thus GOAT candidate.
He was not one of a kind. He was Joakim Noah. Joakim Noah against really crappy competition.

[NumberSix]

He was a better defensive player than Robinson

...to the point that it made him a better player.

Go ahead and write me off as a lost cause, I'll do the same for you.
Oh, of course he was. Based on that 25 minutes of film you've seen of him. :rolleyes:

[AnaheimLakers24]

high school counselor in this era

[CavaliersFTW]

He was not one of a kind. He was Joakim Noah. Joakim Noah against really crappy competition.

so

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2AlFrOj5Mc

=

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPfU0NhDxrc

?

:oldlol:

[livinglegend]

Uncompetitive era.

If you put Joakim Noah in an 8 team league full of butchers, janitors and delivery men, he'd win a bunch of MVPs too.

If Noah's team was the only team in the league that was willing to have a majority black roster, yeah, he'd win all the titles as well.

Bill Russell's Celtics honestly wouldn't have a shot in hell of winning against the current D-League.

Yeah, Wilt is a delivery man.

[fpliii]

so

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2AlFrOj5Mc

=

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPfU0NhDxrc

?

:oldlol:
:rockon:

Can't wait for your Russell mix. A lot of people are trolling Russell obviously, but for those who are uninformed, it'll be incredibly eye-opening (just as your recent Wilt and Baylor videos are :bowdown: ).

[NumberSix]

Yeah, Wilt is a delivery man.
Oh wow, you managed to name 1 other player. What a stacked league.

[longhornfan1234]

:rockon:

Can't wait for your Russell mix. A lot of people are trolling Russell obviously, but for those who are uninformed, it'll be incredibly eye-opening (just as your recent Wilt and Baylor videos are :bowdown: ).
Russell jumped on the side of him. :coleman:

[kshutts1]

Career .471TS%. Never once had TS% over .500. Never shot 47% from the field.

Rebounding overstated. Record for rebounds in a game was achieved AGAINST him when Wilt crushed him for 55 rebs.

I honestly believe I could score 20pts in the league. I hit a pretty impressive % from ~35 feet. Now we would lose 110-21 but I could do it. So saying he could score 20/ doesn't mean much when he was pretty inefficient on low FGAs as it is.

I don't even mind putting him in the top 5/10. I just think people need to acknowledge that if we do that we need to put other all time great defenders in the mix somewhere as well. Because the rules that apply to everyone else don't get administered to him.
Context matters. Look at the league average for TS%. I don't know where to find that, but this site...
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html
... says that your quoted FG% for Russell is above average for his time.

I've got no problem with people disagreeing with the notion that Russell was the GOAT (I disagree) or a top 5-10 player (I disagree with 5, but not 10). Just please don't spout off %s without context. And the majority of us that appreciate the older players already do comprehend the context behind the "raw" numbers.

[kshutts1]

Anybody who actually believes that Bill Russell was a better basketball player than David Robinson is a lost cause. He's the only one that we not only disregard our knowledge of how faulty ring counting is, but we rank him EXCLUSIVELY on ring counting.
I agree that if we time-warp both prime Russell and prime Robinson to today's league, Robinson would be the better individual player.

But there's so much more going on than that. I just went on a mini context rant.. but seriously.. context matters.

I know you are a troll and all, but the opinion that you state is just frustrating. Do you truly believe that players from the 60s should be held to the same standards as the players that watched those players the watched them play? Just think about that sentence for a second. And the question for longer than a second.

[livinglegend]

Oh wow, you managed to name 1 other player. What a stacked league.

Bob Petit, Baylor, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson,

[CavaliersFTW]

:rockon:

Can't wait for your Russell mix. A lot of people are trolling Russell obviously, but for those who are uninformed, it'll be incredibly eye-opening (just as your recent Wilt and Baylor videos are :bowdown: ).
Oscar docu-highlight vid will probably be done first though Russell's recent sign of ailing health makes me feel a bit guilty neglecting his project.

Also... I got distracted and just lumped a couple of Cousy clips together running the break that might be up in a few days. Not a full scale docuhighlight more like the Kareem in HS/NCAA clips project, just a few minutes of clips.

[Marchesk]

He's a wild idea. You'd think somebody who is regarded as one of the best players ever would be good at, you know, both halves of the game.

You're acting like Russell was Rodman or Wallace in terms of offense. He wasn't. He just wasn't a great scorer, nor did he need to be. As has already been stated multiple times, Russell cared about rings, not compiling great stats.

Would you apply the same standard to Magic on the defensive side of the ball?

[Marchesk]

Career .471TS%. Never once had TS% over .500. Never shot 47% from the field.

Who cares when your team wins 11 of 13 titles, with the other two years being a loss in the finals to Petit's team where Russell got hurt, and Wilt's 68 win 76er team?

If you're doing what your team needs to win almost every season, then it really doesn't matter what your shooting percentage is or PPG. You're obviously helping the team wins, so cares?

Russell has an efficiency rating of 84.6%, when it comes to winning championships.

[Roundball_Rock]

People underrate his offense. He averaged 15 ppg for his career, peaked at 19 ppg and was between 17-19 ppg for a six years stretch. This was during the high paced 60's, but those Celtic teams had a balanced offense so their leading scorer would be around 20-22 ppg. They didn't have a Wilt, West, or Baylor putting up huge scoring numbers. Russell was 7th or higher in assists in four seasons, including ranking 5th once. Other than Wilt, what other center can match that relative to the league he played in? His FG % was not great but the league's FG % was much lower back then. Russell was similar to prime Walton, except with weaker offense and superior defense. Walton was not scoring 30 ppg either.

[fpliii]

Oscar docu-highlight vid will probably be done first though Russell's recent sign of ailing health makes me feel a bit guilty neglecting his project.

Also... I got distracted and just lumped a couple of Cousy clips together running the break that might be up in a few days. Not a full scale docuhighlight more like the Kareem in HS/NCAA clips project, just a few minutes of clips.
Go at your own pace, my good man. :cheers: I'm hoping Russ is fine, would be a travesty if anything happens to the GOAT.

Oscar definitely needs light shed on him. Definitely looking forward to his mix.

Cousy is interesting. I've long grouped him with the pre-shotclock guys, but I think he was a legitimate player now. Not sure how he'd do if he came up ten years later, but he had some crazy moves. :applause:

[HurricaneKid]

Context matters. Look at the league average for TS%. I don't know where to find that, but this site...
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html
... says that your quoted FG% for Russell is above average for his time.

I've got no problem with people disagreeing with the notion that Russell was the GOAT (I disagree) or a top 5-10 player (I disagree with 5, but not 10). Just please don't spout off %s without context. And the majority of us that appreciate the older players already do comprehend the context behind the "raw" numbers.

So the best FG% he ever had in any season is above avg? Thats the argument that he is the best basketball player ever? I mean this is the disconnect we are talking about.

TS% means more today with 3s but at least it reflects his 58% career FT%. Its probably above avg but there are plenty of years, in his prime even, that he was pretty much right at league avg.

[played0ut]

He's a wild idea. You'd think somebody who is regarded as one of the best players ever would be good at, you know, both halves of the game.

Because it's not his ****ing job. He would best help the team if he focused his energy near entirely on defense.

Are you going to vilify MJ for not grabbing 10+ rebounds a game then?

Did it work out for the Celtics or not?



Anybody who actually believes that Bill Russell was a better basketball player than David Robinson is a lost cause. He's the only one that we not only disregard our knowledge of how faulty ring counting is, but we rank him EXCLUSIVELY on ring counting.

well, since you said it, it must be true

[cltcfn2924]

We've bumped heads on this before. Every other player in the top 50 has been an elite offensive player. Russell was often the #3, even #4 offensive option on his team. No one in the top 20 was ever the #3/4 option at their peak. Why do we give Russell such a long leash on this?

Usually I am the one to prop up players because of their defense. But to jump a mediocre offensive player to the greatest of all time... No.


Long leash? He could have scored and won less. Russell changed the game, Stern changed the game for Jordan. Bob Cousys' stats don't jump out as anything special either- he changed the game. Nobody matches Russells' heart, nobody comes close to him as a winner. MVP of all time = goat.

[cltcfn2924]

Because it's not his ****ing job. He would best help the team if he focused his energy near entirely on defense.

Are you going to vilify MJ for not grabbing 10+ rebounds a game then?

Did it work out for the Celtics or not?




well, since you said it, it must be true


Go to you tube, watch Russ take off from about 14' and hit a layup, then convince me the admiral could do it.

[played0ut]

Go to you tube, watch Russ take off from about 14' and hit a layup, then convince me the admiral could do it.

?

David Robinson was a gymnast. He could do a standing backflip and walk the length of the court on his hands.

Yeah, he could do it.



Where is this coming from anyway i'm defending Russell.

[cltcfn2924]

Oh, of course he was. Based on that 25 minutes of film you've seen of him. :rolleyes:


And I suppose you watched him play? ROFL.

[Dbrog]

We've bumped heads on this before. Every other player in the top 50 has been an elite offensive player. Russell was often the #3, even #4 offensive option on his team. No one in the top 20 was ever the #3/4 option at their peak. Why do we give Russell such a long leash on this?

Usually I am the one to prop up players because of their defense. But to jump a mediocre offensive player to the greatest of all time... No.

Honestly using the same logic, Every other player in the top 50 has never gotten more than 6 rings. Why do we give them such a long leash on this? This is why I don't think we can knock people down for any single aspect of their game, because the game of basketball is obviously not all scoring. Anyway, point is I don't think anyone can legitimately be upset with Russ at #1. If anyone beside Jordan has a case, he's the one.

[kshutts1]

So the best FG% he ever had in any season is above avg? Thats the argument that he is the best basketball player ever? I mean this is the disconnect we are talking about.

TS% means more today with 3s but at least it reflects his 58% career FT%. Its probably above avg but there are plenty of years, in his prime even, that he was pretty much right at league avg.
I didn't know you were a troll. Sorry for waking you by walking over the bridge.

[fpliii]

So the best FG% he ever had in any season is above avg? Thats the argument that he is the best basketball player ever? I mean this is the disconnect we are talking about.

TS% means more today with 3s but at least it reflects his 58% career FT%. Its probably above avg but there are plenty of years, in his prime even, that he was pretty much right at league avg.
He also set the record for FG% in the 65 Finals:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1965_finals.html

[cltcfn2924]

?

David Robinson was a gymnast. He could do a standing backflip and walk the length of the court on his hands.

Yeah, he could do it.



Where is this coming from anyway i'm defending Russell.


Don't know how it got here.

[Calabis]

http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lftcydRnXQ1qauq2oo1_500.jpg

[cltcfn2924]

Career .471TS%. Never once had TS% over .500. Never shot 47% from the field.

Rebounding overstated. Record for rebounds in a game was achieved AGAINST him when Wilt crushed him for 55 rebs.

I honestly believe I could score 20pts in the league. I hit a pretty impressive % from ~35 feet. Now we would lose 110-21 but I could do it. So saying he could score 20/ doesn't mean much when he was pretty inefficient on low FGAs as it is.

I don't even mind putting him in the top 5/10. I just think people need to acknowledge that if we do that we need to put other all time great defenders in the mix somewhere as well. Because the rules that apply to everyone else don't get administered to him.


He re-invented defense. All the others are after him, besides no modern player could match his impact. Some can match certain parts, but certainly not the whole, not even close.

[NumberSix]

He re-invented defense. All the others are after him, besides no modern player could match his impact. Some can match certain parts, but certainly not the whole, not even close.
:rolleyes:

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Anybody who actually believes that Bill Russell was a better basketball player than David Robinson is a lost cause. He's the only one that we not only disregard our knowledge of how faulty ring counting is, but we rank him EXCLUSIVELY on ring counting.

:applause:

[stanlove1111]

Who cares when your team wins 11 of 13 titles, with the other two years being a loss in the finals to Petit's team where Russell got hurt, and Wilt's 68 win 76er team?

If you're doing what your team needs to win almost every season, then it really doesn't matter what your shooting percentage is or PPG. You're obviously helping the team wins, so cares?

Russell has an efficiency rating of 84.6%, when it comes to winning championships.

It seems some here don't understand the difference between scoring and offense. Russell was a very good offensive player in a 5 on 5 game. His outlet passing, his blocked shots to start layups, his picks and screens because he didn't care if he scored or not and was ok with setting up teammates, and he could score some..

[stanlove1111]

Anybody who actually believes that Bill Russell was a better basketball player than David Robinson is a lost cause. He's the only one that we not only disregard our knowledge of how faulty ring counting is, but we rank him EXCLUSIVELY on ring counting.


Anyone who believes that you should compare players from different eras as simply as you want it to be are lost causes...Players are ranked on how they did in their era. Russell dominated his era much more then Robinson did his, do you really think Robinson's game would be the same if he was born in 1935?

[played0ut]

:rolleyes:

I love how you don't bother defending your stance.



