If Bill Russell made one more lay-up per quarter

[G.O.A.T]

What if Bill Russell cared about stats and had a time machine?

What if he cared what uninformed people thought of his career and decided to take 2 more shots a quarter and on average make one of them. Or to be more fair, make 44% of those shots?

Now this would probably cost his team a few games here and there. Let's say it costs them 3 titles too. Now he has eight rings, but his career ppg average is 22 and he has a peak season of over 26 ppg. He averages over 20ppg in 11 of 13 seasons and over 25 three times.

Is he the greatest player of all-time in the opinions of the uniformed?

Is it as simple as one lay-up per quarter?

[inclinerator]

no.

[CavaliersFTW]

:lol

[AnaheimLakers24]

time machine? lol

[KyrieTheFuture]

How much mescaline are you on right now?

[imnew09]

Puff puff pass

[CavaliersFTW]

guy 2-peats in the NCAA as teams best scorer, and wins a gold as U.S. teams best scorer, then goes on to play a different role in the NBA cause the Celtics needed something different and 8-peats wins 5 MVP's, 2-peats as a player-coach, and all in all wins 11 championships out of 13 seasons. Even had a finals series where he set a still standing record for field goal accuracy. Guy did whatever it took to win but ISH thinks he should have put up more scoring $tat$ (at the cost of titles) in order to be considered a valid GOAT candidate :oldlol:

[fragokota]

How much mescaline are you on right now?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[G.O.A.T]

How much mescaline are you on right now?

I haven't even seen mescaline since GHW Bush was in office.

I'm old enough to be your Dad and if you're Mom used to be pretty I probably am.

[moe94]

Career 44% shooting as a C. 15 PPG. If he scored as much as you're saying, what is he? Sub 30%?

[G.O.A.T]

Career 44% shooting as a C. 15 PPG. If he scored as much as you're saying, what is he? Sub 30%?

You a math major?

[buddha]

how many teams were in the league he played in?

[G.O.A.T]

how many teams were in the league he played in?

Explain to me why that makes it easier to win titles as oppose to harder (which it obviously does) and I'll give you a cookie.

[inclinerator]

Explain to me why that makes it easier to win titles as oppose to harder (which it obviously does) and I'll give you a cookie.
every1 good was on his team

[G.O.A.T]

every1 good was on his team

So reading, then, is your strong suit?

[livinglegend]

every1 good was on his team

MJ s team was a contender without him.
They won 55 games, would have won more if Pippen and Grant didnt have injuries.

[livinglegend]

guy 2-peats in the NCAA as teams best scorer, and wins a gold as U.S. teams best scorer, then goes on to play a different role in the NBA cause the Celtics needed something different and 8-peats wins 5 MVP's, 2-peats as a player-coach, and all in all wins 11 championships out of 13 seasons. Even had a finals series where he set a still standing record for field goal accuracy. Guy did whatever it took to win but ISH thinks he should have put up more scoring $tat$ (at the cost of titles) in order to be considered a valid GOAT candidate :oldlol:


He has a great argument for being goat. He is a valid GOAT candidate.

[Jameerthefear]

this thread is so dumb

[inclinerator]

So reading, then, is your strong suit?
it;s harder if u have a sht team (wilt)

[moe94]

You a math major?

What are you even trying to say? Are you suggesting his efficiency wouldn't plummet or is he going to average more points on the same or better efficiency? This thread is pointless. Russell won all the rings playing the way he did. Are you upset his scoring doesn't pop out or something? What casuals? Casuals couldn't care less about Russell.

[buddha]

Explain to me why that makes it easier to win titles as oppose to harder (which it obviously does) and I'll give you a cookie.

less competition. there were 8 fukkin teams bruh.

just out of curiosity I looked up the w/l records in the 1960 season (normally I don't care about stats from such a weak era)

BUT IN BILL RUSSELL'S 1960 CHAMPIONSHIP SEASON 3 FUKKIN TEAMS HAD A POSITIVE RECORD. 3 OF THE FUKKIN 8 TEAMS IN THE LEAGUE. I SWEAR TO GOD IF YOU SAY THIS GUY IS A GOAT ONE MORE TIME I WILL HOOK YOU IN THE GABBER MATE.

