Bill Russell's scoring role compared to Magic Johnson's

[Roundball_Rock]

Russell is diminished by some for not being a dominant scorer. However, this is never brought up vis-a-vis Magic, who led his team in scoring only three times and only once during the Lakers title years. Let's compare their respective roles in terms of scoring.

Magic Johnson

1980

Magic's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: KAJ 25, Wilkes 20, Magic 18, Nixon 18

1981

Magic's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: KAJ 26, Wilkes 23, Magic 22, Nixon 17

1982

Magic's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: KAJ 24, Wilkes 21, Magic 19, Nixon 18, Kupchak 14

1983

Magic's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: KAJ 22, Wilkes 20, Magic 17, Nixon 15, McAdoo 15, Worthy 13

1984

Magic's scoring rank: 2nd
Top scorers: KAJ 22, Magic 18, Wilkes 17, Worthy 15, McAdoo 13

1985

Magic's scoring rank: 2nd
Top scorers: KAJ 22, Magic 18, Worthy 18, Scott 16

1986

Magic's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: KAJ 23, Worthy 20, Magic 19, Scott 15

1987

Magic's scoring rank: 1st
Top scorers: Magic 24, Worthy 19, KAJ 18, Scott 17

1988

Magic's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: Scott 22, Worthy 20, Magic 20, KAJ 15

1989

Magic's scoring rank: 1st
Top scorers: Magic 23, Worthy 21, Scott 20

1990

Magic's scoring rank: 1st
Top scorers: Magic 22, Worthy 21, Scott 16

1991

Magic's scoring rank: 2nd
Top scorers: Worthy 21, Magic 19, Scott 15, Perkins 14

KAJ was the #1 option from 1980-1986 and Magic was part of the supporting scorer group. The Lakers used a balanced attack where several people contributed to scoring. KAJ was the go-to guy in the clutch as well.

Bill Russell

1957

Russell's scoring rank: 4th
Top scorers: Sharman 21, Cousy 21, Heinsohn 16, Russell 15

1958

Russell's scoring rank: 4th
Top scorers: Sharman 22, Cousy 18, Heinsohn 17, Russell 17, Ramsey 17

1959

Russell's scoring rank: 4th
Top scorers: Sharman 20, Cousy 20, Heinsohn 19, Russell 17, Ramsey 15

1960

Russell's scoring rank: 4th
Top scorers: Heinsohn 22, Cousy 19, Sharman 19, Russell 18, Ramsey 15

1961

Russell's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: Heinsohn 21, Cousy 18, Russell 17, Sharman 16, Ramsey 15, S. Jones 15

1962

Russell's scoring rank: 2nd
Top scorers: Heinsohn 22, Russell 19, S. Jones 18, Cousy 16, Ramsey 15

1963

Russell's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: S. Jones 20, Heinsohn 19, Russell 17, Havelick 14

1964

Russell's scoring rank: 4th
Top scorers: Havelick 20, S. Jones 19, Heinsohn 17, Russell 15

1965

Russell's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: S. Jones 26, Havelick 18, Russell 14, Heinsohn 14

1966

Russell's scoring rank: 4th
Top scorers: S. Jones 24, Havelick 19, Sigfried 14, Russell 13, Sanders 13

1967

Russell's scoring rank: 5th
Top scorers: S. Jones 22, Havelick 21, Howell 20, Sigfried 14, Russell 13

1968

Russell's scoring rank: 4th
Top scorers: S. Jones 21, Havelick 21, Howell 20, Russell 13

1969

Russell's scoring rank: 7th (10 ppg)
Top scorers: Havelick 22, Howell 20, S. Jones 16, Sigfried 14

Recap


Magic's scoring rankings: 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 1, 3, 1, 1, 2
Russell's scoring rankings: 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 7

Conclusion

As you can see, both were supporting scorers for most of their careers. By "supporting scorer" I mean someone who was not the leading scorer but was still a significant scorer. This was done in the context of balanced offenses where the scoring was spread out. These weren't teams where there was one 28-30 ppg scorer, a second 20-22 ppg type and everyone else lagged behind. In pretty much every season the Celtics' leading scorer was in the low 20's while Russell would be in the mid to high teens. Russell was not a significant contributor in his final years, but he was right in the mix for most of his career. As to Magic, he led his team in scoring only three times--and only once did they win the title in those years. When the Lakers won rings Magic was 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, and 3rd in scoring, suggesting the offense worked best when he focused on being a distributor and downplayed a scoring role.

Both players made their most significant contributions to the team's success outside of scoring, namely defense and rebounding in Russell's case and playmaking in Magic's. Yet only one of these two is penalized for not being a great scorer. Magic even gets credit for rings as a "first option" when he was 3, 3, 2, and 3 in scoring. KAJ was the #1 scoring option in 1980, 1982, and 1985 and in 1988 it was Scott. I can understand someone holding Russell's scoring against him, but in order to be consistent you have to do the same with Magic.

What do you attribute the double standard to? I think it largely is due to a bias against the 60's in general and Russell in particular. Russell is a giant wrench into the thinking of many fans because of the obsession with "rings as the man." However, if one is serious about "rings as the man" being the ultimate metric of greatness then logically Russell is the clear GOAT. So to avoid that incongruity he is diminished, either by downplaying his role on those teams or not counting his rings due to the era (which itself is open to debate--in Wilt/Russell's era every starter was a good player so they didn't get nights playing scrubs).

[LAZERUSS]

Russell is diminished by some for not being a dominant scorer. However, this is never brought up vis-a-vis Magic, who led his team in scoring only three times and only once during the Lakers title years. Let's compare their respective roles in terms of scoring.