I've no problems with trolls so go ahead and have fun, but at least now I know not to take you seriously.

[Psileas]

Apart from the usual arguments about Russell's defense, leadership, rebounding and his accolades, here's another way to view his impact on the history of the league: Remember that many call Wilt, West and Baylor "losers"? Well, of course you do, you may belong among them... Remove Russell (and only him) from the equation, replace him with an average (or even above average) C, and all 3 of them become instantly candidates for GOAT winners (let alone players). With nobody to limit Wilt when facing the Celtics, Wilt's teams repeatedly beat Boston (they came very close lots of times with Russell in there, without him, no chance for the Celtics) and repeatedly face the Lakers in the Finals. Wilt would continue to dominate the Lakers' mediocre frontline (reminder: Wilt never faced the Lakers in the playoffs), West and Baylor would also continue to score tons, so, by the end their careers would be over, Wilt, West and Baylor could very possibly have a good 5 titles each and lots of 30+ ppg Finals' series at the same time, probably also being regarded as a rivalry for the ages and all 3 of them as legit GOAT candidates.

Without Russell...

[LAZERUSS]

Apart from the usual arguments about Russell's defense, leadership, rebounding and his accolades, here's another way to view his impact on the history of the league: Remember that many call Wilt, West and Baylor "losers"? Well, of course you do, you may belong among them... Remove Russell (and only him) from the equation, replace him with an average (or even above average) C, and all 3 of them become instantly candidates for GOAT winners (let alone players). With nobody to limit Wilt when facing the Celtics, Wilt's teams repeatedly beat Boston (they came very close lots of times with Russell in there, without him, no chance for the Celtics) and repeatedly face the Lakers in the Finals. Wilt would continue to dominate the Lakers' mediocre frontline (reminder: Wilt never faced the Lakers in the playoffs), West and Baylor would also continue to score tons, so, by the end their careers would be over, Wilt, West and Baylor could very possibly have a good 5 titles each and lots of 30+ ppg Finals' series at the same time, probably also being regarded as a rivalry for the ages and all 3 of them as legit GOAT candidates.

Without Russell...

Excellent points, as always.

And we have had this discussion before, but HAD Chamberlain been fortunate enough to have faced the Lakers in his PRIME (from '60 thru '69), he likely would own every post-season scoring record known to man (and likely every efficiency mark as well...keep in mind that Russell shot .702 against them in '65, and in that same post-season, Wilt outshot Russell, .555 to .447.)

Wilt had entire SEASONS, of 9-12 games, in which he was putting up 40+ ppg seasonal marks on those "center-less" Laker teams.

He had a nine game season against them in which he averaged 51.5 ppg, including three games of 60+, and with a high of 78. And my personal favorite was a PEAK Chamberlain, in his '66 season, covering 10 H2H games against the Lakers (who supposedly did not trade for him in '65), when he averaged 40.8 ppg on a .559 FG%. Included were games of 42-27, 49-30, 53-31, and 65-29, as well as a 30-15-13 game on 12-12 FG/FGA. Oh, and his TEAM went 8-2 against LA that year, as well.

[mr4speed]

Apart from the usual arguments about Russell's defense, leadership, rebounding and his accolades, here's another way to view his impact on the history of the league: Remember that many call Wilt, West and Baylor "losers"? Well, of course you do, you may belong among them... Remove Russell (and only him) from the equation, replace him with an average (or even above average) C, and all 3 of them become instantly candidates for GOAT winners (let alone players). With nobody to limit Wilt when facing the Celtics, Wilt's teams repeatedly beat Boston (they came very close lots of times with Russell in there, without him, no chance for the Celtics) and repeatedly face the Lakers in the Finals. Wilt would continue to dominate the Lakers' mediocre frontline (reminder: Wilt never faced the Lakers in the playoffs), West and Baylor would also continue to score tons, so, by the end their careers would be over, Wilt, West and Baylor could very possibly have a good 5 titles each and lots of 30+ ppg Finals' series at the same time, probably also being regarded as a rivalry for the ages and all 3 of them as legit GOAT candidates.

Without Russell...
Interesting!! never looked at it that way. All the talk of GOAT could only be settled if everyone could agree what exactly the measurements and criteria to be used - and that would be argued and never settled. I think you have to compare by position played and by era due to how the game has evolved. And a list of skill sets a player had, awards won, championships won and the intangibles like leadership, desire, motivating others ... Good luck with figuring out that equation - I know I can't do it!

[Soundwave]

Interesting!! never looked at it that way. All the talk of GOAT could only be settled if everyone could agree what exactly the measurements and criteria to be used - and that would be argued and never settled. I think you have to compare by position played and by era due to how the game has evolved. And a list of skill sets a player had, awards won, championships won and the intangibles like leadership, desire, motivating others ... Good luck with figuring out that equation - I know I can't do it!

There is a fairly well agreed upon GOAT measurement in most sports ... that it's the intersection of individual dominance + team dominance.

I've mentioned this before but in hockey, Henri Richard has 11 Stanley Cups (same number as Wilt), but no one regards him as GOAT over Wayne Gretzky who only has 4 Stanley Cup rings.

In football most people regard either Jim Brown (only 1 Superbowl ring) or Jerry Rice (3 Superbowl rings) to be the GOAT over Joe Montana (4 Superbowl rings). That's because of individual statistical dominance to go with the rings.

In baseball it's usually Babe Ruth over Joe DiMaggio or Yogi Berra, even though DiMaggio and Berra have won more World Series rings. Ruth has his share of rings too and better individual stats.

That's the same reason why most people IMO pick Jordan. It's not hype. It's basically the same metric used for other sports, he simply has the most appealing individual + team resume when combined together. Kareem is the closest IMO, but 2, maybe even 3 of his rings came with him as the 2nd option.

When people want to know who the GOAT of any sport is, they're not just looking at championships alone, even if that is a very important metric. They want to know who's the best player period.

[Roundball_Rock]

Kareem is the closest IMO, but 2, maybe even 3 of his rings came with him as the 2nd option.

I am not sure why people keep asking how many rings KAJ has as the first option. The answer clearly is 4. He was the first option until 1987 when Riley shifted the focus to Magic. One could argue Magic was the better player earlier than 1987 but if "first option" is the criteria the clear cut answer is KAJ was from 1980-1986. By definition, there can only be one first option on teams; it was KAJ.

[SexSymbol]

Bill Russell is the GOAT and nobody is even close

[NumberSix]

Bill Russell is the GOAT and nobody is even close
Alonzo mourning > Bill Russell

[MiseryCityTexas]

We've bumped heads on this before. Every other player in the top 50 has been an elite offensive player. Russell was often the #3, even #4 offensive option on his team. No one in the top 20 was ever the #3/4 option at their peak. Why do we give Russell such a long leash on this?

Usually I am the one to prop up players because of their defense. But to jump a mediocre offensive player to the greatest of all time... No.


Because he's a rebounding defensive beast.

[Soundwave]

Because he's a rebounding defensive beast.

Not enough to be GOAT. Russell is kind of an outlier, every other basketball GOAT contender was a dominant offensive player in some way, so are the GOATs from other sports.

His shooting percentage is pretty horrible too ... 35/36% in some of those playoff runs ... for a post player he must've had very poor post moves/shooting.

Wilt was well over 50% for the majority of his career, while having similar rebounding numbers and obviously being miles ahead offensively.

I really wonder if Russell was better than Wilt or simply played on a (far) better team for the majority of his career.

[G.O.A.T]

I really wonder if Russell was better than Wilt or simply played on a (far) better team for the majority of his career.

Maybe you should check what people who saw the two thought.

I mean guessing based on stats seems pretty flawed.

[Soundwave]

Maybe you should check what people who saw the two thought.

I mean guessing based on stats seems pretty flawed.

Unfortunately it's kind of hard to know since there's not a lot of television footage from the two in their prime, but my hunch is Wilt was the better player, just played on a crappier team.

[CavaliersFTW]

Unfortunately it's kind of hard to know since there's not a lot of television footage from the two in their prime, but my hunch is Wilt was the better player, just played on a crappier team.
Minus the animal intensity, Wilt was the better player. Minus the animal intensity and rebounding, Kareem was the better player. Minus the animal intensity and rebounding, Hakeem was the better player. Minus the animal intensity and rebounding, Shaq was the better player. etc etc etc

Bill Russell's animal intensity, according to Bob Cousy, is what made him better than all the centers more visibly "skilled" or versatile than he was.

[livinglegend]

There is a fairly well agreed upon GOAT measurement in most sports ... that it's the intersection of individual dominance + team dominance.

I've mentioned this before but in hockey, Henri Richard has 11 Stanley Cups (same number as Wilt), but no one regards him as GOAT over Wayne Gretzky who only has 4 Stanley Cup rings.

In football most people regard either Jim Brown (only 1 Superbowl ring) or Jerry Rice (3 Superbowl rings) to be the GOAT over Joe Montana (4 Superbowl rings). That's because of individual statistical dominance to go with the rings.

In baseball it's usually Babe Ruth over Joe DiMaggio or Yogi Berra, even though DiMaggio and Berra have won more World Series rings. Ruth has his share of rings too and better individual stats.

That's the same reason why most people IMO pick Jordan. It's not hype. It's basically the same metric used for other sports, he simply has the most appealing individual + team resume when combined together. Kareem is the closest IMO, but 2, maybe even 3 of his rings came with him as the 2nd option.

When people want to know who the GOAT of any sport is, they're not just looking at championships alone, even if that is a very important metric. They want to know who's the best player period.

Why do you act like Russell wasnt individually dominant? He won 5 MVPs, as much as Jordan. Jordan had 1 DPOY, Russell would probably have atleast 5-6 if the award existed back then. He dominated the game other ways than Jordan did.

[Soundwave]

Why do you act like Russell wasnt individually dominant? He won 5 MVPs, as much as Jordan. Jordan had 1 DPOY, Russell would probably have atleast 5-6 if the award existed back then. He dominated the game other ways than Jordan did.

He was never once in the top 10 for scoring for any season of his career I don't think.

That is fairly unusual for any of the other top 15 players (not just Jordan). Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, Kobe, LeBron, Hakeem, Bird, even Magic have had seasons where they were the no.1 scoring option.

Maybe someone else can shed some light on why his shooting percentage seemed to be so low too.

What were his post moves like? Did he even use many of them?

Wilt and Kareem were better players I think.

I get that he had great leadership skills but I don't think that means we can overlook everything else. If the Celtics were down 1 in a tight game, who took the shot?

[livinglegend]

He was never once in the top 10 for scoring for any season of his career I don't think.

That is fairly unusual for any of the other top 15 players.

Maybe someone else can shed some light on why his shooting percentage seemed to be so low too. Wilt and Kareem were better players I think.

What were his post moves like? Did he even use many of them?

So individual dominance = scoring for you?
There arent other ways to dominate the game?

[Soundwave]

So individual dominance = scoring for you?

It's a pretty high metric in every sport.

Hockey, football, baseball are certainly judged under that merit, why would you think basketball, which is the highest scoring sport would be different?

We don't consider Henri Richard the greatest hockey player ever for winning 11 titles, that title is generally held by Wayne Gretzky even though he has only 4 titles. Because of his freakish scoring ability.

Beyond that, all the other top 10-12 GOAT candidates were dominant offensive players, Russell is the only one who really wasn't, which I think deserves some discussion.

Was he really better than Wilt or Kareem?

[G.O.A.T]

Unfortunately it's kind of hard to know since there's not a lot of television footage from the two in their prime, but my hunch is Wilt was the better player, just played on a crappier team.

I apologize for the sarcasm, I'm just having fun, but they have these things called books where people wrote down what they thought. Probably a lot of them knew way more about the NBA at the time then you or I, I'm just guessing there though.

A long time ago I couldn't understand why Russell was often considered greater than Wilt. I looked at the stats in my NBA encyclopedia since I got the thing the day it arrived on book shelves c. 1989. Teenage me couldn't figure it out, it was so lopsided. I saw that Russell won the MVP in 1962 and was sure it was a misprint. I didn't have an internet to run to, so I went to my uncles. They are basketball men, and they tried to explain. What they really taught me was that when something is different than you're sure it should be, there is certainly a reason that you don't yet understand.

It made me want to learn more and understand how these guys playing the game were convinced that a guy who couldn't score 20 points a game was better than a guy who scored 50 and 100 in one game.

The game was different then, a guy playing Russell's style wouldn't be as effective or dominant today. But Russell isn't George Mikan. He didn't get lucky and get born into an era that suited his skill set. Russell's natural skill set suits all era. Tall, long, lean, athletic. Also Russell looked at the game as it was played and devised a way of playing that he felt would most help his team win. So if Russell is in a different era, Russell is a different type of player.