This guy had to compete with 3 teams for a championship. There was absolutely no competition at all. Where is my damn cookie.

[CavaliersFTW]

less competition. there were 8 fukkin teams bruh.

just out of curiosity I looked up the w/l records in the 1960 season (normally I don't care about stats from such a weak era)

BUT IN BILL RUSSELL'S 1960 CHAMPIONSHIP SEASON 3 FUKKIN TEAMS HAD A POSITIVE RECORD. 3 OF THE FUKKIN 8 TEAMS IN THE LEAGUE. I SWEAR TO GOD IF YOU SAY THIS GUY IS A GOAT ONE MORE TIME I WILL HOOK YOU IN THE GABBER MATE.
Teach us about the other 10.

[G.O.A.T]

less competition. there were 8 fukkin teams bruh.

just out of curiosity I looked up the w/l records in the 1960 season (normally I don't care about stats from such a weak era)

BUT IN BILL RUSSELL'S 1960 CHAMPIONSHIP SEASON 3 FUKKIN TEAMS HAD A POSITIVE RECORD. 3 OF THE FUKKIN 8 TEAMS IN THE LEAGUE. I SWEAR TO GOD IF YOU SAY THIS GUY IS A GOAT ONE MORE TIME I WILL HOOK YOU IN THE GABBER MATE.

This guy had to compete with 3 teams for a championship. There was absolutely no competition at all. Where is my damn cookie.

You understand that teams don't have to beat every other team in the league to win the title right? For example for much of the eighties the Lakers never faced a team with a winning percentage above .600 until the Finals.

So in 1960, the Celtics played the best two teams (besides themselves) in the league in their two playoff series. The Hawks with a .613 winning percentage and the Warriors with a .683

Whereas the Lakers in the amazing 1987 season played three teams with the following winning percentages: .451, .512, .476 before facing the Celtics in the Finals.

Whose road was tougher?

Also there were four teams, which equals half the league.

Most seasons it's right about half the teams that have a winning record on account of each game producing exactly one win and one loss.

Finally why would you think anyone's opinion of how strong or weak an era is matters?

[G.O.A.T]

What are you even trying to say? Are you suggesting his efficiency wouldn't plummet or is he going to average more points on the same or better efficiency? This thread is pointless. Russell won all the rings playing the way he did. Are you upset his scoring doesn't pop out or something? What casuals? Casuals couldn't care less about Russell.

The premise was laid out in the very short first post.

Two more shots a quarter, makes 44% (his career shooting percentage) of them...

The point is to demonstrate how meaningless the stat of PPG is when judging the greatest players. If literally making one shot per quarter more by taking two more selfish shots could totally change the way the guy is perceived, it is the metric or the way it is being applied that is flawed. I doubt though saying it that way would illicit any type of response.

[Roundball_Rock]

guy 2-peats in the NCAA as teams best scorer, and wins a gold as U.S. teams best scorer, then goes on to play a different role in the NBA cause the Celtics needed something different and 8-peats wins 5 MVP's, 2-peats as a player-coach, and all in all wins 11 championships out of 13 seasons. Even had a finals series where he set a still standing record for field goal accuracy. Guy did whatever it took to win but ISH thinks he should have put up more scoring $tat$ (at the cost of titles) in order to be considered a valid GOAT candidate :oldlol:

:applause:

The argument about W-L being the measure of league strength is odd. Look at the 80's. Teams with 46 wins could get HCA in the first round and 51 wins could get you the #2 seed. 30-52 was enough to make the playoffs. Does that then mean the 80's were weak? In the 70's the best record in the league was 53-29 in one season.

If you accept the theory that having a lot of teams with a good record indicates a stronger league then we must be in the GOAT era since the West perennially is producing 8-9 50+ win teams with several more in the high 40's (the East chips in 3-4 such teams as a bonus). I remember the year when Phoenix won 55 games--and was the #6 seed!