Magic Johnson

1980

Magic's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: KAJ 25, Wilkes 20, Magic 18, Nixon 18

1981

Magic's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: KAJ 26, Wilkes 23, Magic 22, Nixon 17

1982

Magic's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: KAJ 24, Wilkes 21, Magic 19, Nixon 18, Kupchak 14

1983

Magic's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: KAJ 22, Wilkes 20, Magic 17, Nixon 15, McAdoo 15, Worthy 13

1984

Magic's scoring rank: 2nd
Top scorers: KAJ 22, Magic 18, Wilkes 17, Worthy 15, McAdoo 13

1985

Magic's scoring rank: 2nd
Top scorers: KAJ 22, Magic 18, Worthy 18, Scott 16

1986

Magic's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: KAJ 23, Worthy 20, Magic 19, Scott 15

1987

Magic's scoring rank: 1st
Top scorers: Magic 24, Worthy 19, KAJ 18, Scott 17

1988

Magic's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: Scott 22, Worthy 20, Magic 20, KAJ 15

1989

Magic's scoring rank: 1st
Top scorers: Magic 23, Worthy 21, Scott 20

1990

Magic's scoring rank: 1st
Top scorers: Magic 22, Worthy 21, Scott 16

1991

Magic's scoring rank: 2nd
Top scorers: Worthy 21, Magic 19, Scott 15, Perkins 14

KAJ was the #1 option from 1980-1986 and Magic was part of the supporting scorer group. The Lakers used a balanced attack where several people contributed to scoring. KAJ was the go-to guy in the clutch as well.

Bill Russell

1957

Russell's scoring rank: 4th
Top scorers: Sharman 21, Cousy 21, Heinsohn 16, Russell 15

1958

Russell's scoring rank: 4th
Top scorers: Sharman 22, Cousy 18, Heinsohn 17, Russell 17, Ramsey 17

1959

Russell's scoring rank: 4th
Top scorers: Sharman 20, Cousy 20, Heinsohn 19, Russell 17, Ramsey 15

1960

Russell's scoring rank: 4th
Top scorers: Heinsohn 22, Cousy 19, Sharman 19, Russell 18, Ramsey 15

1961

Russell's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: Heinsohn 21, Cousy 18, Russell 17, Sharman 16, Ramsey 15, S. Jones 15

1962

Russell's scoring rank: 2nd
Top scorers: Heinsohn 22, Russell 19, S. Jones 18, Cousy 16, Ramsey 15

1963

Russell's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: S. Jones 20, Heinsohn 19, Russell 17, Havelick 14

1964

Russell's scoring rank: 4th
Top scorers: Havelick 20, S. Jones 19, Heinsohn 17, Russell 15

1965

Russell's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: S. Jones 26, Havelick 18, Russell 14, Heinsohn 14

1966

Russell's scoring rank: 4th
Top scorers: S. Jones 24, Havelick 19, Sigfried 14, Russell 13, Sanders 13

1967

Russell's scoring rank: 5th
Top scorers: S. Jones 22, Havelick 21, Howell 20, Sigfried 14, Russell 13

1968

Russell's scoring rank: 4th
Top scorers: S. Jones 21, Havelick 21, Howell 20, Russell 13

1969

Russell's scoring rank: 7th (10 ppg)
Top scorers: Havelick 22, Howell 20, S. Jones 16, Sigfried 14

Recap


Magic's scoring rankings: 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 1, 3, 1, 1, 2
Russell's scoring rankings: 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 7

Conclusion

As you can see, both were supporting scorers for most of their careers. By "supporting scorer" I mean someone who was not the leading scorer but was still a significant scorer. This was done in the context of balanced offenses where the scoring was spread out. These weren't teams where there was one 28-30 ppg scorer, a second 20-22 ppg type and everyone else lagged behind. In pretty much every season the Celtics' leading scorer was in the low 20's while Russell would be in the mid to high teens. Russell was not a significant contributor in his final years, but he was right in the mix for most of his career. As to Magic, he led his team in scoring only three times--and only once did they win the title in those years. When the Lakers won rings Magic was 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, and 3rd in scoring, suggesting the offense worked best when he focused on being a distributor and downplayed a scoring role.

Both players made their most significant contributions to the team's success outside of scoring, namely defense and rebounding in Russell's case and playmaking in Magic's. Yet only one of these two is penalized for not being a great scorer. Magic even gets credit for rings as a "first option" when he was 3, 3, 2, and 3 in scoring. KAJ was the #1 scoring option in 1980, 1982, and 1985 and in 1988 it was Scott. I can understand someone holding Russell's scoring against him, but in order to be consistent you have to do the same with Magic.

What do you attribute the double standard to? I think it largely is due to a bias against the 60's in general and Russell in particular. Russell is a giant wrench into the thinking of many fans because of the obsession with "rings as the man." However, if one is serious about "rings as the man" being the ultimate metric of greatness then logically Russell is the clear GOAT. So to avoid that incongruity he is diminished, either by downplaying his role on those teams or not counting his rings due to the era (which itself is open to debate--in Wilt/Russell's era every starter was a good player so they didn't get nights playing scrubs).

Magic was a much better scorer than Russell, and was far more efficient. And we saw examples many times in his playoff career in which he would take over a game at the offensive end. Even in his rookie season, and in the clinching game of a Finals, he could put up a 42 point game on 14-23 FG/FGA, and 14-14 FT/FTA.

And in the last half of Magic's career he was capable of putting up incredible runs of 30+ point games, and even back-to-back 40+ point playoff games. And in his '87 season, he was quite simply, and by far, the best offensive player in the Finals.

[navy]

Because the points Magic didnt score were made up by his assist.

[tpols]

there's a pretty wide gap in those scoring numbers...

20 ppg 51% shooting to 16 ppg 43% shooting ?

Thats a huge difference.

[LAZERUSS]

there's a pretty wide gap in those scoring numbers...

20 ppg 51% shooting to 16 ppg 43% shooting ?

Thats a huge difference.

And EVERYONE knows that Magic could have easily been a 25+ ppg scorer, and a peak Magic, probably a 30 ppg scorer, had he been so inclined.

[sportjames23]

Roundball_Rock has moved on to putting down Magic now to go along with his MJ hate. :facepalm

[juju151111]

But if Russell had a time machine and made an extra layup a half he'd be a better scorer, but he chose not to do that so that he could win more
Lmao 50s and 60s fans nonsense logic

[Roundball_Rock]

Roundball_Rock has moved on to putting down Magic now to go along with his MJ hate. :facepalm

:facepalm

The point is both were crucial to their team's winning but they contribute primarily in ways other than scoring.


And EVERYONE knows that Magic could have easily been a 25+ ppg scorer, and a peak Magic, probably a 30 ppg scorer, had he been so inclined.