Russell had the better team more often. Wilt had better teams sometimes, they had comparable teams others. You don't get to the seventh game of a series multiple times and every time it means that Wilt was so individually great that he could almost overcome the odds and beat the Celtics, but just not quite great enough. The Celtics had the most consistent team by far, they had next to no player turnover. After the trade fro Russell they didn't make another trade until like 1966. (Counts for Howell IIRC) Their guys fit roles; they collected castaways (Seigfried, Nelson) and supposedly washed up guys (Embry, Naulls) and fit them into nice little niches. Something most teams do now, they invented it.

The notion of the Celtics just being so good that winning was a formality is a very overstated one. During their 13 season (or exactly one Bill Russell career) Dynasty the posted just one of the 20 best regular season winning percentages of all-time. Their best postseason runs were 8-2, well outside the top ten. They swept the NBA finals only once in 1959 when a rookie Elgin Baylor led the Lakers past the defending Champion Hawks in stunning fashion.

They were good, very good, but it was because of Russell. Auerbach won zero titles without Russell, Russell won without him. Cousy never won without Russell, Russell won without him. Sam Jones never won without Russell...Satch...K.C.....Heinsohn.....Sharman.... Howell....Braun....Embry...Hall of Famers all never won a title without Bill Russell, Bill Russell won without them. Hondo got 2 without Russ, six with him in seven seasons. Celtics got 17 Championships, only six without Russell. Even Russell the coach couldn't win a title without Russell the player.

I understand if people want to say that it's a team game, but I don't think that suggests anything I say means any bit less. In fact that is my point. Russell understood the team game better than anyone else. When he needed to score he scored, when he needed to pass he passed, this could go on for ever...

When he was beat, he didn't make excuses, he didn't talk about his teams injuries, he didn't speak of fatigue after 9 titles and 10 finals in 10 years, he just said "we need to do better...I need to do better." And then he did.

[livinglegend]

It's a pretty high metric in every sport.

Hockey, football, baseball are certainly judged under that merit, why would you think basketball, which is the highest scoring sport would be different?

We don't consider Henri Richard the greatest hockey player ever for winning 11 titles, that title is generally held by Wayne Gretzky even though he has only 4 titles. Because of his freakish scoring ability.

Beyond that, all the other top 10-12 GOAT candidates were dominant offensive players, Russell is the only one who really wasn't, which I think deserves some discussion.

Was he really better than Wilt or Kareem?
I dont care about other sports, we are talking basketball here.

So if individual dominance= scoring, why did last year, Miami refused to play Beasley instead of Lewis in the playoffs? Beasley was probably the third best scorer of the team. Why didnt he get any minutes in the playoffs.

[Soundwave]

I dont care about other sports, we are talking basketball here.

So if individual dominance= scoring, why did last year, Miami refused to play Beasley instead of Lewis in the playoffs? Beasley was probably the third best scorer of the team. Why didnt he get any minutes in the playoffs.

When talking about GOAT, I've said many times the criteria generally tends to be individual dominance + team dominance. Not just one or the other, but an intersection of the two. Which I think is pretty fair and is generally used in other sports too (even if its not labelled as such, that's what people look for).

Personally I think Wilt and Kareem were both better than Russell. They just didn't play on the Celtics.

[livinglegend]

When talking about GOAT, I've said many times the criteria generally tends to be individual dominance + team dominance. Not just one or the other, but an intersection of the two.

Personally I think Wilt and Kareem were both better than Russell. They just didn't play on the Celtics.

MVP isnt an individual award?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

When talking about GOAT, I've said many times the criteria generally tends to be individual dominance + team dominance. Not just one or the other, but an intersection of the two. Which I think is pretty fair and is generally used in other sports too (even if its not labelled as such, that's what people look for).

Personally I think Wilt and Kareem were both better than Russell. They just didn't play on the Celtics.

The problem with your line of thinking is, Russell WAS dominant. His rebounding and defensive numbers alone are among the greatest of all time.

[Soundwave]

MVP isnt an individual award?

It's one individual metric, it's not the only one.

Russell's sub 50% shooting percentage for a post player where he was one of the biggest guys in the league and 15.1 career ppg in a higher scoring era need to be looked at honestly too.

That's fairly mediocre offensive production and efficiency for someone who's supposed to be the greatest basketball player of all time.

I don't think he's even one of the top 30 offensive talents to grace the NBA, yet he gets GOAT? IMO, Wilt was the better player. Just played on the lesser team.

He put up similar/better rebounding numbers to Russell on top of far better scoring numbers and at a far higher efficiency (shooting %).

[aj1987]

MJ
Russell
Magic
Bird
Duncan


Top 5 right there.
LOL @ Duncan being top 5. I am HUGE Duncan fan, but he's not top 5.
Russell
Magic
MJ
KAJ
Shaq
Wilt

(In no order, BTW)

[livinglegend]

It's one individual metric, it's not the only one.

Russell's sub 50% shooting percentage for a post player where he was one of the biggest guys in the league and 15.1 career ppg in a higher scoring era need to be looked at honestly too.

That's fairly mediocre offensive production and efficiency for someone who's supposed to be the greatest basketball player of all time.

I don't think he's even one of the top 30 offensive talents to grace the NBA, yet he gets GOAT? IMO, Wilt was the better player. Just played on the lesser team.

He put up similar/better rebounding numbers to Russell on top of far better scoring numbers and at a far higher efficiency (shooting %).

Are there other ways of affecting the offense other than scoring directly?

[moe94]

LOL @ Duncan being top 5. I am HUGE Duncan fan, but he's not top 5.
Russell
Magic
MJ
KAJ
Shaq
Wilt

(In no order, BTW)

Why Shaq? Duncan's career >>>>

[CavaliersFTW]

Are there other ways of affecting the offense other than scoring directly?
not according to ESPN :D :banana:

[Soundwave]

Are there other ways of affecting the offense other than scoring directly?

There are many players in the top 10-15 that were great offensively and defensively. You don't have to pick one or the other.

Wilt was able to be a force on both ends in the same era.

Pretty much every guy in the top 15 was a great offensive player except Russell.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Why Shaq? Duncan's career >>>>

IDK. Shaq had a better peak, prime and played about 18 seasons IIRC (his longevity is actually underrated).

Why do you think "Duncan >>>>" ?

[livinglegend]

There are many players in the top 10-15 that were great offensively and defensively. You don't have to pick one or the other.

Wilt was able to be a force on both ends in the same era.

you didnt answer my question

[moe94]

IDK. Shaq had a peak, prime and played about 18 years IIRC (his longevity is actually underrated).

Why do you think Duncan >>>> ?

Accolades and team success.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Accolades and team success.

Team success is heavily based on personnel.

I'll give you accolades, although Shaq should have won more than 1 MVP.

[Roundball_Rock]

Why do you act like Russell wasnt individually dominant? He won 5 MVPs, as much as Jordan. Jordan had 1 DPOY, Russell would probably have atleast 5-6 if the award existed back then. He dominated the game other ways than Jordan did.

Good point. How is the guy tied for the second most MVP's not dominant?


The notion of the Celtics just being so good that winning was a formality is a very overstated one. During their 13 season (or exactly one Bill Russell career) Dynasty the posted just one of the 20 best regular season winning percentages of all-time. Their best postseason runs were 8-2, well outside the top ten. They swept the NBA finals only once in 1959 when a rookie Elgin Baylor led the Lakers past the defending Champion Hawks in stunning fashion.

Great information.


The problem with your line of thinking is, Russell WAS dominant. His rebounding and defense is among the greatest of all time.

He also was 5th-7th in assists in four seasons from the center position.

[moe94]

Team success is heavily based on personnel.

I'll give you accolades, although Shaq should have won more than 1 MVP.

Are we going to act like Shaq didn't have plenty of monster squads? That's no excuse. Shit, you could argue he had better personnel.

[Soundwave]

Are there other ways of affecting the offense other than scoring directly?

Yes there are, but the most direct way by far is actually being a great offensive player, something Russell was not.

He's probably the worst offensive player in the top 12.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Are we going to act like Shaq didn't have plenty of monster squads? That's no excuse. Shit, you could argue he had better personnel.

No doubt, but so did Duncan, who also had the benefit of playing in a system with the same coach his ENTIRE career.

With Shaq's military background and Pop's superb coaching, I dont think its a stretch to assume he would have played longer (the Spurs and Pop do a great job of managing Duncan's minutes) and probably would have about the same number of titles, if not more (like I said, he was a better player at his peak AND in his PRIME).

Duncan > Shaq all-time? No problem... ">>>>>" sounds a bit ridiculous though.

[livinglegend]

Yes there are, but the most direct way by far is actually being a great offensive player, something Russell was not.

If there are other ways of affecting the offense other than scoring directly, why do you only use Russell s scoring averages to claim that he is not a good offensive player?

[Soundwave]

If there are other ways of affecting the offense other than scoring directly, why do you only use Russell s scoring averages to claim that he is not a good offensive player?

He wasn't a good offensive player. He has the worst FG% of the top 12 players ranked for GOAT and the lowest ppg by about a country mile. That's just a fact.

I can say Dennis Rodman impacted the game in a lot of ways too (which he did), but I wouldn't say he was a great or even above average offensive player.

[livinglegend]

He wasn't a good offensive player. He has the worst FG% of the top 12 players ranked for GOAT and the lowest ppg by about a country mile.

I can say Dennis Rodman impacted the game in a lot of ways too (which he did), but I wouldn't say he was a great or even above average offensive player.

Again, you didnt answer my question.

If there are other ways of affecting the offense other than scoring directly, why do you only use Russell s scoring averages to claim that he is not a good offensive player?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

He also was 5th-7th in assists in four seasons from the center position.

Great point. I mentioned this to some Jordan fan months ago, who argued that Russell was a "scrub" :facepalm

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9805684&postcount=30

[Soundwave]

Again, you didnt answer my question.

If there are other ways of affecting the offense other than scoring directly, why do you only use Russell s scoring averages to claim that he is not a good offensive player?

Because that's what any other sane basketball fan uses. Scoring percentage and field goal % are the first two things, and sorry Russell does not get a pass for that.

He was not a great offensive player. Wilt routintely took a sh*t on his head when the played against each other and matched/exceeded him on the boards too.

He just played on crappier teams.

[Soundwave]

Great point. I mentioned this to some Jordan fan months ago, who argued that Russell was a "scrub" :facepalm

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9805684&postcount=30

How is that really all that impressive? In a 10 team league that means there's probably basically 10 starting centers who played the majority of the minutes of the game, so of the 10, he was middle/to the lower end of the pack?

Did Wilt average more assists?

[aj1987]

Why Shaq? Duncan's career >>>>
Really? Shaq had arguably the GOAT peak. He was a beast since his rookie year and was a force till the '06 season. The guy averaged 26/12/3/3 over 14 seasons. Heck, 24/11/3/2 over his entire career. 24/12/3/2 in the Playoffs as well.

RS:
Shaq: 24/11/3/2
Timmy: 20/11/3/2

Playoffs:
Shaq: 24/12/3/2
Timmy: 21/13/3/2

Finals:
Shaq: 29/13/4/2
Timmy: 21/13/3/1


So, can you tell me in what universe does Duncan's career >>>> Shaq's?

[moe94]

Like tpols said, we don't know shit. lol

[livinglegend]

Because that's what any other sane basketball fan uses. Scoring percentage and field goal % are the first two things, and sorry Russell does not get a pass for that.

He was not a great offensive player. Wilt routintely took a sh*t on his head when the played against each other and matched/exceeded him on the boards too.

He just played on crappier teams.

Yeah, but you cant judge his whole offensive on those 2 things only. First, you say there are many ways to affect the offensive side of the court other than scoring directly. Then, you judge his whole offensive game solely on his ability to put the ball on the net. You are contradicting yourself.

[moe94]

Really? Shaq had arguably the GOAT peak. He was a beast since his rookie year and was a force till the '06 season. The guy averaged 26/12/3/3 over 14 seasons. Heck, 24/11/3/2 over his entire career. 24/12/3/2 in the Playoffs as well.

RS:
Shaq: 24/11/3/2
Timmy: 20/11/3/2

Playoffs:
Shaq: 24/12/3/2
Timmy: 21/13/3/2

Finals:
Shaq: 29/13/4/2
Timmy: 21/13/3/1


So, can you tell me in what universe does Duncan's career >>>> Shaq's?

In the universe where he accomplished more than Shaq and was a better defender, which those stats don't show.

[G.O.A.T]

Because that's what any other sane basketball fan uses. Scoring percentage and field goal % are the first two things, and sorry Russell does not get a pass for that.

That's not at all what I look at. If it were I'd think Artis Gilmore and Adrian Dantley were all-time great players. Way better than Bird or Magic or Duncan offensively. Stats tell you what a players role is more than what their potential was. Look at the number of guys whose stats went way up or way down when they changed teams.



He was not a great offensive player. Wilt routintely took a sh*t on his head when the played against each other and matched/exceeded him on the boards too.

He just played on crappier teams.