[Jameerthefear]

i'm not reading all this bullshit but bill russel played in a weak ass era. if he had less rings no one would care about this guy.

[SouBeachTalents]

i'm not reading all this bullshit but bill russel played in a weak ass era. if he had less rings no one would care about this guy.

Well he did win 5 MVP's, and had DPOY been around he'd have around 11 of those

[chips93]

if he really was holding back, and had some untapped potential as a scorer, why is he only shooting 44%?

if you're a big who doesnt shoot 3s, and you only shoot 44% from the field, you are probably overstretched as is.

[G.O.A.T]

i'm not reading all this bullshit but bill russel played in a weak ass era. if he had less rings no one would care about this guy.

How typing this doesn't embarrass you astounds me.

You're basically saying I'm too dumb to try and think about anything beyond my first impulse so here's something else that makes me sounds dumb.

You know what most people do when one of the millions of online discussion topics doesn't interest them. They ignore it.

[GrapeApe]

How typing this doesn't embarrass you astounds me.

You're basically saying I'm too dumb to try and think about anything beyond my first impulse so here's something else that makes me sounds dumb.

You know what most people do when one of the millions of online discussion topics doesn't interest them. They ignore it.

I like the cut of this guy's jib.

[RRR3]

1. Wasn't his field goal percentage good for the time he played in?
Looking at Basketball-reference, he finished top 5 in FG% 4 times:

1956-57 42.7% (5th)
1957-58 44.2% (3rd)
1958-59 45.7% (2nd)
1959-60 46.7% (4th)


2. If he could score more efficiently, then why the hell wouldn't he? Are you saying he missed shots on purpose to "help his team"? http://forums.realgm.com/boards/images/smilies/krazy.gif

[Soundwave]

You can say this about anyone.

If Jordan scored an extra 2 ppg every quarter (no big deal, right?) he'd have a 40 ppg career.

If Shaq dunked one extra basket every quarter he'd have 6-7 scoring titles and probably 2 or more MVPs.

If Bird could've scored an extra 8 points every game, the Celtics maybe have 4 or 5 rings and Magic has a few less.

[G.O.A.T]

You can say this about anyone.

If Jordan scored an extra 2 ppg every quarter (no big deal, right?) he'd have a 40 ppg career.

If Shaq dunked one extra basket every quarter he'd have 6-7 scoring titles and probably 2 or more MVPs.

If Bird could've scored an extra 8 points every game, the Celtics maybe have 4 or 5 rings and Magic has a few less.

I don't mean this to be a serious point. (Obvious I think)

But Russell took far fewer shots than those guys to begin with. All those guys had offenses designed to get the ball to them in a position to score. The Celtics ran a total of two plays for Russell o get a shot in his career. (Not two times, two different plays) The motion of the thread wasn't about him taking more shots, it was about him caring about his stats enough to take more shots.

[cltcfn2924]

it;s harder if u have a sht team (wilt)


Yes of course, Baylor and West were sht. Or you have no idea of what you're saying. Having to choose between the two the answer is obvious. You don't know sht.

[LAZERUSS]

Yes of course, Baylor and West were sht. Or you have no idea of what you're saying. Having to choose between the two the answer is obvious. You don't know sht.

Baylor was pure SHT in the '69 Finals. He was THE reason (along with an incompetent coach) for LA losing that series.

BTW, Baylor and Wilt only played ONE season together when they were healthy (and Baylor was well past his prime BTW), and only TWO post-seasons total (and Wilt was playing on one leg in the other one, and was still the far greater player.)

[Jameerthefear]

Yes of course, Baylor and West were sht. Or you have no idea of what you're saying. Having to choose between the two the answer is obvious. You don't know sht.
Yep. Pretty much everyone older than 12 years old knows Wilt was a choker.