He wasn't asked to do so, though. Neither was Russell. They both executed their roles superbly and have a lot of success to show for it. Neither should be penalized for not being dominant scorers. They were not needed to be such. Could Russell have scored 30 ppg? No, but he could have increased his scoring if he was asked to. Would he be a better player if his peak scoring year was 23 ppg and not 19 ppg?

[LAZERUSS]

One thing that I have never seen addressed...

In a "must-win" game five of the '66 EDF's, Wilt exploded against Russell with a monstrous 46 point game (on 19-34 shooting.) His inept teammates continued to puke all over the floor, though (they collectively shot .352 in that series), and Boston eked out a clinching game win.

However, in the very next season, it was now RUSSELL who was faced with the exact same scenario. His team was down 3-1 (and in fact, had narrowly avoided a sweep in game four), and for the only time in the Russell-Wilt playoff H2H's, Chamberlain's teammates were finally neutralizing Russell's.

So, did Russell come out in that game five with "guns ablazin?" Nope, he quietly led his team like a lamb to slaughter. He scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, in a blowout loss. Meanwhile, Chamberlain "the choker" poured in 29 points (22 of which came in the first half when the game was still close), on 10-16 shooting, to go along with outassisting Russell, 13-7, and outrebounding Russell, 36-21. He even found time to block seven Celtic shots.

The reality was, Russell never was capable of taking over a game offensively against Wilt. And yet we have MANY examples of Wilt just destroying Russell and his swarming teammates on the offensive end.

As for Magic, everyone knows about his 42 point game in the clinching game six of the '80 Finals (and in his rookie season.) But, how about this? In his '90 playoff series against the Suns, and with his team down 2-1, he put up back-to-back games of 43 and 43 points, and on 15-26 Fg/FGA shooting in both (and BTW, he shot a combined 25-28 from the line, as well.) True, they lost them both, but Magic did not go down without a fight. Clearly, Magic was capable of putting up HUGE scoring games.

[Ne 1]

Great thread. For anyone being up FG%, just check out the league averages for FG% during the 80s and then for the 60s.

[navy]

Great thread. For anyone being up FG%, just check out the league averages for FG% during the 80s and then for the 60s.
For centers? Anyone got the stats?

[LAZERUSS]

:facepalm

The point is both were crucial to their team's winning but they contribute primarily in ways other than scoring.



He wasn't asked to do so, though. Neither was Russell. They both executed their roles superbly and have a lot of success to show for it. Neither should be penalized for not being dominant scorers. They were not needed to be such. Could Russell have scored 30 ppg? No, but he could have increased his scoring if he was asked to. Would he be a better player if his peak scoring year was 23 ppg and not 19 ppg?

I agree that Russell played his role superbly. And he had playoff series in which he was exceptional on the offensive end. But the real question would have been...could Russell have carried lessor rosters on the offensive end? Swap Russell's '63 roster with Wilt's, and does he lead that team to a title? Same with '64 (and Wilt did carry them to the Finals)?

[LAZERUSS]

Roundball_Rock has moved on to putting down Magic now to go along with his MJ hate. :facepalm

Whether I agree with everything he posts, or not, he at least puts in the research and well constructed arguments. That is all I ask in any of these discussions.

[GODbe]

Didn't Russell average like 15ppg in that weak ass era:lol ? That translates to about 1 or 2ppg in this era:facepalm . "GOAT" :roll:

[Spurs5Rings2014]

One thing that I have never seen addressed...

In a "must-win" game five of the '66 EDF's, Wilt exploded against Russell with a monstrous 46 point game (on 19-34 shooting.) His inept teammates continued to puke all over the floor, though (they collectively shot .352 in that series), and Boston eked out a clinching game win.

However, in the very next season, it was now RUSSELL who was faced with the exact same scenario. His team was down 3-1 (and in fact, had narrowly avoided a sweep in game four), and for the only time in the Russell-Wilt playoff H2H's, Chamberlain's teammates were finally neutralizing Russell's.

So, did Russell come out in that game five with "guns ablazin?" Nope, he quietly led his team like a lamb to slaughter. He scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, in a blowout loss. Meanwhile, Chamberlain "the choker" poured in 29 points (22 of which came in the first half when the game was still close), on 10-16 shooting, to go along with outassisting Russell, 13-7, and outrebounding Russell, 36-21. He even found time to block seven Celtic shots.

The reality was, Russell never was capable of taking over a game offensively against Wilt. And yet we have MANY examples of Wilt just destroying Russell and his swarming teammates on the offensive end.

As for Magic, everyone knows about his 42 point game in the clinching game six of the '80 Finals (and in his rookie season.) But, how about this? In his '90 playoff series against the Suns, and with his team down 2-1, he put up back-to-back games of 43 and 43 points, and on 15-26 Fg/FGA shooting in both (and BTW, he shot a combined 25-28 from the line, as well.) True, they lost them both, but Magic did not go down without a fight. Clearly, Magic was capable of putting up HUGE scoring games.

So what you're saying is Russell's teams were more stacked than Wilt's and that's why he has 11 rings and Wilt has 2?

[LAZERUSS]

So what you're saying is Russell's teams were more stacked than Wilt's and that's why he has 11 rings and Wilt has 2?

Clearly. The real question would have been, would Wilt have held a 9-1 edge over Russell in their ten years in the league together, had they swapped rosters in that decade?

[DatAsh]

But the real question would have been...could Russell have carried lessor rosters on the offensive end?

Why would he need to though? The Celtics won 3 championships as the worst offense in the league and 3-4 more as the second or third worst offense in the league. The Celtics were always mediocre to terrible on offense, they won in spite of their offense, not because of it.

[LAZERUSS]

Why would he need to though? The Celtics won 3 championships as the worst offense in the league and 3-4 more as the second or third worst offense in the league. The Celtics were always mediocre to terrible on offense, they won in spite of their offense, not because of it.

BUT, he played with SEVERAL players who had MULTIPLE 20+ ppg seasons. Clearly, he had capable scorers behind him. Sam Jones was putting up seasons of 26 ppg and playoff runs of 29 ppg. Havlicek had two seasons AFTER Russell in which he averaged 27 and 29 ppg.

Furthermore, Russell was also playing alongside three of the best DEFENSIVE players of his era (KS Jones, Satch Sanders, and John Havlicek.) My god, take a look at the DWS's leaders each year in the decade of the 60's. Including Russell, Boston was routinely having 5-6 players in the top-10 in that category.