Russell's teams routinely won games and series against Wilt. Who is really winning that battle?

If Russell getting outplayed by Wilt ever cost them a playoff series, I'd hear you out, but it didn't so reality beats hypothetical.

[Soundwave]

Yeah, but you cant judge his whole offensive on those 2 things only. You, yourself, said that there are many ways to affect the offensive side of the court other than scoring directly. You are contradicting yourself.

So we can't judge a player's scoring ability by his scoring totals or scoring efficiency (FG%)? :oldlol: :oldlol:

Gimme a break.

The sad thing is that 15.1 ppg is from an extremely high pace/high scoring era, translated into a modern context that might be more like 10 ppg.

[livinglegend]

So we can't judge a player's scoring ability by his scoring totals or scoring efficiency (FG%)? :oldlol: :oldlol:

Gimme a break.

The sad thing is that 15.1 ppg is from an extremely high pace/high scoring era, translated into a modern context that might be more like 10 ppg.

We werent talking about his scoring ability. We were talking about his offensive game as a whole.

You contradicted yourself. First, you said there were many ways to affect the offensive side of the court other than scoring directly. Then, you judged his whole offensive game solely on his ability to put the ball on the net.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

How is that really all that impressive? In a 10 team league that means there's probably basically 10 starting centers who played the majority of the minutes of the game, so of the 10, he was middle/to the lower end of the pack?

Did Wilt average more assists?

Maybe the post I quoted from RR isn't impressive to you, but read the link I posted. If you're not "impressed" with Russell's assist numbers after reading THAT, you're truly a lost cause. :oldlol:

[G.O.A.T]

So we can't judge a player's scoring ability by his scoring totals or scoring efficiency (FG%)? :oldlol: :oldlol:

Gimme a break.


Is Adrian Dantley a better scorer than Michael Jordan?

Is Artis Gilmore a better scorer than Hakeem Olajuwon?

Based solely on PPG and scoring efficiency, very much yes.

Russell's role wasn't to score, why would you judge him primarily on that?

Do you judge Larry Bird on his ability to protect the rim? Or Magic on his post defense? How was Kareem at running a set offense from the point?


That or he didn't need to outplay Wilt because he had a considerably better team around him. I think Wilt was the better player. Probably by a good margin at that.

Why did their contemporaries disagree based on MVP's and greatest player of all-time voting?

[Soundwave]

That's not at all what I look at. If it were I'd think Artis Gilmore and Adrian Dantley were all-time great players. Way better than Bird or Magic or Duncan offensively. Stats tell you what a players role is more than what their potential was. Look at the number of guys whose stats went way up or way down when they changed teams.




Russell's teams routinely won games and series against Wilt. Who is really winning that battle?

If Russell getting outplayed by Wilt ever cost them a playoff series, I'd hear you out, but it didn't so reality beats hypothetical.

That or he didn't need to outplay Wilt because he had a considerably better team around him. I think Wilt was the better player. Probably by a good margin at that.

[aj1987]

In the universe where he accomplished more than Shaq and was a better defender, which those stats don't show.
Yeah? Shaq was a MUCH better offensive player. Equally good rebounder and was a threat defensively in the paint. I guess that doesn't count in your universe.

How the heck did he accomplish more? He won 1 ring more than Shaq, while playing on basically loaded teams throughout his career. Hell, They could've replaced Duncan with Bosh in the '14 Finals and they still would've won a ring. Lets not act like Shaq is not a 4x Champ with 3 FMVP's and an MVP.

[Roundball_Rock]

Great point. I mentioned this to some Jordan fan months ago, who argued that Russell was a "scrub" :facepalm

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9805684&postcount=30

Great post. :lol at Robinson being compared to Rodman.


How is that really all that impressive? In a 10 team league that means there's probably basically 10 starting centers who played the majority of the minutes of the game, so of the 10, he was middle/to the lower end of the pack?


He was 5th-7th in the league in assists despite being a center, not among centers.

[Soundwave]

Is Adrian Dantley a better scorer than Michael Jordan?

Is Artis Gilmore a better scorer than Hakeem Olajuwon?

Based solely on PPG and scoring efficiency, very much yes.

Russell's role wasn't to score, why would you judge him primarily on that?

Do you judge Larry Bird on his ability to protect the rim? Or Magic on his post defense? How was Kareem at running a set offense from the point?

If Adrian Dantley could outscore Michael Jordan for 10+ years, or Gilmore could match Olajuwon's production for a 10+ years, with 1-2 titles to go with that, they would both be top 10 players.

Doing it in the ABA or for 1 season doesn't cut the mustard.

The fact is Russell is the outlier, he is different from all the other top 12 players. Why is it so taboo to simply point that out? He's the only one of that group that did not have to shoulder the responsibility of being the lead offensive player.

I personally think that both Wilt and Kareem are better centers than him and could outplay Russell most any day of the week head to head. They just didn't have as good of a team around them until later in their careers.

[G.O.A.T]

How the heck did he accomplish more?

I'll let you take this one...



He won 1 ring more than Shaq


...while playing on basically loaded teams throughout his career. Hell, They could've replaced Duncan with Bosh in the '14 Finals and they still would've won a ring.

Let's not act like Duncan is not a 5x Champ with 3FMVP's and two MVPs


Lets not act like Shaq is not a 4x Champ with 3 FMVP's and an MVP.

I agree, people shouldn't sell players short by focusing on portions of a resume that suit their agenda.

[aj1987]

Let's not act like Duncan is not a 5x Champ with 3FMVP's and two MVPs
Dude, I'm a HUGE Duncan fan. I actually like watching players being aggressive on the defensive end rather than on the offensive end.

That being said, IMO, Shaq was just a better player than Duncan ever was. I mean Shaq had arguably the GOAT peak and a top 5 prime.

If only he had more MVP's (garbage ass cancer AI stole an MVP from Shaq though)

Also, I never said there's a huge gap between Shaq and Timmy.

[Soundwave]

Dude, I'm a HUGE Duncan fan. I actually like watching players being aggressive on the defensive end rather than on the offensive end.

That being said, IMO, Shaq was just a better player than Duncan ever was. I mean Shaq had arguably the GOAT peak and a top 5 prime.

If only he had more MVP's (garbage ass cancer AI stole an MVP from Shaq though)

I think if we're cutting the bullsh*t, Jordan and Shaq are the most dominant players of the past 30 years at their peak. No one else is quite on that level. LeBron has a chance to get there but needs to starting winning more. 2/5 doesn't cut it.

[Roundball_Rock]

The fact is Russell is the outlier, he is different from all the other top 12 players. Why is it so taboo to simply point that out? He's the only one of that group that did not have to shoulder the responsibility of being the lead offensive player.

Magic Johnson was the leading scorer only thrice. Several times (I believe four) he was the team's third leading scorer. Magic spent 1980-1986 as a supporting scorer to KAJ. He would be right there with Worthy, Nixon in the supporting scorer group. Duncan scored 25.5 ppg once and 19 ppg once in his prime. He was consistently in the 20-23 ppg for the rest of his prime. Neither of these players were dominant scorers. Should that be held against them? It isn't. Magic has been called the "first option" on teams he was the #3 and even #4 scorer (playoffs) on so he gets a complete pass and gets credit for what he was not. If you look at the Celtics' scoring and the 80's Lakers scoring from 1980-1986 you would see Magic and Russell performed a fairly similar scoring role on their teams.


I think if we're cutting the bullsh*t, Jordan and Shaq are the most dominant players of the past 30 years at their peak. No one else is quite on that level. LeBron has a chance to get there but needs to starting winning more. 2/5 doesn't cut it.

So winning matters? Yet the GOAT winner is dismissed because it is a team game when it comes to him? LeBron lost a series posting 38/8/8. Is that his fault?

[G.O.A.T]

If Adrian Dantley could outscore Michael Jordan for 10+ years, or Gilmore could match Olajuwon's production for a 10+ years, with 1-2 titles to go with that, they would both be top 10 players.

So you look at scoring in context when it applies to guys who shoot a lot. Me too.


Doing it in the ABA or for 1 season doesn't cut the mustard.

Surely he had worse teammates than everyone who titles in the NBA though. Look at those Bulls rosters.



The fact is Russell is the outlier, he is different from all the other top 12 players.

Yes he is, but is so Magic. So is Bird. So is Duncan, so is Mikan. Only Kobe and Jordan and Wilt and Shaq are all that similair and even they aren't really.


Why is it so taboo to simply point that out? He's the only one of that group that did not have to shoulder the responsibility of being the lead offensive player.

Lead scorer, he was not. Neither was Magic though, except '87 and maybe '88 (can't recall). Considering that Red and Hondo say the offensive went through him post-Cousy I'm not going to pretend like he didn't have major offensive responsibility though. And when it comes to defensive responsibility only a late in his career Wilt comes close to shouldering as much and look what it did to his scoring numbers. (although he did some himself by being obsessed with his FG% and passing up make-able shots for sure things. ) Duncan played alongside an even more true center for most of his rings, all in his prime. Kareem did it in '71 and was damn good, like Wilt's '67 a better season than Russell ever had. But in his Lakers days they never won because of his defense. Put it this way, Kareem had a bad rap for noting getting back on D all the time. Russell had a bad rap for not getting back on offense all the time. Shaq's defense was in and out, Magic, Bird, Kobe, MJ, LeBron were never their teams rim protector or top rebounder.


I personally think that both Wilt and Kareem are better centers than him and could outplay Russell most any day of the week head to head. They just didn't have as good of a team around them until later in their careers.


And even when they did, how many times did either even win two titles in a row let alone eight?

It's insulting to imagine Russell couldn't have beaten anyone. The fact is he beat everyone he was given the chance to. At the height of Wilt's statistical powers Russell was deemed more valuable by the rest of the players in the league playing the game. At the height of Wilt's having a great team around him Russell's Celtics still got the best of him two of three years. When Wilt teamed up two other players who lost multiple titles at the hands of Russell, Russell still won, and the best part. Wilt supporters blame the coach of the Lakers for getting out-coached by the Celtics coach, Bill Russell.

[moe94]

Yeah? Shaq was a MUCH better offensive player. Equally good rebounder and was a threat defensively in the paint. I guess that doesn't count in your universe.

How the heck did he accomplish more? He won 1 ring more than Shaq, while playing on basically loaded teams throughout his career. Hell, They could've replaced Duncan with Bosh in the '14 Finals and they still would've won a ring. Lets not act like Shaq is not a 4x Champ with 3 FMVP's and an MVP.

Shaq played on loaded teams throughout his career. During his prime, he played with at least 3 different players that are better than anyone Duncan ever played with. :oldlol:

Let's not act like Duncan is not a 5x champ with 3 FMVPs and 2 MVPs. Won a title without another all-nba member. Shaq never did that.

I like how you listed that as if Duncan doesn't have the same, if not better, shit.

I don't even like Duncan like that. I prefer Shaq. I just think Duncan had the better career and it's not even done yet.

[Soundwave]

Magic Johnson was the leading scorer only thrice. Several times (I believe four) he was the team's third leading scorer. Magic spent 1980-1986 as a supporting scorer to KAJ. He would be right there with Worthy, Nixon in the supporting scorer group. Duncan scored 25.5 ppg once and 19 ppg once in his prime. He was consistently in the 20-23 ppg for the rest of his prime. Neither of these players were dominant scorers. Should that be held against them? It isn't. Magic has been called the "first option" on teams he was the #3 and even #4 scorer (playoffs) on so he gets a complete pass and gets credit for what he was not. If you look at the Celtics' scoring and the 80's Lakers scoring from 1980-1986 you would see Magic and Russell performed a fairly similar scoring role on their teams.



So winning matters? Yet the GOAT winner is dismissed because it is a team game when it comes to him? LeBron lost a series posting 38/8/8. Is that his fault?

To the Magic/Duncan point, the fact is their offensive totals are still a good deal better than Russell's. And I believe Russell played in the highest scoring era to boot.

I mean I don't think there's anyone who thinks with a straight face that Wilt would average the numbers he did in the 60s in any other era really (not even the 70s IMO).

Put into that context, Russell's production looks even less impressive.

[G.O.A.T]

Dude, I'm a HUGE Duncan fan. I actually like watching players being aggressive on the defensive end rather than on the offensive end.

That being said, IMO, Shaq was just a better player than Duncan ever was. I mean Shaq had arguably the GOAT peak and a top 5 prime.

If only he had more MVP's (garbage ass cancer AI stole an MVP from Shaq though)

Also, I never said there's a huge gap between Shaq and Timmy.

Sounds like we mostly agree man.

I was just having fun with what I thought was an ironic post. Happens all the time on the web.

I agree that a peak Shaq was a greater player than a peak Duncan clearly. That said I have Duncan ranked higher all-time because he achieved more. Shaq should have worked harder, should have mended things with Kobe, should have had a peak longer than 18-32 months. In my opinion Shaq should have gone down as the 2nd to 5th best player of all-time and I think he's a notch below that, more like 6th-10th

I have Duncan and Shaq with three real MVP's each. But Steve Nash, Mailman and AI got in the way.