[Psileas]

If Bill Russell made one more lay-up per quarter

I had asked a similar question in the past, regarding Russell's scoring, so I repeat it: Does anyone think that Russell would exchange his career's trajectory for anyone else's just in order to be seen as a more prolific scorer? Does anyone think that, e.g, he'd exchange his scoring with 80's Jordan's scoring, while also having 80's Jordan's title "success" rate?
Dude was ending one season after another celebrating, while every other single GOAT candidate ended 60+% of their seasons defeated and disappointed, and he's supposed to need to have joined their club just in order to be seen as the better scorer by uninformed fans? Dream on. :oldlol:

[Hittin_Shots]

less competition. there were 8 fukkin teams bruh.

just out of curiosity I looked up the w/l records in the 1960 season (normally I don't care about stats from such a weak era)

BUT IN BILL RUSSELL'S 1960 CHAMPIONSHIP SEASON 3 FUKKIN TEAMS HAD A POSITIVE RECORD. 3 OF THE FUKKIN 8 TEAMS IN THE LEAGUE. I SWEAR TO GOD IF YOU SAY THIS GUY IS A GOAT ONE MORE TIME I WILL HOOK YOU IN THE GABBER MATE.

This guy had to compete with 3 teams for a championship. There was absolutely no competition at all. Where is my damn cookie.

One of the stupidest things I've ever read..

imagine if there were 8 teams today.. the best 80 players in the league across only eight teams.. if you think that's less competition I think you struggle with logic.. and only 3 of 8 were positive? Do u want 8/8 positive? It would appear you don't understand mathematics also.. if one team wins the other must lose..

[chips93]

Explain to me why that makes it easier to win titles as oppose to harder (which it obviously does) and I'll give you a cookie.

1/8 > 1/30

[navy]

What if Bill Russell cared about stats and had a time machine?

What if he cared what uninformed people thought of his career and decided to take 2 more shots a quarter and on average make one of them. Or to be more fair, make 44% of those shots?

Now this would probably cost his team a few games here and there. Let's say it costs them 3 titles too. Now he has eight rings, but his career ppg average is 22 and he has a peak season of over 26 ppg. He averages over 20ppg in 11 of 13 seasons and over 25 three times.

Is he the greatest player of all-time in the opinions of the uniformed?

Is it as simple as one lay-up per quarter?
It's amazing how you dont think this one layup thing applies to every player. :oldlol:

[Psileas]

1/8 > 1/30

Not a good argument at all as long as, practically in every season, around 15+ teams are completely irrelevant and around 10+ more will only be playoff participants, but not real title contenders. Miami had no problem to reach in 4 Finals in a row in a 15 team conference and everyone expected it to, not to mention that there have been 7 more repeats/3peats since the late 80's, plus a Spurs team that won 5 titles in 16 years, meaning that, even in a 30 team league, winning isn't that hard for a team that is well-run.


It's amazing how you dont think this one layup thing applies to every player.

This wouldn't change people's perception on most other greats nearly as much, since people always view scoring first, not to mention that, taken as a percent increase, an increase from 14 to 22 is more substantial than an increase from 25 to 33. In the same spirit, Russell taking 1 more shot per quarter, under the circumstances he played, is easier and more realistic than someone like Kobe doing the same thing.

[navy]

This wouldn't change people's perception on most other greats nearly as much, since people always view scoring first, not to mention that, taken as a percent increase, an increase from 14 to 22 is more substantial than an increase from 25 to 33. In the same spirit, Russell taking 1 more shot per quarter, under the circumstances he played, is easier and more realistic than someone like Kobe doing the same thing.
8 points is a substantial scoring difference in the nba. You cant just add points to a player and say that is what he could have averaged. It makes no sense. What about a 20 point scorer to a 28 point scorer? A 22 point scorer to a 30 point scorer. These are substantial hypothetical increases nomatter how you look at it, not reality.

Also, sounds like your making the case for Russel playing in a weak era. :confusedshrug:

[Psileas]

8 points is a substantial scoring difference in the nba. You cant just add points to a player and say that is what he could have averaged. It makes no sense. What about a 20 point scorer to a 28 point scorer? A 22 point scorer to a 30 point scorer. These are substantial hypothetical increases nomatter how you look at it, not reality.