[LAZERUSS]

How good were Russell's teammates?

In Russell's own words...

http://www.celtic-nation.com/interviews/sam_jones/sam_jones_page1.htm

[QUOTE]

[DJ Leon Smith]

Russell is diminished by some for not being a dominant scorer. However, this is never brought up vis-a-vis Magic, who led his team in scoring only three times and only once during the Lakers title years. Let's compare their respective roles in terms of scoring.

Magic Johnson

1980

Magic's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: KAJ 25, Wilkes 20, Magic 18, Nixon 18

1981

Magic's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: KAJ 26, Wilkes 23, Magic 22, Nixon 17

1982

Magic's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: KAJ 24, Wilkes 21, Magic 19, Nixon 18, Kupchak 14

1983

Magic's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: KAJ 22, Wilkes 20, Magic 17, Nixon 15, McAdoo 15, Worthy 13

1984

Magic's scoring rank: 2nd
Top scorers: KAJ 22, Magic 18, Wilkes 17, Worthy 15, McAdoo 13

1985

Magic's scoring rank: 2nd
Top scorers: KAJ 22, Magic 18, Worthy 18, Scott 16

1986

Magic's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: KAJ 23, Worthy 20, Magic 19, Scott 15

1987

Magic's scoring rank: 1st
Top scorers: Magic 24, Worthy 19, KAJ 18, Scott 17

1988

Magic's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: Scott 22, Worthy 20, Magic 20, KAJ 15

1989

Magic's scoring rank: 1st
Top scorers: Magic 23, Worthy 21, Scott 20

1990

Magic's scoring rank: 1st
Top scorers: Magic 22, Worthy 21, Scott 16

1991

Magic's scoring rank: 2nd
Top scorers: Worthy 21, Magic 19, Scott 15, Perkins 14

KAJ was the #1 option from 1980-1986 and Magic was part of the supporting scorer group. The Lakers used a balanced attack where several people contributed to scoring. KAJ was the go-to guy in the clutch as well.

Bill Russell

1957

Russell's scoring rank: 4th
Top scorers: Sharman 21, Cousy 21, Heinsohn 16, Russell 15

1958

Russell's scoring rank: 4th
Top scorers: Sharman 22, Cousy 18, Heinsohn 17, Russell 17, Ramsey 17

1959

Russell's scoring rank: 4th
Top scorers: Sharman 20, Cousy 20, Heinsohn 19, Russell 17, Ramsey 15

1960

Russell's scoring rank: 4th
Top scorers: Heinsohn 22, Cousy 19, Sharman 19, Russell 18, Ramsey 15

1961

Russell's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: Heinsohn 21, Cousy 18, Russell 17, Sharman 16, Ramsey 15, S. Jones 15

1962

Russell's scoring rank: 2nd
Top scorers: Heinsohn 22, Russell 19, S. Jones 18, Cousy 16, Ramsey 15

1963

Russell's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: S. Jones 20, Heinsohn 19, Russell 17, Havelick 14

1964

Russell's scoring rank: 4th
Top scorers: Havelick 20, S. Jones 19, Heinsohn 17, Russell 15

1965

Russell's scoring rank: 3rd
Top scorers: S. Jones 26, Havelick 18, Russell 14, Heinsohn 14

1966

Russell's scoring rank: 4th
Top scorers: S. Jones 24, Havelick 19, Sigfried 14, Russell 13, Sanders 13

1967

Russell's scoring rank: 5th
Top scorers: S. Jones 22, Havelick 21, Howell 20, Sigfried 14, Russell 13

1968

Russell's scoring rank: 4th
Top scorers: S. Jones 21, Havelick 21, Howell 20, Russell 13

1969

Russell's scoring rank: 7th (10 ppg)
Top scorers: Havelick 22, Howell 20, S. Jones 16, Sigfried 14

Recap


Magic's scoring rankings: 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 1, 3, 1, 1, 2
Russell's scoring rankings: 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 7

Conclusion

As you can see, both were supporting scorers for most of their careers. By "supporting scorer" I mean someone who was not the leading scorer but was still a significant scorer. This was done in the context of balanced offenses where the scoring was spread out. These weren't teams where there was one 28-30 ppg scorer, a second 20-22 ppg type and everyone else lagged behind. In pretty much every season the Celtics' leading scorer was in the low 20's while Russell would be in the mid to high teens. Russell was not a significant contributor in his final years, but he was right in the mix for most of his career. As to Magic, he led his team in scoring only three times--and only once did they win the title in those years. When the Lakers won rings Magic was 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, and 3rd in scoring, suggesting the offense worked best when he focused on being a distributor and downplayed a scoring role.

Both players made their most significant contributions to the team's success outside of scoring, namely defense and rebounding in Russell's case and playmaking in Magic's. Yet only one of these two is penalized for not being a great scorer. Magic even gets credit for rings as a "first option" when he was 3, 3, 2, and 3 in scoring. KAJ was the #1 scoring option in 1980, 1982, and 1985 and in 1988 it was Scott. I can understand someone holding Russell's scoring against him, but in order to be consistent you have to do the same with Magic.

What do you attribute the double standard to? I think it largely is due to a bias against the 60's in general and Russell in particular. Russell is a giant wrench into the thinking of many fans because of the obsession with "rings as the man." However, if one is serious about "rings as the man" being the ultimate metric of greatness then logically Russell is the clear GOAT. So to avoid that incongruity he is diminished, either by downplaying his role on those teams or not counting his rings due to the era (which itself is open to debate--in Wilt/Russell's era every starter was a good player so they didn't get nights playing scrubs).

How does Scottie Pippen's ***** taste? Is it more salty or sweet?

[Roundball_Rock]

Because the points Magic didnt score were made up by his assist.

How about the points generated by Russell's dominant rebounding?


Great thread. For anyone being up FG%, just check out the league averages for FG% during the 80s and then for the 60s.

Exactly. Also keep in mind the league was tougher in many ways back then. Imagine if the NBA contracted to 10 leagues. You would be facing good players every night. In the current NBA you face average players most of the time and weak starter. You couldn't pad your stats playing scrubs.


ut the real question would have been...could Russell have carried lessor rosters on the offensive end?