[moe94]

Sounds like we mostly agree man.

I was just having fun with what I thought was an ironic post. Happens all the time on the web.

I agree that a peak Shaq was a greater player than a peak Duncan clearly. That said I have Duncan ranked higher all-time because he achieved more. Shaq should have worked harder, should have mended things with Kobe, should have had a peak longer than 18-32 months. In my opinion Shaq should have gone down as the 2nd to 5th best player of all-time and I think he's a notch below that, more like 6th-10th

I have Duncan and Shaq with three real MVP's each. But Steve Nash, Mailman and AI got in the way.


I agree.

[RRR3]

It's not his PPG% to me so much as it his FG%. I am aware FG% numbers were considerably lower on average when Russell played. In his first four seasons, he actually was top 5 or better in the NBA in FG%. After this though, it seemed as though the league FG% got better, but Russell's did not. This is only based on a very quick scan of basketball-reference, so if I am wrong, please feel free to correct me.

My point is, it's one thing to say "well he could have easily scored more, but then he would have hurt his team", but considering he wasn't exactly dominatingly efficient, I'd argue that he might not have been suited to or even capable of scoring any more than he did in the first place at an effective level.

[Milbuck]

How long are people gonna continue to undermine Duncan's legacy on the basis that his peak wasn't that dominant?

Defense matters, and it's getting pretty tiring to see people half-ass their interest in it when discussing great players. Peak Duncan as an overall basketball player could hang with anyone. He was an all-time great offensive weapon in multiple ways, and impact-wise, he's arguably a top 3 defensive player since Russell.

Dude put up 26/15/5/4/1 on 57% TS with a championship run in there while carrying as little talent we've seen a franchise player carry to a title since Hakeem. 29.3 PER, 114 ORTG & 93 DRTG, .273 WS/48. His teams in the playoffs during his peak were on average 23.2 points better with him on the floor. We need to cut the bullshit with the "he's great, but he's not as dominant as guys like Bird, Magic, etc" If we consider both ends of the floor as we should, we're talking about one of the most dominant, high-impact players this league has ever seen.

[aj1987]

Shaq played on loaded teams throughout his career. He played with at least 3 different players that are better than anyone Duncan ever played with.

Let's not act like Duncan is not a 5x champ with 3 FMVPs and 2 MVPs.
Still doesn't change the fact that Shaq had a top 5 peak and arguable a top 5 prime.

Oh, and while you're comparing teams, compare the whole teams. Not just the best players on the teams. According to your logic, LeBron should've won this year because he played with 3 HOF'ers. Try not to ignore the benches and role players. The 3peat Lakers weren't great because they were loaded. They were great because they had Kobe and Shaq, who literally carried the team offensively.

Yeah. Duncan almost always has better teams.


I like how you listed that as if Duncan doesn't have the same, if not better, shit.

RS:
Shaq: 24/11/3/2
Timmy: 20/11/3/2

Playoffs:
Shaq: 24/12/3/2
Timmy: 21/13/3/2

Finals:
Shaq: 29/13/4/2
Timmy: 21/13/3/1



I don't like Duncan like that. I prefer Shaq. I just think Duncan had the better career and it's not even done yet.
It is arguable. To say Duncan's career >>> Shaq's is just asinine. Something which only idiots say and you're above that.

[RRR3]

Shaq's longevity is so underrated on ISH.


Can't speak to impact, because I didn't watch Shaq in his prime very much at all, and I only began to closely follow the NBA in 2011 or so, but his stats were great for a long time.



Starting during his rookie year until 2004-05, Shaq put up the following stats:


23/14/2/1/4 on 56%
29/13/2/1/3 on 60%
29/11/3/1/2 on 58%
27/11/3/1/2 on 57%
26/13/3/1/3 on 56%
28/11/2/1/2 on 58%
26/11/2/1/2 on 58%
30/14/4/1/3 on 57% :bowdown:
29/13/4/1/3 on 57%
27/11/3/1/2 on 58%
28/11/3/1/2 on 57%
22/12/3/1/3 on 58%
23/10/3/1/2 on 60%


And in 2005-06, he put up 20/9/2/0/2 on 60% in only about 31 MPG.

[Soundwave]

It's not his PPG% to me so much as it his FG%. I am aware FG% numbers were considerably lower on average when Russell played. In his first four seasons, he actually was top 5 or better in the NBA in FG%. After this though, it seemed as though the league FG% got better, but Russell's did not. This is only based on a very quick scan of basketball-reference, so if I am wrong, please feel free to correct me.

My point is, it's one thing to say "well he could have easily scored more, but then he would have hurt his team", but considering he wasn't exactly dominatingly efficient, I'd argue that he might not have been suited to or even capable of scoring any more than he did in the first place at an effective level.

Judging from the footage we do have of Russell, I'd say his post game and post moves weren't all that great. His shot wasn't that great either.

He was a good athlete though, especially relative to that time. In that era of the NBA there simply weren't that many big players who could run and jump like that.

I don't think it's really that big of a reach to say he may simply have not been all that great of an offensive talent. We have no problem pointing out that Magic/Bird weren't great defenders, so why the double standard?

[Roundball_Rock]

To the Magic/Duncan point, the fact is their offensive totals are still a good deal better than Russell's. And I believe Russell played in the highest scoring era to boot.

I mean I don't think there's anyone who thinks with a straight face that Wilt would average the numbers he did in the 60s in any other era really (not even the 70s IMO).

Put into that context, Russell's production looks even less impressive.

Here is how he ranked as the team's scorer from 1957-1966: 4th, 4th, 4th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 4th.

I used 1966 as the cut-off because his scoring tailed off late in his career and he was a player-coach after that. If you look at Boston's scoring you won't see a 30 ppg scorer. Their leading scorer was in the low 20's most of the time and they had several other players in the 15-19 ppg range as supporting scorers.

How is the above not similar to Magic's scoring role on the Lakers from 1980-1986? He was their leading scorer only three times and for only two rings and no one holds that against him.


Shaq played on loaded teams throughout his career.

How loaded were they? Look at how his teams fared without him...The 96' Magic managed to stay afloat when he was out but that was the exception and took a MVP-caliber campaign by Penny (he was 3rd in MVP voting that year--ahead of Hakeem and Pippen). In 97' they replaced Shaq with a 17/10 center and fell to 45-37 and were bounced in the first round, despite an epic series from Penny.

The 2000-2002 Lakers were 13-12 with Kobe, without Shaq. How did they do with Shaq, without Kobe? 25-6.

How about Miami without Shaq?

2005: 6-3
2006: 10-13
2007: 19-23

In 2007 Wade missed considerable time. How did Miami do with Shaq, without Wade? 16-8. How about Miami with Wade, without Shaq? 18-17.

You can do this over and over again for Shaq. The fact is his teams were average without him. Even when his superstar wings were out Shaq kept the team performing at an elite level; when he was out both Kobe and Wade failed to do the same. Penny was not able to do it in 97'.


Shaq's longevity is so underrated on ISH.


Can't speak to impact, because I didn't watch Shaq in his prime very much at all, and I only began to closely follow the NBA in 2011 or so, but his stats were great for a long time.

Starting during his rookie year until 2004-05, Shaq put up the following stats:


23/14/2/1/4 on 56%
29/13/2/1/3 on 60%
29/11/3/1/2 on 58%
27/11/3/1/2 on 57%
26/13/3/1/3 on 56%
28/11/2/1/2 on 58%
26/11/2/1/2 on 58%
30/14/4/1/3 on 57%
29/13/4/1/3 on 57%
27/11/3/1/2 on 58%
28/11/3/1/2 on 57%
22/12/3/1/3 on 58%
23/10/3/1/2 on 60%


And in 2005-06, he put up 20/9/2/0/2 on 60% in only about 31 MPG.

:applause:

Shaq is diminished by many due to allegedly poor longevity (the guy was still good in 2007--17/7 on 59% in 28 mpg, had a down year in 2008 but had a renaissance in 2009 with an 18/8 season) and because he played with Penny, Kobe, and Wade. However, where were Penny, Kobe, and Wade without Shaq in the middle? Kobe and Wade struggled to reach 0.500 without Shaq. Penny managed without Shaq for a period in 96'--but the team collapsed when they lost Shaq permanently in 97', despite getting a 17/10 player to replace him (kind of like the Heat getting Deng for LeBron).

[Soundwave]

Here is how he ranked as the team's scorer from 1957-1966: 4th, 4th, 4th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 4th.

I used 1966 as the cut-off because his scoring tailed off late in his career and he was a player-coach after that. If you look at Boston's scoring you won't see a 30 ppg scorer. Their leading scorer was in the low 20's most of the time and they had several other players in the 15-19 ppg range as supporting scorers.

How is the above not similar to Magic's scoring role on the Lakers from 1980-1986? He was their leading scorer only three times and for only two rings and no one holds that against him.




Who's arguing for Magic as GOAT anyway? I have Magic at 5 maybe 6 or 7 on my list. I think Bird was better than him in a lot of ways. Even still Magic's offensive production is considerably better than Russell's.

I think to be GOAT, you can't have a key deficiency in your game. You can be in the top 10, sure, but you can't have a glaring weakness there.

It's also why I wouldn't put Bird or Magic at GOAT either. Defensively they just weren't good enough to carry the title of being the greatest to step onto a court when there are other guys who were able to be dominant on both ends.

If you want the title of GOAT, there should be a complete quality to your game.

[G.O.A.T]

I think to be GOAT, you can't have a key deficiency in your game.

I'd say for something to qualify as a key deficiency it would have to negatively impact a players level of success.

Agree or disagree?

[Soundwave]

I'd say for something to qualify as a key deficiency it would have to negatively impact a players level of success.

Agree or disagree?

No, it's either there or it isn't. We're looking at GOAT, not a career retrospective. Magic and Bird won a lot of titles and had tremendous careers by being average/below average defenders, but that doesn't mean when discussing the GOAT that that issue doesn't become relevant.

I think of it as grading a diamond. You don't just look at the carat weight of diamond, you have to look at things like quality of cut, clarity, color, etc. Those can wildly dicate the value of a diamond. And those are fairly straight forward actually.

Either it makes the cut or it doesn't.

The GOAT should be able to lace up his shoes and be the best player on the court if he's put on the court with the other 9 GOAT candidates. IMO, Russell just doesn't cut the mustard there. I'm honestly not even sure he's better than Wilt or Kareem or even Shaq for the top 3 center spots.

[fpliii]

Let's be real here, if it's "GOAT" and we're talking about complete players, let's not try and handicap by position. None of the perimeter players in the conversation, even if they were tremendous wing defenders, have a fraction of the defensive/rebounding impact of one of the GOAT bigs. Same with bigs not having the ball-handling/playmaking abilities of the GOAT wings.

There are no "complete" players. Kareem isn't close to the ball-handler or passer of a legitimate point guard, and Jordan isn't close to the defender or rebounder that a big man is. GOAT isn't relative to position, so let's not use arbitrary criteria for well-roundedness.

[G.O.A.T]

No, it's either there or it isn't. We're looking at GOAT, not a career retrospective. Magic and Bird won a lot of titles and had tremendous careers by being average/below average defenders, but that doesn't mean when discussing the GOAT that that issue doesn't become relevant.

I think of it as grading a diamond. You don't just look at the carat weight of diamond, you have to look at things like quality of cut, clarity, color, etc. Those can wildly dicate the value of a diamond. And those are fairly straight forward actually.

Either it makes the cut or it doesn't.

The GOAT should be able to lace up his shoes and be the best player on the court if he's put on the court with the other 9 GOAT candidates. IMO, Russell just doesn't cut the mustard there. I'm honestly not even sure he's better than Wilt or Kareem or Shaq for the top 3 center spots.

Not really concerned about your opinions, but more the bias for why you have them. That's what I can learn from.

If Russell's scoring is a weakness than so are...

Wilt's Focus
Kareem's Leadership
Shaq's discipline
Magic's defense
Bird's durability
Jordan's Rim Protection/Rebounding

Agree or Disagree?


No, it's either there or it isn't.

Problem with that is that it's subjective. A lot of people here who it seems have read and researched the topic a lot more than you seem to think Russell's offense wasn't a liability, but you do, so you see were at an impasse in terms of the merits of your opinion as anything more than opinion.

[RRR3]

Not really concerned about your opinions, but more the bias for why you have them. That's what I can learn from.

If Russell's scoring is a weakness than so are...