Sounds like your making the case for Russel playing in a weak era. :confusedshrug:

8 points is a substantial scoring difference, but it's easier to achieve if you're an average scorer who decides to become a good one than if you're a high scorer who decides to put up GOAT-like numbers. Let alone, to keep on for your whole career.
From that point (and for other reasons, like pace and more mpg - not sure how someone would translate this into "making a case for weak era"), it's more realistic and less detrimental to the team to expect a scorer like Russell to put up Mourning-like ppg stats than to expect Kobe to put up prime Jordan stats (including putting up prime-Wilt stats in his 2005-07 scoring peak).

[navy]

8 points is a substantial scoring difference, but it's easier to achieve if you're an average scorer who decides to become a good one than if you're a high scorer who decides to put up GOAT-like numbers. Let alone, to keep on for your whole career.
From that point (and for other reasons, like pace and more mpg - not sure how someone would translate this into "making a case for weak era"), it's more realistic and less detrimental to the team to expect a scorer like Russell to put up Mourning-like ppg stats than to expect Kobe to put up prime Jordan stats (including putting up prime-Wilt stats in his 2005-07 scoring peak).
I disagree.

If Russel was putting up like 14 points on 60% shooting and you claimed he could put up 20ish on say 50%? I would buy that.

Lebron averages what? 27 game on 57% shooting. It wouldnt be a tall task to say he could average 30 on 50% shooting.

But to straight up go 8 points from 15ppg and also maintain his percentages? Laughable assertion at best.

If your only scoring 15ppg on 44%, it really isnt a stretch to say you arent a great scorer. Even if your ppg was low because of the role you are playing.

[Overdrive]

I had asked a similar question in the past, regarding Russell's scoring, so I repeat it: Does anyone think that Russell would exchange his career's trajectory for anyone else's just in order to be seen as a more prolific scorer? Does anyone think that, e.g, he'd exchange his scoring with 80's Jordan's scoring, while also having 80's Jordan's title "success" rate?
Dude was ending one season after another celebrating, while every other single GOAT candidate ended 60+% of their seasons defeated and disappointed, and he's supposed to need to have joined their club just in order to be seen as the better scorer by uninformed fans? Dream on. :oldlol:

100% sure any player before and after Jordan would exchange his career for Jordan's. Jordan lived in the perfect moment for a successful sporting career.
It was before Twitter, but Massmedia was big and interactive enough to create some godlike aura around Jordan to make him a world wide idol. Russell was great, maybe greater than any basketball player ever, but he play in a time were basketball was basically some marginalized sport.

Player's now have to deal with everything they post being discussed by tens of millions the moment after. See Dwight in the OTC.

[G.O.A.T]

I disagree.

If Russel was putting up like 14 points on 60% shooting and you claimed he could put up 20ish on say 50%? I would buy that.

Lebron averages what? 27 game on 57% shooting. It wouldnt be a tall task to say he could average 30 on 50% shooting.

But to straight up go 8 points from 15ppg and also maintain his percentages? Laughable assertion at best.

If your only scoring 15ppg on 44%, it really isnt a stretch to say you arent a great scorer. Even if your ppg was low because of the role you are playing.

You won't agree, but the problem is with how your looking at it. You're assuming that 15ppg on 44% involved maximum effort because you would give maximum effort towards scoring or you believe that's what all players do.

Russell gave almost no effort towards scoring. He was taking 12-16 shots per game playing 44-48 minutes. He always had multiple teammates taking more shots than him in 10-20 fewer mpg.

Russell's two highest fg% seasons are the two seasons he took the most shots.

If you divide his extended peak years in half from 60-62 he averaged he averaged 17 ppg on 16 fga and shot 46%

From '63 to '65 (when he moved to the high post to run the offense btw) he averaged 15 ppg on 14 fga and and shot 43%

When you devote almost no energy to offense and they run no plays for you, it makes you a less efficient offensive player. If Russell cared (the original premise) he could have had more plays run for him, he could have gotten back on offense all the time (he didn't) and we could have taken a lot more shots. If was shooting more frequently he'd be likely to get fouled more, he be more likely to get a rhythm, he be more likely to develop moves and counter moves.