No, and that is a fair point.


Whether I agree with everything he posts, or not, he at least puts in the research and well constructed arguments. That is all I ask in any of these discussions.

:cheers:

To be clear, this is a pro-Russell thread--not an anti-Magic thread.

[GODbe]

Exactly. Also keep in mind the league was tougher in many ways back then. Imagine if the NBA contracted to 10 leagues. You would be facing good players every night. In the current NBA you face average players most of the time and weak starter. You couldn't pad your stats playing scrubs.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Hey Yo]

Clearly. The real question would have been, would Wilt have held a 9-1 edge over Russell in their ten years in the league together, had they swapped rosters in that decade?
Or could Magic sustain his success on a team if he had to be the no.1 scoring option his entire career?

He was never really on a team that wasn't loaded with scorer's.

[DatAsh]

BUT, he played with SEVERAL players who had MULTIPLE 20+ ppg seasons. Clearly, he had capable scorers behind him. Sam Jones was putting up seasons of 26 ppg and playoff runs of 29 ppg. Havlicek had two seasons AFTER Russell in which he averaged 27 and 29 ppg.


What's with all these meaningless stats? That's all you seem to ever do is throw out box score stats. Ppg != offense. If Russell's team's were always loaded with so much offensive talent, then why were they consistently one of the worst - if not the worst - offenses in the league. Was Russell so bad of an offensive player that he he took a great offensive team and made them terrible? Is that your argument?


Furthermore, Russell was also playing alongside three of the best DEFENSIVE players of his era (KS Jones, Satch Sanders, and John Havlicek.)

If you mean they were among the best backcourt defenders, then I agree. Jones and Sanders were having no where near the defensive impact that guys like Russell, Chamberlain, and Thurmond were having though.


My god, take a look at the DWS's leaders each year in the decade of the 60's. Including Russell, Boston was routinely having 5-6 players in the top-10 in that category.

It's hard to imagine a more meaningless stat than individual DWS from the 1960s. For the sake of respecting the rest of your argument, I'll just pretend I didn't read that.

[stanlove1111]

BUT, he played with SEVERAL players who had MULTIPLE 20+ ppg seasons. Clearly, he had capable scorers behind him. Sam Jones was putting up seasons of 26 ppg and playoff runs of 29 ppg. Havlicek had two seasons AFTER Russell in which he averaged 27 and 29 ppg.
.

This is another example of Laz not even understand basketball. Yeah no crap Russell's teammates put up more scoring then Wilt's much of the time..Russell's game was all about uplifting his teammates game, Wilt's for much of his career just the opposite,,

I think this guy used to be on a basketball site 10 years ago sprewing the same nonsense..He used to compare the scoring of Russell's teammates to Wilt's to prove Russell easily had the better teammates..DUH..

Is that you OLDFOGEY..Thats the name he used to go by..

[LAZERUSS]

This is another example of Laz not even understand basketball. Yeah no crap Russell's teammates put up more scoring then Wilt's much of the time..Russell's game was all about uplifting his teammates game, Wilt's for much of his career just the opposite,,

I think this guy used to be on a basketball site 10 years ago sprewing the same nonsense..He used to compare the scoring of Russell's teammates to Wilt's to prove Russell easily had the better teammates..DUH..

Is that you OLDFOGEY..Thats the name he used to go by..

Give me the list of scorers that Chamberlain played with in his '63 and '64 seasons. And keep in mind that Thurmond was a rookie in '64, playing part-time, out of position, and was really ineffective in doing so. And Willie Naulls was washed up by then, as well, and in fact, played worse with Russell the very next year.

Now, with the exceptions of Thurmond and Naulls, go ahead and explain why the rest of the roster never amounted to s**t withOUT Chamberlain. Where were these "scorers" that would match Russell's rosters? Give me their scoring numbers in the years in which they didn't play with Wilt. How any of them had 20+ ppg seasons?

Furthermore, the REALITY was, players like Greer, Goodrich, and even Gola, all had the best seasons of their careers, WITH Wilt. And West's numbers, particularly in his post-seasons, were nearly identical, with and withOUT Wilt. Arizin's ppg, and playing alongside Wilt in the last three years of his career, had a marginal drop-off. How about an already declining Baylor? The year before Wilt arrived, he averaged 26.0 ppg on a .443 FG%. With Wilt the very next year? 24.8 ppg on a .447 FG%.

An explosive Wilt hardly impacted the best players on his team. And the remainder of those rosters were basically unaffected, as well. And some, again, like Goodrich and Greer, flourished with Wilt.

[fpliii]

I don't think it's fair to put Magic at/near Russell's level as a player overall, but I do think Magic was the superior scorer.

That being said, I think it's silly to dock Russell for his efficiency numbers. No, he was not a gifted scorer, but the Celtics' offensive style belie his (and his teammates') scoring ability, by design:


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.

[Roundball_Rock]

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

Wilt and Kareem don't have legitimate cases for GOAT, in your view?

[LAZERUSS]

What's with all these meaningless stats? That's all you seem to ever do is throw out box score stats. Ppg != offense. If Russell's team's were always loaded with so much offensive talent, then why were they consistently one of the worst - if not the worst - offenses in the league. Was Russell so bad of an offensive player that he he took a great offensive team and made them terrible? Is that your argument?



If you mean they were among the best backcourt defenders, then I agree. Jones and Sanders were having no where near the defensive impact that guys like Russell, Chamberlain, and Thurmond were having though.



It's hard to imagine a more meaningless stat than individual DWS from the 1960s. For the sake of respecting the rest of your argument, I'll just pretend I didn't read that.

First of all, Russell's Celtics were always near the top of the league in SCORING. To say thy were one of the worst offensive teams in the league is a little ridiculous, don't you think?

And, there is solid evidence throughout Russell's career, but certainly in the first few years, that Bostons' offense was as good, if not better, withOUT him. True, their defense suffered, but that would be expected when they seldom had a capable backup for him.

Without taking the time to look up the numbers, I suspect that their overall production in his rookie year was even better withOUT him. They went 16-8 without Russell, and 28-20 with him. Furthermore, that team had a capable backup center in Arnie Risen.