Wilt's Focus
Kareem's Leadership
Shaq's discipline
Magic's defense
Bird's durability
Jordan's Rim Protection/Rebounding

Agree or Disagree?
How are those a weakness considering his position? His rebounding and shot blocking were excellent for a 2 guard. This is like faulting Russell for not being a good outside shooter

[G.O.A.T]

How are those a weakness considering his position? His rebounding and shot blocking were excellent for a 2 guard. This is like faulting Russell for not being a good outside shooter

Or faulting Russell for not having a higher scoring average or field goal percentage. Wasn't a part of the position he played, thus isn't really a factor.

[RRR3]

Or faulting Russell for not having a higher scoring average or field goal percentage. Wasn't a part of the position he played, thus isn't really a factor.
It wasn't part of his position to score a lot, yes, but I think if you're going to put up as a GOAT candidate AND you are scoring only when needed (putbacks, broken plays, etc.) then you should be able to do it more efficiently.

[fpliii]

Disagree strongly that Russell's scoring is a big issue, a lot of the inefficiency was by design, since that's how the offenses ran. The Celtics focussed on quantity over quality in shots (since they forced an inordinate number of turnovers with their pressure defense, of which Russ was the lynchpin), see these two quotes:


Tom Heinsohn: We had a very simple objective at the start of every game: We were going to take more shots than the other team, as many more as we could. So the less time we wasted bringing the ball upcourt, the more shots we’d get, and the easier those shots would probably be because the defense would be caught unprepared.

We were trained to play at a pace other teams didn’t like, to extend ourselves 100 percent every minute we were out there. Other coaches preferred to slow the pace so that their players would still be strong at the end of the game if they had to go the full forty-eight minutes. Red’s approach was just the opposite: Turn the contest into a physical test of wills!

Even if other teams were able to match us shot for shot, they weren’t getting as many good shots as the game wore on because they were being forced to think quicker, shoot quicker, and make decisions quicker, invariably leading to more turnovers than they were accustomed to committing.

We didn’t waste a lot of time looking for the perfect shots, the way other teams did. Our idea was to overwhelm the opposition by the number of shots we took; the emphasis was clearly on quantity.

The mathematics of that approach were obvious. If we took 100 shots and made only 40 percent, we’d still have as many points as a team that took 80 shots and made 50 percent. The meant if the other team was trying to limit its number of shots by playing a slower game, it was going to have to shoot a much higher percentage than we did in order to beat us.

We weren’t worried about percentages. People look back at those Celtics today and say, “Hey, Cousy shot only 38 percent,” but that’s a misunderstanding of the way we played.

The constant battle was to find ways to upbeat the tempo and to never allow the other team to slow us down; more important, to never allow them time to catch their breath or to think. […] With Cousy and Russell perfecting what they knew at opposite ends of the floor, allowing us to become more and more assertive all the time, we were simply too much for most teams to withstand. We were the marines, baby! Charge! That was us: the leathernecks of the NBA, charging up Pork Chop Hill every night.
— Tommy Heinsohn and Joe Fitzgerald, Give ’em the Hook (Prentice Hall, 1988), pp. 81-82


John Havlicek: The Celtics have never won by field goal percentage. On at least one occasion they had the worst team shooting percentage in the league. But they took the most shots and they also accomplished their main objective, which was to win the championship. The Celtics have been blessed with a succession of great rebounders, from Bill Russell to Dave Cowens and Paul Silas, who have enabled them to have possession of the ball more than other teams. The rule of thumb for me, and for every other Celtic, has been, ‘If you’ve got the shot, take it. Otherwise you’re no good to us.’ This is not to say that your better shooters shouldn’t get the ball in key situations. It means that, as Red says, you can’t let them insult you. There is nothing wrong with a so-so shooter taking an open shot when there are good offensive rebounders positioned underneath the basket.
— John Havlicek and Bob Ryan, Hondo: Celtic Man in Motion (Prentice-Hall, 1977), p. 91

Here are Russell's and his teammates FG% by season relative to league average:

http://i.imgur.com/yKjRLCR.png

Columns 1 and 2 correspond to Russell, columns 3 and 4 correspond to his teammates, season by season. From the numbers, it seems like this was an equal opportunity offense for the most part, Russell doesn't seem too far removed from his teammates in terms of relative FG%.

I don't know if he's the GOAT, but IMO the clear cut best four players ever are Russell, MJ, Wilt, and Kareem, with the first two being the only players with a legitimate case.

[Soundwave]

Or faulting Russell for not having a higher scoring average or field goal percentage. Wasn't a part of the position he played, thus isn't really a factor.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Wilt_Chamberlain_100-point.jpg

[G.O.A.T]

It wasn't part of his position to score a lot, yes, but I think if you're going to put up as a GOAT candidate AND you are scoring only when needed (putbacks, broken plays, etc.) then you should be able to do it more efficiently.

Like you said he was among the most efficient early in his career. Also he was above the league average most of the rest. Same as guys like Duncan and Hakeem or better than Kobe.

They ran no plays for him basically except an alley-oop.

[G.O.A.T]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Wilt_Chamberlain_100-point.jpg

Wilt was embarrassed by that game.

Wilt's best years were when he played more like Russell.

These are according to Wilt, your call on how to take them.

[Soundwave]

Like you said he was among the most efficient early in his career. Also he was above the league average most of the rest. Same as guys like Duncan and Hakeem or better than Kobe.

They ran no plays for him basically except an alley-oop.

Looking at his video highlights, his post game wasn't that great to begin with, so it probably was a better idea to let other guys take the shots.

[RRR3]

Like you said he was among the most efficient early in his career. Also he was above the league average most of the rest. Same as guys like Duncan and Hakeem or better than Kobe.

They ran no plays for him basically except an alley-oop.
Well, that's fair enough, then. I don't have any problem with his PPG, it's more the FG%, but using context his FG% was very good for the time period. I just don't see the argument for him over Wilt, who AFAIK was also superb at defense (though not quite as good) while also being a superb scorer and equal or better than Russell at rebounding. Now, I am aware that Russell was a better teammate and leader, but as far as being an individually better basketall player, I think Wilt has to get the nod here. Also, later in his career (with the Lakers) Wilt became a much better team player and played the "Bill Russell role" better than Russell ever had, according to Russell himself IIRC.

[G.O.A.T]

Looking at his video highlights, his post game wasn't that great to begin with, so it probably was a better idea to let other guys take the shots.

That's sort of the point. Had he needed to be a scorer, he probably would have worked on developing a post game with more than three moves. HE DIDN'T NEED TO SCORE TO WIN SO HE DIDN'T EXPEND ANY EXTRA ENERGY TRYING TO BECOME A SCORER.

Capital Letter's Rarely Help.

[livinglegend]

That's sort of the point. Had he needed to be a scorer, he probably would have worked on developing a post game with more than three moves. HE DIDN'T NEED TO SCORE TO WIN SO HE DIDN'T EXPEND ANY EXTRA ENERGY TRYING TO BECOME A SCORER.

Capital Letter's Rarely Help.


When his team needed him to score, he did score. He was the leading scorer of his team in NCAA. He was the leading scorer of team USA.
He had game 7s where he scored 30 points.

The guy knew what to do to win, and the goal of basketball is to win.

[G.O.A.T]

Well, that's fair enough, then. I don't have any problem with his PPG, it's more the FG%, but using context his FG% was very good for the time period. I just don't see the argument for him over Wilt, who AFAIK was also superb at defense (though not quite as good) while also being a superb scorer and equal or better than Russell at rebounding. Now, I am aware that Russell was a better teammate and leader, but as far as being an individually better basketall player, I think Wilt has to get the nod here. Also, later in his career (with the Lakers) Wilt became a much better team player and played the "Bill Russell role" better than Russell ever had, according to Russell himself IIRC.

We can agree that in terms of tangible athletic and basketball skill Wilt is better. I am not insane after all.

Wilt should have won more MVP's, should have won more Titles than Russell, but he didn't.

Wilt did play the Russell role better than Russell for like three 4 month stretches of his career. Russell brought it for 13 straight years.

Wilt got wrapped up in things like averaging 50, leading the league in assists, shooting 60-70% from the field, never fouling out, never subbing out etc.

More than any other player I want to see Wilt in the modern era. He is smart, but his guidance/coaching was way behind today's and he didn't have the "win at all cost" mindset Russell did. Wilt was so damn good and so damn big that he won at everything growing up, he was mostly concerned about not hurting people. Russell had to fight for everything, his Mom died young, he got in fights all the time as a kid, different people, different mentalities. Russell's fit the era, Wilt's didn't.

[fpliii]

That's sort of the point. Had he needed to be a scorer, he probably would have worked on developing a post game with more than three moves. HE DIDN'T NEED TO SCORE TO WIN SO HE DIDN'T EXPEND ANY EXTRA ENERGY TRYING TO BECOME A SCORER.

Capital Letter's Rarely Help.
Not sure how he'd change his post game today. Definitely wouldn't turn the ball over near as much as he did because there would be much, much less swarming among the defenses with proper spacing today (until being traded to the Sixers, Wilt wasn't really surrounded with outside shooters to spread the floor).

I do think Wilt would still shy away from the power game, and I'm not a huge fan of his main two shots (he didn't shoot the fadeaway at its apex, so not only did he not get the highest release possible, but the shot was more difficult from the longer horizontal drift; the finger roll isn't a safe shot, if you're a big man, either dunk it or reverse layup, so it can't be blocked).

[Soundwave]

That's sort of the point. Had he needed to be a scorer, he probably would have worked on developing a post game with more than three moves. HE DIDN'T NEED TO SCORE TO WIN SO HE DIDN'T EXPEND ANY EXTRA ENERGY TRYING TO BECOME A SCORER.

Capital Letter's Rarely Help.

I don't really see why or how that helps his case as GOAT. The Lakers could score 120 points a game, guess Magic didn't need to learn how to play defence.

Besides I don't really buy the "he was a great scorer, he just didn't want to". If you can score in the NBA ... you score. It's simply in a lot of ways an inate talent that can't really be developed (how many mediocre scorers coming into the NBA develop into high end offensive players?). It can only be refined really.

He just wasn't that great of a scorer. I don't see what the hang up is in admitting it if we can admit Magic and Bird weren't great defenders.

[G.O.A.T]

When his team needed him to score, he did score. He was the leading scorer of his team in NCAA. He was the leading scorer of team USA.
He had game 7s where he scored 30 points.

The guy knew what to do to win, and the goal of basketball is to win.

How dare you!

[juju151111]

That's sort of the point. Had he needed to be a scorer, he probably would have worked on developing a post game with more than three moves. HE DIDN'T NEED TO SCORE TO WIN SO HE DIDN'T EXPEND ANY EXTRA ENERGY TRYING TO BECOME A SCORER.

Capital Letter's Rarely Help.
Stop the BS. He wasn't a good scorer and that's that. Just like any other player who wasn't. You can be a good scorer and a good defensive player. Duncan and Hakeem says hi. Imo Russell was nothing but a slightly better Ben Wallace. His stats were padded especially in the Late 50s and early 60s.

[fpliii]

If Russell's scoring is a weakness than so are...

Wilt's Focus
Kareem's Leadership
Shaq's discipline
Magic's defense
Bird's durability
Jordan's Rim Protection/Rebounding
/thread

If we're talking about the GOAT, there is not handicapping for position. There is no perfectly well-rounded player.

[fpliii]

Stop the BS. He wasn't a good scorer and that's that. Just like any other player who wasn't. You can be a good scorer and a good defensive player. Duncan and Hakeem says hi. Imo Russell was nothing but a slightly better Ben Wallace. His stats were padded especially in the Late 50s and early 60s.
Ugh...not worth the frustration, this is stuff we've all gone over 1000x. I'm out of here.

[Soundwave]

/thread

If we're talking about the GOAT, there is not handicapping for position. There is no perfectly well-rounded player.

There is no natural handicap to scoring from the center position though. The most dominant scorer of the 50s was Mikan, the most dominant scorer of the 60s was Wilt, the most dominant of the 70s was Kareem, all centers.

Hell up until Jordan came around, most people felt like the scoring title generally went to the prototypical big man center. That's why the Knicks were jizzing their pants when they won the lottery for Ewing, they thought that was the player they were getting.

[moe94]

That's sort of the point. Had he needed to be a scorer, he probably would have worked on developing a post game with more than three moves. HE DIDN'T NEED TO SCORE TO WIN SO HE DIDN'T EXPEND ANY EXTRA ENERGY TRYING TO BECOME A SCORER.

Capital Letter's Rarely Help.

He could have been better if he needed to be better is a terrible excuse and putting caps on it only illuminates that further.

[G.O.A.T]

I don't really see why or how that helps his case as GOAT. The Lakers could score 120 points a game, guess Magic didn't need to learn how to play defence.

Exactly.


Besides I don't really buy the "he was a great scorer, he just didn't want to".

Well rather you buy it or not, when he needed to score to win, he did and pretty damn efficiently. I say this because I know it to be a fact, not because I buy it or not.


If you can score in the NBA ... you score. It's simply in a lot of ways an inate talent that can't really be developed (how many mediocre scorers coming into the NBA develop into high end offensive players?). It can only be refined really.