This runs counter to if someone like Wilt or Jordan tried to score more. In those instances the individual and the team are already dedicating a lot of energy to make that player score.

Like I said, you won't agree because your mind is made up, but your logic is devoid of logic.

[Psileas]

I disagree.

If Russel was putting up like 14 points on 60% shooting and you claimed he could put up 20ish on say 50%? I would buy that.

Lebron averages what? 27 game on 57% shooting. It wouldnt be a tall task to say he could average 30 on 50% shooting.

But to straight up go 8 points from 15ppg and also maintain his percentages? Laughable assertion at best.

If your only scoring 15ppg on 44%, it really isnt a stretch to say you arent a great scorer. Even if your ppg was low because of the role you are playing.

First of all, FT's exist as well, so, maintaining the same percentages wouldn't necessarily be an issue to deal with as long as you get a few extra points out of drawn fouls.
Second and most important, when Russell decided to score more, not only did his FG%'s not drop, he actually increased his %'s or, in other cases, his %'s remained stable. His most prolific ppg and FGA seasons were also his most prolific FG% ones. Same in the playoffs, when he took more shots than usual, he upped his FG%'s, not vice-versa.
This is because, since scoring didn't ever bother Russell and since pretty few systems ran with him being the finisher of the play, he rarely really had to take the best shots available. He was taking few shots per game and many of his attempts were circumstantial, at times even random. However, when you have more plays end with you, your shot selection becomes less random and therefore it can lead to both a FGA and a FG% increase.
This is not the case when you are a known high scorer and you have defenses set on you. Which is why Wilt's FG%'s were lower when he was an ultra high scorer and became higher when he decreased his attempts.


100% sure any player before and after Jordan would exchange his career for Jordan's. Jordan lived in the perfect moment for a successful sporting career.
It was before Twitter, but Massmedia was big and interactive enough to create some godlike aura around Jordan to make him a world wide idol. Russell was great, maybe greater than any basketball player ever, but he play in a time were basketball was basically some marginalized sport.

Player's now have to deal with everything they post being discussed by tens of millions the moment after. See Dwight in the OTC.

I'm not. Would Russell rather play or be young in today's era? I think so. But, if you took a young Russell, straight away and told him "you'll either dominate through defense and win 11 titles or you'll be a dominant offensive player (and a good defender, too), but you'll win 6 titles", nah, I'm not anywhere near 100% sure. Not for someone who wanted to win all the time. It's not as if Russell was someone who loved being the spotlight of attention or cared about fame among fans, but, like I said, he would probably have chosen to be young nowadays, for matters pertaining racism, quality of life, especially among black NBA players, etc. In other words, he might pick the modern (or Jordan's) time, but not his career. After all, when he had been asked what he thought of the Bulls' 3-peats, his reply was "not much".

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt was often asked if it bothered him that Russell was winning all those rings, and we know it did. But on the flip side, I suspect that it also bothered Russell that Wilt was so much a better scorer.

I have read that Boston didn't run plays for Russell, and yet Russell had 32 games against Chamberlain in which he took at least 20 FGAs. He even had two of over 30. An early 60's Russell was averaging 20 FGAs against Wilt, as well.

And for all of his efforts, Russell really struggled to score against Wilt. In those 32 games in which he took 20+ shots, he only had a total of five in which he shot 50% or higher, and four of those were right at 50%, and the best one was a 12-23 game.

Furthermore, in those 32 games, he had 12 games in which he shot 39% or worse, and four in which he shot 29% or worse. So he had nearly as many games against Wilt in which he took 20+ shots, in which he shot below 29% as he did in which he shot 50%.


In 143 career H2Hs against Chamberlain, Russell had a total of three games in which he scored 30+ points (31, 31, and 37 points.) BTW, Chamberlain outscored him in all three.