Interesting too, in his '57-58 Finals, the series was tied 1-1, when he went down with an injured ankle in game three. They lost game three by a 111-108 margin, but they outscored the Hawks without Russell in that game. They won game four easily, and again withOUT Russell. They then lost game five, again, withOUT Russell, 102-100. And Russell gave it a go in game six, but had to come out in the first half. Boston lost that clinching game six by a 110-109 margin, but again, they outscored the Hawks without Russell in the game.


And how about the two games that Russell missed in his 58-59 season? They won both of them, and by margins of 130-105, and get this... 173-139!

Boston lost a game in his absence in 60-61, 137-134.

And they went 0-4 in his absence in 61-62, but they averaged 119 ppg in those losses, and yes, their defense suffered. But then, when two of the games were against Wilt, you can see why.

And they would go 8-9 in the games that he would miss over the course of the rest of his career. And again, their offense was no worse with, or without him, in those games.

[fpliii]

Wilt and Kareem don't have legitimate cases for GOAT, in your view?
More so than any other player, yes, but I think MJ's and Russell's are much stronger.

Maybe I shouldn't have said "legitimate", but I don't think they have very good cases. They have weaker cases than Mike/Russ, and I don't think any other player than those four has a case at all.

[GimmeThat]

his team really just benefited from the fact that apparently no other teams in the league had figured them out.

I don't know why Russell gets majority of the credit.
but maybe because he just played through all those years.

[LAZERUSS]

More so than any other player, yes, but I think MJ's and Russell's are much stronger.

Maybe I shouldn't have said "legitimate", but I don't think they have very good cases. They have weaker cases than Mike/Russ, and I don't think any other player than those four has a case at all.

Except that Wilt was simply the better player vs. Russell. And at times, he was FAR greater. To blame Wilt for pathetic teammates, and/or teammates who choked in their biggest games, or, as was the case when Wilt did have an equal supporting cast, in '68, when he and they were decimated by injuries, is simply not fair. It's a TEAM game, and the best TEAM generally wins.

Furthermore, Chamberlain, with either considerably worse rosters, choking rosters, injured rosters, and/or a combination of all three, took them to within an eyelash of beating Russell's teams in FOUR game seven's, and by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. All in series in which Wilt either outplayed, or downright crushed Russell.

And we had an example of just what would have happened throughout their careers, in '67, when Wilt's supporting cast was healthy and the equal of Russell's. It was an obliteration. And Russell was helpless to prevent it.

[Soundwave]

Except that Wilt was simply the better player vs. Russell. And at times, he was FAR greater. To blame Wilt for pathetic teammates, and/or teammates who choked in their biggest games, or, as was the case when Wilt did have an equal supporting cast, in '68, when he and they were decimated by injuries, is simply not fair. It's a TEAM game, and the best TEAM generally wins.

Furthermore, Chamberlain, with either considerably worse rosters, choking rosters, injured rosters, and/or a combination of all three, took them to within an eyelash of beating Russell's teams in FOUR game seven's, and by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. All in series in which Wilt either outplayed, or downright crushed Russell.

And we had an example of just what would have happened throughout their careers, in '67, when Wilt's supporting cast was healthy and the equal of Russell's. It was an obliteration. And Russell was helpless to prevent it.

Agreed Wilt was the better player.

It would be like saying Joe Dumars is better than Michael Jordan if circumstances turned out that the Bulls never got things together and the Pistons beat up on them for another 2 years or something. Dumars was good, but he was never better than Jordan.

Not in 1989 and not in 1991 and not in 1992.

[LAZERUSS]

How about the points generated by Russell's dominant rebounding?



Exactly. Also keep in mind the league was tougher in many ways back then. Imagine if the NBA contracted to 10 leagues. You would be facing good players every night. In the current NBA you face average players most of the time and weak starter. You couldn't pad your stats playing scrubs.



No, and that is a fair point.



:cheers:

To be clear, this is a pro-Russell thread--not an anti-Magic thread.

:cheers:

You are one of the few posters on this board that I respect.

[DatAsh]

First of all, Russell's Celtics were always near the top of the league in SCORING. To say thy were one of the worst offensive teams in the league is a little ridiculous, don't you think?


Celtic's offense from 56-70

3/8 <------- No Russell
5/8
7/8
5/8
5/8
8/8
7/9
9/9
9/9
7/9
8/9
4/10
8/12
10/14
12/14 <------ No Russell

Celtic's defense from 56-70

6/8 <------- No Russell
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/9
1/9
1/9
1/9
1/9
1/10
2/12
1/14
8/14 <------ No Russell

Celtic's high ppg may have had something to do with the style of offense they played :confusedshrug: , and again ppg != offense.

[fpliii]

Except that Wilt was simply the better player vs. Russell. And at times, he was FAR greater. To blame Wilt for pathetic teammates, and/or teammates who choked in their biggest games, or, as was the case when Wilt did have an equal supporting cast, in '68, when he and they were decimated by injuries, is simply not fair. It's a TEAM game, and the best TEAM generally wins.

Furthermore, Chamberlain, with either considerably worse rosters, choking rosters, injured rosters, and/or a combination of all three, took them to within an eyelash of beating Russell's teams in FOUR game seven's, and by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. All in series in which Wilt either outplayed, or downright crushed Russell.

And we had an example of just what would have happened throughout their careers, in '67, when Wilt's supporting cast was healthy and the equal of Russell's. It was an obliteration. And Russell was helpless to prevent it.
I'm not blaming Wilt for his teammates, and have not done so in the past, but I disagree that Wilt was simply the better player. Russell's defensive impact numbers (mostly relative DRtg) are unmatched in history, and when any player other than Russell joined/left the team, the change was miniscule. When Russ was drafted/retired, the changes were substantial:

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)

Russell was a more mobile defender than Wilt, and possibly anyone, in that elite Hakeem/KG class:

[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,

[fpliii]

Celtic's offense from 56-70

3/8 <------- No Russell
5/8
7/8
5/8
5/8
8/8
7/9
9/9
9/9
7/9
8/9
4/10
8/12
10/14
12/14 <------ No Russell

Celtic's defense from 56-70

6/8 <------- No Russell
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
1/9
1/9
1/9
1/9
1/9
1/10
2/12
1/14
8/14 <------ No Russell
Pretty much this. As I said above though, based on quotes from former players and the numbers, it looks like the Celtics' offensive system hid some of their offensive talent (including Russell's scoring ability):

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10335660&postcount=28

but it obviously worked for them, given the results.