Russell was a high end scorer coming into the NBA as people have shown you. WHEN HE GOT TO THE CELTICS, SCORING WAS NOT WHAT WAS NEEDED.


He just wasn't that great of a scorer. I don't see what the hang up is in admitting it if we can admit Magic and Bird weren't great defenders.

Did Magic or Bird ever do the defensive equivalent of 30 and 8 assists in game seven of the finals?

Did they ever do the defensive equivalent to 22 points per game on 70% shooting in the NBA finals?

Magic and Bird aren't below Russell or Wilt or anyone else because they are worse defenders, it's because they did less to help their team win overall.


Stop the BS. He wasn't a good scorer and that's that. Just like any other player who wasn't. You can be a good scorer and a good defensive player. Duncan and Hakeem says hi. Imo Russell was nothing but a slightly better Ben Wallace. His stats were padded especially in the Late 50s and early 60s.

Well you're dumb. You obviously can't add to this conversation. Bye.

[RRR3]

We can agree that in terms of tangible athletic and basketball skill Wilt is better. I am not insane after all.

Wilt should have won more MVP's, should have won more Titles than Russell, but he didn't.

Wilt did play the Russell role better than Russell for like three 4 month stretches of his career. Russell brought it for 13 straight years.

Wilt got wrapped up in things like averaging 50, leading the league in assists, shooting 60-70% from the field, never fouling out, never subbing out etc.

More than any other player I want to see Wilt in the modern era. He is smart, but his guidance/coaching was way behind today's and he didn't have the "win at all cost" mindset Russell did. Wilt was so damn good and so damn big that he won at everything growing up, he was mostly concerned about not hurting people. Russell had to fight for everything, his Mom died young, he got in fights all the time as a kid, different people, different mentalities. Russell's fit the era, Wilt's didn't.
Good post, I haven't ever watched these guys play, but I appreciate your knowledge of NBA history :cheers:

[fpliii]

There is no natural handicap to scoring from the center position though. The most dominant scorer of the 60s was Wilt, the most dominant of the 70s was Kareem, both are centers.

Hell up until Jordan came around, most people felt like the scoring title generally went to the prototypical big man center. That's why the Knicks were jizzing their pants when they won the lottery for Ewing, they thought that was the player they were getting.
No handicap, but it was an equal opportunity offense, and they focussed on taking more shots as a team philosophy, not better ones:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10332451&postcount=146

Russell was no Wilt or a gifted scorer at all really, but he wasn't an offensive liability. He set the still-standing record for FG% in the 65 Finals, and closed out the 62 Finals with a 30-40 game.

Scoring wasn't his strength, but the Wallace comparisons are out of line. Russell, along with K.C. Jones, more or less directed the offense once Cousy retired.

[G.O.A.T]

There is no natural handicap to scoring from the center position though. The most dominant scorer of the 50s was Mikan, the most dominant scorer of the 60s was Wilt, the most dominant of the 70s was Kareem, all centers.

Hell up until Jordan came around, most people felt like the scoring title generally went to the prototypical big man center. That's why the Knicks were jizzing their pants when they won the lottery for Ewing, they thought that was the player they were getting.

Actually they thought they were getting the next Russell.

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-03-10/sports/sp-25844_1_ralph-dalton/4

[moe94]

Magic and Bird aren't below Russell or Wilt or anyone else because they are worse defenders, it's because they did less to help their team win overall.
.

Expand on this. Why do you believe this?

[Soundwave]

No handicap, but it was an equal opportunity offense, and they focussed on taking more shots as a team philosophy, not better ones:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10332451&postcount=146

Russell was no Wilt or a gifted scorer at all really, but he wasn't an offensive liability. He set the still-standing record for FG% in the 65 Finals, and closed out the 62 Finals with a 30-40 game.

Scoring wasn't his strength, but the Wallace comparisons are out of line. Russell, along with K.C. Jones, more or less directed the offense once Cousy retired.

If they have such a great offensive weapon, who is bigger, stronger, more athletic than 98% of the players in the league wouldn't that be the best option on the floor? Let only the 3rd or 4th best option on some nights?

C'mon.

Having a high scoring big is basically the most efficient form of scoring you can get. And it's not like this was unknown at that time, Mikan and Wilt had already proven it.

Why is it so hard for some people to admit that maybe Russell simply wasn't that great of an offensive player? The Celtics went to other guys simply because they were better scorers than Russell.

Ben Wallace isn't a garbage player either, he probably would do very well if you transplanted a prime Wallace into the 1960s.

[NumberSix]

That's sort of the point. Had he needed to be a scorer, he probably would have worked on developing a post game with more than three moves. HE DIDN'T NEED TO SCORE TO WIN SO HE DIDN'T EXPEND ANY EXTRA ENERGY TRYING TO BECOME A SCORER.

Capital Letter's Rarely Help.
Translation.....

He didn't need to be an all time great player for his team to win. The team was good enough to win with Russell being a Joakim Noah level player.

[fpliii]

Translation.....

He didn't need to be an all time great player for his team to win. The team was good enough to win with Russell being a Joakim Noah level player.
This guy tries so hard. :oldlol:

[juju151111]

Ugh...not worth the frustration, this is stuff we've all gone over 1000x. I'm out of here.
Go check Ben allace stats and adjust it for pace. Comparing him to Ben Wallace defensivly is probably the highest praise i can give him defensivly.

[fpliii]

If they have such a great offensive weapon, who is bigger, stronger, more athletic than 98% of the players in the league wouldn't that be the best option on the floor? Let only the 3rd or 4th best option on some nights?

C'mon.

Having a high scoring big is basically the most efficient form of scoring you can get. And it's not like this was unknown at that time, Mikan and Wilt had already proven it.

Why is it so hard for some people to admit that maybe Russell simply wasn't that great of an offensive player? The Celtics went to other guys simply because they were better scorers than Russell.

Ben Wallace isn't a garbage player either, he probably would do very well if you transplanted a prime Wallace into the 1960s.
Did you read the quotes and look at the data in the post I linked?

Ben Wallace isn't a garbage player, but he didn't have the same longevity as Russell, didn't show the ability to be a decent scorer (not in all-time terms, but compared to the league average), and wasn't the ball-handler or passer that Russell was.

[juju151111]

Exactly.



Well rather you buy it or not, when he needed to score to win, he did and pretty damn efficiently. I say this because I know it to be a fact, not because I buy it or not.



Russell was a high end scorer coming into the NBA as people have shown you. WHEN HE GOT TO THE CELTICS, SCORING WAS NOT WHAT WAS NEEDED.



Did Magic or Bird ever do the defensive equivalent of 30 and 8 assists in game seven of the finals?

Did they ever do the defensive equivalent to 22 points per game on 70% shooting in the NBA finals?

Magic and Bird aren't below Russell or Wilt or anyone else because they are worse defenders, it's because they did less to help their team win overall.



Well you're dumb. You obviously can't add to this conversation. Bye.
Show me how much Russell is better then Prime ben Wallace defensivly. Not to mention Russell spent the 50s,early 60s going against guards who can barly dribble left at all and were not has athlethic.

[G.O.A.T]

Expand on this. Why do you believe this?

When I rank players it based on actual achievement relative to helping their team win or pursue Championships. Magic and Bird were great players who made players better on offense and in a lesser way on defense (with steals/deflections mostly) They were also good leaders which is essentially to remaining sharp once you've gotten near or reached the top.

However I player who does what Russell does has a greater impact in my opinion. Russell was clearly the best defensive player on the best defensive team. Their weaknesses was their inefficient shooting which Russell took care of by rebounding and winning them possessions. On Defense Russell allowed each player to play more aggressively and leak out for the fast break because of his defense and rebounding. It made each player a better defender and some better offensive players. On offense he filled the role of high post passer, finisher and offensive rebounder, taking up no one else' space or role allowing each player to be their best and do what they do best more because he didn't need the ball. Bird's offense took away some from McHale and Parrish's offense, you can only put so mnay guys in the post. Magic's took away from Nixon and later Kareem. First with the PG role, later with the fast break.

[Soundwave]

Did you read the quotes and look at the data in the post I linked?

Ben Wallace isn't a garbage player, but he didn't have the same longevity as Russell, didn't show the ability to be a decent scorer (not in all-time terms, but compared to the league average), and wasn't the ball-handler or passer that Russell was.

I never said anything about Ben Wallace being Bill Russell. I'm just saying if you put Ben Wallace in the 60s his numbers across the board probably get a fairly healthy boost across the board.

[NumberSix]

I've never seen a video of Bill Russell where his defense was some kind of out of this world epic defense. People just lean on the "defense" argument because there are no numbers to directly refute it the way there is with offense. People have just decided that he has the most rings so he MUST be great. His offense obviously wasn't great so it MUST have been his defense. His defense just had to be so epically great.

What would his defense look like if he was playing against competent players? What would Alonzo Mourning look like playing against these bums that Bill Russell went up against? Outside of wilt who routinely shit on him, he was playing against scrubs.

[juju151111]

If they have such a great offensive weapon, who is bigger, stronger, more athletic than 98% of the players in the league wouldn't that be the best option on the floor? Let only the 3rd or 4th best option on some nights?

C'mon.

Having a high scoring big is basically the most efficient form of scoring you can get. And it's not like this was unknown at that time, Mikan and Wilt had already proven it.

Why is it so hard for some people to admit that maybe Russell simply wasn't that great of an offensive player? The Celtics went to other guys simply because they were better scorers than Russell.

Ben Wallace isn't a garbage player either, he probably would do very well if you transplanted a prime Wallace into the 1960s.
They think comparing him to Ben Wallace(Who is top3 in the modern era on defense) is a insult:lol. Its just my opinion from watching the games on Youtube that are avaiable that Russell isn't doing the samethings or at least at the same rate.

[fpliii]

Go check Ben allace stats and adjust it for pace. Comparing him to Ben Wallace defensivly is probably the highest praise i can give him defensivly.
Here are the Celtics DRtgs, relative to league average:

1.4 (year before Russell arrives)
-4.9
-5.2
-5.7
-6.2
-7.6
-8.5
-8.5
-10.8
-9.4
-6.6
-5.1
-4.4
-6.4
-0.1 (year after Russell leaves)

Big Ben in Detroit (during his prime):

1.7 (year before Ben arrives)
-1.2
-2.1
-3.7
-7.5
-4.9
-3.1
-2.3 (year after Ben leaves)

At his best, Wallace was similar to prime Russell defensively, but he didn't have the same consistency/longevity.

If we're looking at box scores alone for some reason, Russell would probably look similar to Ben (my guess is as good as anybody's, but I'd peg him as a 10/15/5/5/2 guy).

[juju151111]

I never said anything about Ben Wallace being Bill Russell. I'm just saying if you put Ben Wallace in the 60s his numbers across the board probably get a fairly healthy boost across the board.
Exactly

[Soundwave]

I've never seen a video of Bill Russell where his defense was some kind of out of this world epic defense. People just lean on the "defense" argument because there are no numbers to directly refute it the way there is with offense. People have just decided that he has the most rings so he MUST be great. His offense obviously wasn't great so it MUST have been his defense. His defense just had to be so epically great.

What would his defense look like if he was playing against competent players? What would Alonzo Mourning look like playing against these bums that Bill Russell went up against? Outside of wilt who routinely shit on him, he was playing against scrubs.

What strikes me about seeing footage from the 60s is many of the shooting guards and small forwards really didn't know what the hell they were doing against taller players.

They'd routinely run into the lane and hope that a quick scoop layup would work. And most shots come from in the lane or close to the lane. It's like watching lambs go in to slaughter.

Nowadays even from the junior high level you're taught to jump into the body of a taller player and to protect the ball with your body. Also go up with the left hand if you're on the left side (making the shot harder to block). That and the modern game has a greater emphasis on the pull up jumper, again designed to negate shot blocking ability.

There seemed to be little/no concept of this back then.

A young Shaq would eat those guys alive.

There was a sh*t ton of basket interference that refs let Wilt and Russell get away with too from the footage I've seen.

[fpliii]

What strikes me about seeing footage from the 60s is many of the shooting guards and small forwards really didn't know what the hell they were doing against taller players.

They'd routinely run into the lane and hope that a quick scoop layup would work. And most shots come from in the lane or close to the lane.

Nowadays even from the junior high level you're taught to jump into the body of a taller player and to protect the ball with your body. Also go up with the left hand if you're on the left side (making the shot harder to block).

There seemed to be little/no concept of this back then.

A young Shaq would eat those guys alive.

There was a sh*t ton of basket interference that refs let Wilt and Russell get away with too from the footage I've seen.
Nice, link to a few examples of Russell in particular, since there was a "shit ton" of it. Thanks.