He also had another seven games against Wilt in which he took 19 FGAs, and his best game was an 8-19 performance. He shot under 39% in the other six (and included was a 5-19 game...or under 29%.)

In any case, in 143 career H2Hs with Wilt, Russell had 39 games in which he took 19+ FGAs, and only shot 50% (and just barely) in five of them. And he had 18 in which he shot below 39%, and five in which he shot below 29%.

Just food for thought...

Edited for W-L record. Russell team's went 24-15 in W-L record in those games in which he took 19+ FGAs.

[Overdrive]

I'm not. Would Russell rather play or be young in today's era? I think so. But, if you took a young Russell, straight away and told him "you'll either dominate through defense and win 11 titles or you'll be a dominant offensive player (and a good defender, too), but you'll win 6 titles", nah, I'm not anywhere near 100% sure. Not for someone who wanted to win all the time. It's not as if Russell was someone who loved being the spotlight of attention or cared about fame among fans, but, like I said, he would probably have chosen to be young nowadays, for matters pertaining racism, quality of life, especially among black NBA players, etc. In other words, he might pick the modern (or Jordan's) time, but not his career. After all, when he had been asked what he thought of the Bulls' 3-peats, his reply was "not much".

He was high on the civil rights and ived in a time were black people were viewed as shoeshine boys. I doubt he would dismiss that a black man could be one of the most famous people in the world and that being him. He surely enjoys the courtside seats in the ASG and Finals, the Finals MVP trophy bearing his name etc. I really think if he got more fame he'd like it.

[BoutPractice]

OP is right.

Slight differences in ppg are meaningless.

I like to think of it this way: NBA players have a range of points averages they can reasonably be expected to score, depending on the context, their role within the team and so on.This range can stretch quite far, but if you stretch too much this will either signal a bad team or even have a negative impact on the team in and of itself.

For example you could say that the "safe" range for prime Kobe is 25 to 35 ppg, with 40 as a stretch that would probably be a symptom of a terrible team. If I take someone like Kevin Love, I can picture his range being something like 18 to 28 ppg: if he plays on the Cavs he might average as low as 18, if he gets to statpad on the Timberwolves he might average as high as 28.

Questions like "if Larry Bird could score 30+ ppg, why didn't he" don't make sense. Of course Larry Bird was capable of averaging 30+ ppg. That's definitely within his "range", it's just not how he liked to play.

[kshutts1]

Wilt was often asked if it bothered him that Russell was winning all those rings, and we know it did. But on the flip side, I suspect that it also bothered Russell that Wilt was so much a better scorer.

I have read that Boston didn't run plays for Russell, and yet Russell had 32 games against Chamberlain in which he took at least 20 FGAs. He even had two of over 30. An early 60's Russell was averaging 20 FGAs against Wilt, as well.

And for all of his efforts, Russell really struggled to score against Wilt. In those 32 games in which he took 20+ shots, he only had a total of five in which he shot 50% or higher, and four of those were right at 50%, and the best one was a 12-23 game.

Furthermore, in those 32 games, he had 12 games in which he shot 39% or worse, and four in which he shot 29% or worse. So he had nearly as many games against Wilt in which he took 20+ shots, in which he shot below 29% as he did in which he shot 50%.

Then, think about this. His TEAMs went 11-21 in those 32 games. They also went 0-2 in his two games in which he took 30+ shots.

In 143 career H2Hs against Chamberlain, Russell had a total of three games in which he scored 30+ points (31, 31, and 37 points), and his teams went 1-2 in those three games. BTW, Chamberlain outscored him in all three.

He also had another seven games against Wilt in which he took 19 FGAs, and his best game was an 8-19 performance. He shot under 39% in the other six (and included was a 5-19 game...or under 29%.) Albeit, his teams did go 4-3 in them.

In any case, in 143 career H2Hs with Wilt, Russell had 39 games in which he took 19+ FGAs, and only shot 50% (and just barely) in five of them. And he had 18 in which he shot below 39%, and five in which he shot below 29%. And overall, his teams went 15-24 in them.