[Dbrog]

Clearly. The real question would have been, would Wilt have held a 9-1 edge over Russell in their ten years in the league together, had they swapped rosters in that decade?

So...I'm with you that Wilt was an absolute monster, but you are effectively using the argument that ppl use against tim duncan. Could Dirk have done it w duncans team? Could KG have? The problem is no argument can really be valid in these situation since those things DIDNT happen but Duncan and Russ did. They also went through those other players too (even if they were "supposed" to). It's just the facts. We've seen teams that were "supposed" to win it all fail ei: Heatles, '04 Lakers, some of Kareems 70s teams, etc etc. I think it says something about the teams that did manage to win it.

Basketball is a much more complicated game than stats. Stats don't show certain aspects of defense; they don't show how leadership affects teammates effort; they don't show certain aspects of offense (for example floor spacing, hockey assists, picks that get other's buckets). Many of the stars that don't have the eye popping stats have these characteristics followed by success. I know it's correlation but I don't think it's coincidence. Do I think Wilt could win as much as Russ? I think he would get pretty close...maybe a couple less or something. There's no way for me to prove this though. I think it's a fun idea to play with but ultimately I just don't think it matters since it never happened. It's the whole thing like I bet Walton would have been the GOAT if he was never injured or TMAC woulda been if he and grant hill woulda been healthy. Could you make arguments? Possibly....but would good does it do?

Wilt was a magnificent player and truly probably the most dominant ever. He wasn't the winner of his era in terms of chips though. Even still the rest of what he accomplished is so overwhelming that I still have to put him in my top 5 and I'm not even mad if people have him top3. I REALLY hope we get to see a new great center in the mold of these guys one day. Would tear the league to shreds.

[navy]

How about the points generated by Russell's dominant rebounding?


I dont have the numbers, nor did I watch the games. Care to explain/show?

:confusedshrug:

[LAZERUSS]

I'm not blaming Wilt for his teammates, and have not done so in the past, but I disagree that Wilt was simply the better player. Russell's defensive impact numbers (mostly relative DRtg) are unmatched in history, and when any player other than Russell joined/left the team, the change was miniscule. When Russ was drafted/retired, the changes were substantial:

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)

Russell was a more mobile defender than Wilt, and possibly anyone, in that elite Hakeem/KG class:

















On rebounding (related topic):



A big part of this is willingness (Wilt didn't like to leave the paint, which a ton of other super elite defenders did as well), but Russell seemed to react and recover quicker.

I respect your opinion, but I can't accept putting Wilt (or anyone else) on a higher level than Russell. The same level, perhaps (MJ is there, and as I said, I have no problem with people putting Wilt/Kareem on the same tier), but that's all I can concede.

It's interesting, but I always found it fascinating that in Wilt's game seven of the '62 EDF's, he was hit with a very controversial goal tend near the end of the game, on a shot by Sam Jones. And then after Wilt tied the score late with a 3 pt play, Sam Jones then hit the game-winning shot over the outstretched fingertips of...you guessed it... Chamberlain.

BTW, in Wilt's greatest scoring season, what did that game seven recap read? Wilt was credited with playing OUTSTANDING DEFENSE.

In the clinching game five loss of the '64 Finals, and with the score tied, and in the last few seconds, Tommy Heinsohn attempts the game winner, but Chamberlain lunged out, and the shot mis-fired badly. BUT, with Wilt having to defend Heinsohn, he was out of position, and Russell grabbed the rebound and dumped in the game winning shot.

Those are just two examples. Then there was the tale of the very first matchup between Walt Bellamy and Wilt. Bellamy came into that game averaging 30 ppg, At the center jump Wilt told Bellamy that he wouldn't score a point in the game. And in the first half, Bellamy recounted, that he didn't score, and in fact, Wilt blocked something like nine of his shots. At the start of the second half tip-off, Wilt told Bellamy, "Now you can play." Chamberlain wound up outscoring Bellamy, 52-14.

Furthermore, and as YOU know, NO ONE else ever reduced their opposing center's FG%'s, including Russell, as much as Wilt did.

As for blocked shots, I believe even you have conceded that Wilt probably had a sizeable career margin over Russell. And, in fact, in their known H2H's, Wilt had a huge margin.

[cltcfn2924]

One thing that I have never seen addressed...

In a "must-win" game five of the '66 EDF's, Wilt exploded against Russell with a monstrous 46 point game (on 19-34 shooting.) His inept teammates continued to puke all over the floor, though (they collectively shot .352 in that series), and Boston eked out a clinching game win.

However, in the very next season, it was now RUSSELL who was faced with the exact same scenario. His team was down 3-1 (and in fact, had narrowly avoided a sweep in game four), and for the only time in the Russell-Wilt playoff H2H's, Chamberlain's teammates were finally neutralizing Russell's.

So, did Russell come out in that game five with "guns ablazin?" Nope, he quietly led his team like a lamb to slaughter. He scored FOUR points, on 2-5 shooting, in a blowout loss. Meanwhile, Chamberlain "the choker" poured in 29 points (22 of which came in the first half when the game was still close), on 10-16 shooting, to go along with outassisting Russell, 13-7, and outrebounding Russell, 36-21. He even found time to block seven Celtic shots.

The reality was, Russell never was capable of taking over a game offensively against Wilt. And yet we have MANY examples of Wilt just destroying Russell and his swarming teammates on the offensive end.

As for Magic, everyone knows about his 42 point game in the clinching game six of the '80 Finals (and in his rookie season.) But, how about this? In his '90 playoff series against the Suns, and with his team down 2-1, he put up back-to-back games of 43 and 43 points, and on 15-26 Fg/FGA shooting in both (and BTW, he shot a combined 25-28 from the line, as well.) True, they lost them both, but Magic did not go down without a fight. Clearly, Magic was capabl
e of putting up HUGE scoring games.


Ok genius. Has anybody here ever said Russell was a scorer? Why are you beating a dead horse?

[cltcfn2924]

It's interesting, but I always found it fascinating that in Wilt's game seven of the '62 EDF's, he was hit with a very controversial goal tend near the end of the game, on a shot by Sam Jones. And then after Wilt tied the score late with a 3 pt play, Sam Jones then hit the game-winning shot over the outstretched fingertips of...you guessed it... Chamberlain.