[juju151111]

Here are the Celtics DRtgs, relative to league average:

1.4 (year before Russell arrives)
-4.9
-5.2
-5.7
-6.2
-7.6
-8.5
-8.5
-10.8
-9.4
-6.6
-5.1
-4.4
-6.4
-0.1 (year after Russell leaves)

Big Ben in Detroit (during his prime):

1.7 (year before Ben arrives)
-1.2
-2.1
-3.7
-7.5
-4.9
-3.1
-2.3 (year after Ben leaves)

At his best, Wallace was similar to prime Russell defensively, but he didn't have the same consistency/longevity.

If we're looking at box scores alone for some reason, Russell would probably look similar to Ben (my guess is as good as anybody's, but I'd peg him as a 10/15/5/5/2 guy).
Which is why i said Russell was better, but Russell played against inferior guards in his era. I don't have Russell over even Hakeem. Their isn't a arguement for Russell over Hakeem imho the only thing is Russell had wayyyyyy superior cast and inflated stats from the 50s and early 60s. No way im drafting Russell over Hakeem

[fpliii]

Which is why i said Russell was better, but Russell played against inferior guards in his era. I don't have Russell over even Hakeem. Their isn't a arguement for Russell over Hakeem imho the only thing is Russell had wayyyyyy superior cast and inflated stats from the 50s and early 60s. No way im drafting Russell over Hakeem
...consisting of primarily offensive talent, and their offenses were mediocre to poor, year in and year out.

If we're saying they were standout defenders, okay, where is the impact of his teammates arriving/leaving demonstrated in the DRtg numbers posted above?

Regarding guards, perhaps, but Russell was extremely mobile as well. In that Hakeem/KG class (Duncan was pretty mobile too, and Robinson was a tremendous athlete as well). Here are some good quotes to complement the footage:

[quote]"With Russell," said Hayes "you never know what to expect. He has such great lateral movement. He's always got an angle on you. He told me that he can take just two steps and block a shot from any position on the court. I remember the first time I was matched up against him. I was out in the corner and he was under the basket. I figured it was safe to shoot. But as I went up, there he was, tipping the shot.
(Pat Putnam,

[Soundwave]

Nice, link to a few examples of Russell in particular, since there was a "shit ton" of it. Thanks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnjC0nm2q5U&feature=youtu.be

This is a college game but it's the recent one I was watching, earlier on the clips, one of the alley oops for example looking like it was going in or was in the cylinder. There's another example there too in the first few minutes but I'm not going to spend 10-15 minutes watching the whole thing.

[Soundwave]

...consisting of primarily offensive talent, and their offenses were mediocre to poor, year in and year out.

If we're saying they were standout defenders, okay, where is the impact of his teammates arriving/leaving demonstrated in the DRtg numbers posted above?

Regarding guards, perhaps, but Russell was extremely mobile as well. In that Hakeem/KG class (Duncan was pretty mobile too, and Robinson was a tremendous athlete as well). Here are some good quotes to complement the footage:

















On rebounding (related topic):

The quotes are great and all, but in all honest how many 6'10+ players were even in the NBA at that time who could run and jump at a level we would consider "athletic" today? Maybe 3?

Not surprising he would seem like a revelation to players from that era, they'd never seen a player like that or Wilt before.

[The-Legend-24]

:oldlol: @ Russell being anywhere near the top 5.

Russell is top 25 at best.

[juju151111]

...consisting of primarily offensive talent, and their offenses were mediocre to poor, year in and year out.

If we're saying they were standout defenders, okay, where is the impact of his teammates arriving/leaving demonstrated in the DRtg numbers posted above?

Regarding guards, perhaps, but Russell was extremely mobile as well. In that Hakeem/KG class (Duncan was pretty mobile too, and Robinson was a tremendous athlete as well). Here are some good quotes to complement the footage:

















On rebounding (related topic):
Compared to the league his team was superior. His whole team were HOF.

[G.O.A.T]

This is a college game but it's the recent one I was watching, earlier on the clips, one of the alley oops for example looking like it was going in or was in the cylinder. There's another example there too in the first few minutes but I'm not going to spend 10-15 minutes watching the whole thing.

The goal tending rule didn't exist yet. Because of him and players like him, it does.

Thanks for the discussion.

I really think you are missing out with your point of view. You want Russell to be able to do things that weren't necessary and discounting everything he did do that was essential. You can't measure the greatness of those stars against today's standard. It didn't exist then and didn't apply. The common bond across eras is trying to win. That's how you measure players, by determining how much impact their play had on their teams winning. I think so anyway. Anything else is too subjective.


The quotes are great and all, but in all honest how many 6'10+ players were even in the NBA at that time who could run and jump at a level we would consider "athletic" today? Maybe 3?

Not surprising he would seem like a revelation to players from that era, they'd never seen a player like that or Wilt before.

That's the point.

[NumberSix]

:oldlol: @ Russell being anywhere near the top 5.

Russell is top 25 at best.
I do not have him in the top 50.

[fpliii]

This is a college game but it's the recent one I was watching, earlier on the clips, one of the alley oops for example looking like it was going in or was in the cylinder. There's another example there too in the first few minutes but I'm not going to spend 10-15 minutes watching the whole thing.
I'm not 100% on the exact years (could be off by one season or two), but I believe offensive goaltending was outlawed in the NCAA starting in 56-57 and in the NBA in 55-56. So it was an issue while Russell was in college, but not in the pros. Defense goaltending had been around since the 40s.

[fpliii]

:oldlol: @ Russell being anywhere near the top 5.

Russell is top 25 at best.

I do not have him in the top 50.

Better than your favorite players, and will always be. :oldlol:

[juju151111]

filpii If you would have a draft today in the modern era. Would you take Russell over hakeem. Say you know noting about them, but you could just watch their games.

[The-Legend-24]

Better than your favorite players, and will always be. :oldlol:
:oldlol: @ Russell being better than anyone in the top 10.

Nikka would be ridin the bench ala Adam morrison if he played today. :oldlol:

[fpliii]

filpii If you would have a draft today in the modern era. Would you take Russell over hakeem. Say you know noting about them, but you could just watch their games.
I'd take Hakeem, Kareem, Wilt, or Shaq over any other player in a draft, since they give you great two-way play from the center position, and you don't know if you're contending for a championship. After they're off the board, I'd consider Russell, Jordan, Duncan, and a few other guys.

[Soundwave]

The goal tending rule didn't exist yet. Because of him and players like him, it does.

Thanks for the discussion.

I really think you are missing out with your point of view. You want Russell to be able to do things that weren't necessary and discounting everything he did do that was essential. You can't measure the greatness of those stars against today's standard. It didn't exist then and didn't apply. The common bond across eras is trying to win. That's how you measure players, by determining how much impact their play had on their teams winning. I think so anyway. Anything else is too subjective.

I don't base GOAT on that ability though. I think it's a great ability ... things like intangiables, leadership, etc. are great.

By that metric we can say Mark Messier is a better hockey player than Wayne Gretzky (and indeed he won more Stanley Cups than Gretzky did). His leadership ability, 2-way play, physical play, was superior.

But there's no way I can rate him above Gretzky with a straight face.

That said though I agree it should count for something. But it should also count towards Jordan ... what pro athlete in a team sport have we seen in the last 40 years who was able to seemingly "will" his team to victory in so many crucial moments? That and his ability to elevate his game to almost surreal levels in clutch situations are definite pluses.

Just like I definitely am impressed by Russell for example being able to be a player/coach. That is very impressive.

[fpliii]

Anyhow, not interested in being baited any further. Have a good night guys. :cheers:

[juju151111]

The goal tending rule didn't exist yet. Because of him and players like him, it does.

Thanks for the discussion.

I really think you are missing out with your point of view. You want Russell to be able to do things that weren't necessary and discounting everything he did do that was essential. You can't measure the greatness of those stars against today's standard. It didn't exist then and didn't apply. The common bond across eras is trying to win. That's how you measure players, by determining how much impact their play had on their teams winning. I think so anyway. Anything else is too subjective.



That's the point.
This isn't fair because if a player like Hakeem was transported to the Celtics in the late 50s(barly any black players or players over 6'10) and tell him their is no goaltending. He going to destroy. He already the leader in blocks. I have no problem when people say Russell was a great player. Just stop the overrating.

[fpliii]

This isn't fair because if a player like Hakeem was transported to the Celtics in the late 50s(barly any black players or players over 6'10) and tell him their is no goaltending. He going to destroy. He already the leader in blocks. I have no problem when people say Russell was a great player. Just stop the overrating.
Just before I go:

I'm not 100% on the exact years (could be off by one season or two), but I believe offensive goaltending was outlawed in the NCAA starting in 56-57 and in the NBA in 55-56. So it was an issue while Russell was in college, but not in the pros. Defensive goaltending had been around since the 40s.

[juju151111]

Just before I go:
Im talking about the pros nd i was giving you an example with Hakeem. He averged 4blks per game. Imagine you tell him their isn't any rules.

[fpliii]

Im talking about the pros nd i was giving you an example with Hakeem. He averged 4blks per game. Imagine you tell him their isn't any rules.
There were rules in the NBA. Defensive goaltending was outlawed in the 40s, offensive goaltending was outlawed the season before Russell arrived.

[G.O.A.T]

I don't base GOAT on that ability though. I think it's a great ability ... things like intangiables, leadership, etc. are great.

By that metric we can say Mark Messier is a better hockey player than Wayne Gretzky (and indeed he won more Stanley Cups than Gretzky did). His leadership ability, 2-way play, physical play, was superior.

But there's no way I can rate him above Gretzky with a straight face.

I know little about Hockey but I'm pretty sure those two played on the same team together and it was widely accepted that one was better than the other so that sort of nullifies that point I think.


That said though I agree it should count for something. But it should also count towards Jordan

Yes.



... what pro athlete in a team sport have we seen in the last 40 years who was able to seemingly "will" his team to victory in so many crucial moments? That and his ability to elevate his game to almost surreal levels in clutch situations are definite pluses.

Just like I definitely am impressed by Russell for example being able to be a player/coach. That is very impressive.

And here we agree on something.

[Asukal]

No problem with me if you think Russell is the GOAT. He is a top 3 candidate. :cheers:

[NumberSix]

No problem with me if you think Russell is the GOAT. He is a top 3 candidate. :cheers:
Do you honestly believe that Bill Russell is one of the best players ever? If you could put all the players from all eras in their primes in a room, you honestly think he would be one of the best?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Do you honestly believe that Bill Russell is one of the best players ever?

Why wouldn't he be? What he didn't put up enough hi-lites?

[stanlove1111]

Do you honestly believe that Bill Russell is one of the best players ever? If you could put all the players from all eras in their primes in a room, you honestly think he would be one of the best?

A guy like this will never understand no matter how many times someone's tries to explain it to him..you can only judge players by how they did in thier era..do you think if Jordan or lebron were born in 1935 they would play like they did in thier era?

Now time for him to ignore that and ask if we honestly believe that player from 60s is better then players from 50 years in the future..every day

[Asukal]

Do you honestly believe that Bill Russell is one of the best players ever? If you could put all the players from all eras in their primes in a room, you honestly think he would be one of the best?

Yes I do. Some things aren't measured by stats, and by what little we know of Russell, he was a fierce competitor who was obsessed with winning he did everything he could to get the W. 11 rings out of 13 seasons is proof enough, the finals mvp reward is named after him. Heck he was 3-4 inches smaller than Wilt and could still hold his ground. The man is simply the greatest winner in basketball. MJ is number 1 for me but Russell is a close second and bran still out of my top ten. :oldlol:

[pauk]

Exactly.

[GimmeThat]

Magic/KAJ/Larry
Kobe/Shaq/Duncan
Russell/Wilt
Jordan/Hakeem

when you look at that list in terms of players who played against one another in the same time period as well as being ranked in the top 10 by concensus basis.

Russell being with 11 rings 5 MVP over Wilt

that puts you in perspective in terms of his comparison with Jordan, doesn't it.

[NumberSix]

A guy like this will never understand no matter how many times someone's tries to explain it to him..you can only judge players by how they did in thier era..do you think if Jordan or lebron were born in 1935 they would play like they did in thier era?

Now time for him to ignore that and ask if we honestly believe that player from 60s is better then players from 50 years in the future..every day
I just don't believe in pretending there is equality where there isn't. Yes, players of the present have an advantage over the players of the past. Just accept it and move on. People in 2014 are able to be better than people in 1965 were.

[Im Still Ballin]

My niggah from the 2- 0-6!

[HurricaneKid]

He also set the record for FG% in the 65 Finals:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/NBA_1965_finals.html

He was 7th on his team in FGA. SEVENTH.

[Psileas]

He was 7th on his team in FGA. SEVENTH.

And 3rd in FGM...He'd need to go 3-45 to match Sam Jones and 22-70 to match Havlicek...

[fpliii]

And 3rd in FGM...He'd need to go 3-45 to match Sam Jones and 22-70 to match Havlicek...
:lol