Just food for thought...
Maybe I misread the OP, but this sounds like exactly what he was talking about. Losing wins because Russell wanted the stats.

But maybe I'm wrong.

And the following statement is not in relation to Lazeruss, but it truly amazes me how many seemingly intelligent posters can't overlook Russell's FG%. They see that "low" number and instantly think he was an inefficient scorer. Mind boggling.

[LAZERUSS]

Maybe I misread the OP, but this sounds like exactly what he was talking about. Losing wins because Russell wanted the stats.

But maybe I'm wrong.

And the following statement is not in relation to Lazeruss, but it truly amazes me how many seemingly intelligent posters can't overlook Russell's FG%. They see that "low" number and instantly think he was an inefficient scorer. Mind boggling.

Aside from his career post-season H2H's against Wilt, Russell was a VERY effective AND efficient scorer in his playoff career. He absolutely torched the Lakers in his five Finals against them (and, of course, he couldn't do anything against them in the one Finals that Wilt was a Laker.)

As a sidenote, one can only wonder how many post-season scoring and efficiency records, as well as rings, that Wilt would have had, had he had the good fortune to go up against the Lakers in the first nine seasons of his career. He just carpet-bombed them his entire career.

[LAZERUSS]

To Russell's credit, his teams went 24-15 against Wilt's teams in the games in which he took 19+ FGAs. And 21-11 in his 20+ FGAs, and 2-0 in 30+ FGAs.

[GimmeThat]

as for the 8 teams argument:

for how Bill Russell college career turned out,
I'm happy for him that he found some success at the professional level.

as for OP's question
if he had made one more lay-up per quarter though
would be equivalent to 4 more FG made per game

and if he were able to do that without affecting any of his other stats

good for him for being heads and shoulders above the rest of the competition


we certainly wouldn't be able to say this had he not won
we would have just said that he was a choker against Wilt.

[NumberSix]

Russell was good..... For a guy who played in a shit era.

[HylianNightmare]

I haven't even seen mescaline since GHW Bush was in office.

I'm old enough to be your Dad and if you're Mom used to be pretty I probably am.
:oldlol: got em

[magnax1]

Russell was many things, but he wasnt an elite scorer. I dont see him scoring more than 20 ppg over 82 games without his shooting falling heavily. He was elite at everything else and his scoring isnt laughable, he did lead his team in a playoff or 2 iirc but I highly doubt hed put up 26 ppg a night. Putting up shot is a skill in itself and one that I dont think russell was particularly great at.

[CavaliersFTW]

Russell was many things, but he wasnt an elite scorer. I dont see him scoring more than 20 ppg over 82 games without his shooting falling heavily. He was elite at everything else and his scoring isnt laughable, he did lead his team in a playoff or 2 iirc but I highly doubt hed put up 26 ppg a night. Putting up shot is a skill in itself and one that I dont think russell was particularly great at.
He scored 21ppg on greater than 51% for 2 straight seasons in the NCAA... he could have become a scorer if it was expected to be his role... it just wasn't destined to be his role in the NBA, he scored within the flow of the Celtics offense, he wasn't fed a lot of touches or asked to develop his offensive game, he was asked to become the teams primary rebounder and defensive player, and score his points and make his passes within the flow of the team. If he played for a different team, where he was fed the ball and the coach asked him to work on his game and his efficiency, I'm pretty sure based on his NCAA performances he would have been able to adapt to that just fine. He was no Wilt or Kareem, but he was also no bum he had offensive upside it just was never fully tapped.

[Carbine]

Bill Russell did what was necessary for his team to be the most successful.

The end.

[QUOTE=Bill Russell in response to LeBron leaving him off his Mount Rushmore]Hey, thank you for leaving me off your Mount Rushmore. I

[G.O.A.T]

Russell explaining what all us old folks try to explain about basketball and about him...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3KB_-Qagfk

[LAZERUSS]

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Bill Russell in response to LeBron leaving him off his Mount Rushmore
Hey, thank you for leaving me off your Mount Rushmore. I