BTW, in Wilt's greatest scoring season, what did that game seven recap read? Wilt was credited with playing OUTSTANDING DEFENSE.

In the clinching game five loss of the '64 Finals, and with the score tied, and in the last few seconds, Tommy Heinsohn attempts the game winner, but Chamberlain lunged out, and the shot mis-fired badly. BUT, with Wilt having to defend Heinsohn, he was out of position, and Russell grabbed the rebound and dumped in the game winning shot.

Those are just two examples. Then there was the tale of the very first matchup between Walt Bellamy and Wilt. Bellamy came into that game averaging 30 ppg, At the center jump Wilt told Bellamy that he wouldn't score a point in the game. And in the first half, Bellamy recounted, that he didn't score, and in fact, Wilt blocked something like nine of his shots. At the start of the second half tip-off, Wilt told Bellamy, "Now you can play." Chamberlain wound up outscoring Bellamy, 52-14.

Furthermore, and as YOU know, NO ONE else ever reduced their opposing center's FG%'s, including Russell, as much as Wilt did.

As for blocked shots, I believe even you have conceded that Wilt probably had a sizeable career margin over Russell. And, in fact, in their known H2H's, Wilt had a huge margin.


Did you ever watch Russ or Wilt play? Yes or no will suffice. Either way you have no idea of what you are writing. Completely clueless.

[cltcfn2924]

Clearly. The real question would have been, would Wilt have held a 9-1 edge over Russell in their ten years in the league together, had they swapped rosters in that decade?


You don't know history yet you keep posting it. Wilt himself answered your question with an emphatic NO. Wilt said he would have had to be the man, he couldn't play like Russell. Will you please stop!!!!

[fpliii]

It's interesting, but I always found it fascinating that in Wilt's game seven of the '62 EDF's, he was hit with a very controversial goal tend near the end of the game, on a shot by Sam Jones. And then after Wilt tied the score late with a 3 pt play, Sam Jones then hit the game-winning shot over the outstretched fingertips of...you guessed it... Chamberlain.

BTW, in Wilt's greatest scoring season, what did that game seven recap read? Wilt was credited with playing OUTSTANDING DEFENSE.

In the clinching game five loss of the '64 Finals, and with the score tied, and in the last few seconds, Tommy Heinsohn attempts the game winner, but Chamberlain lunged out, and the shot mis-fired badly. BUT, with Wilt having to defend Heinsohn, he was out of position, and Russell grabbed the rebound and dumped in the game winning shot.

Those are just two examples. Then there was the tale of the very first matchup between Walt Bellamy and Wilt. Bellamy came into that game averaging 30 ppg, At the center jump Wilt told Bellamy that he wouldn't score a point in the game. And in the first half, Bellamy recounted, that he didn't score, and in fact, Wilt blocked something like nine of his shots. At the start of the second half tip-off, Wilt told Bellamy, "Now you can play." Chamberlain wound up outscoring Bellamy, 52-14.

Furthermore, and as YOU know, NO ONE else ever reduced their opposing center's FG%'s, including Russell, as much as Wilt did.

As for blocked shots, I believe even you have conceded that Wilt probably had a sizeable career margin over Russell. And, in fact, in their known H2H's, Wilt had a huge margin.
Those are just some examples though. Russell was consistent defensively.

Even if Wilt was the superior rim protector (which might indeed be the case, based on the known numbers), he wasn't as impactful on the defensive end as Russell.

[NumberSix]

Those are just some examples though. Russell was consistent defensively.

Even if Wilt was the superior rim protector (which might indeed be the case, based on the known numbers), he wasn't as impactful on the defensive end as Russell.
Says a guy who has probably seen about 15 total minutes of Bill Russell footage.

[fpliii]

Says a guy who has probably seen about 15 total minutes of Bill Russell footage.
Watch your tongue when addressing me, son. I base consistency on the data, see the relative DRtgs I've posted above.

Here is the footage of Russell we have:


1962 Finals Gm. 7 Lakers vs. Celtics (Incomplete)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L78v25cinYI

1963 Finals Gm. 6 Celtics vs Lakers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA8l1Jr7jwc

1964 Finals Gm. 4 Celtics vs. Warriors (2nd Half)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti2Ncll2K64
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wEzEHPZi3w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Daeb0pi2M

1965 Finals Gm. 1 Lakers vs. Celtics (Incomplete)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_h34wT3SHc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WUEf_dgdkY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYCVbZwoDy4

1966 Playoffs Gm. 4 Celtics vs. Royals (2nd Half)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3UrnXXKKvQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHpponUzvTM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b2WXLIeqhg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdPGzlZe-rc

1966 Playoffs Gm. 5 Royals vs. Celtics (Incomplete)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE6kIu34Qsc

1966 Finals Gm. 7 Lakers vs. Celtics (Incomplete)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6j0sui4574

1967 Playoffs Gm. 4 Sixers vs. Celtics (2nd Half)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJjBDUhbBcs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiVAFBZzTac
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K9RJXAdZYw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHXG3koetzA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1myFngKMeb4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyTaL1q1TzA

1969 Finals Gm. 7 Celtics vs Lakers (4th Quarter)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnu5vMfPtbw

[knicksman]

if you know basketball, you would realize that offense>>>defense. Passing>>>defendings. Thats why players like russell today are just role players while players like magic are still considered superstars.

[fpliii]

if you know basketball, you would realize that offense>>>defense. Passing>>>defendings. Thats why players like russell today are just role players while players like magic are still considered superstars.
:lol

Holy shit, you say some incredibly stupid shit, but this takes the top. Wow!

Defense is half the game. While one team is on offense, the other is on defense.

[knicksman]

:lol

Holy shit, you say some incredibly stupid shit, but this takes the top. Wow!

Defense is half the game. While one team is on offense, the other is on defense.

you always go for the hardest which is offense. If you can do offense, defense becomes easy. Theres a reason why most scorers can be elite defenders if they put the effort but not vice versa

[fpliii]

you always go for the hardest which is offense. If you can do offense, defense becomes easy. Theres a reason why most scorers can be elite defenders if they put the effort but not vice versa
C'mon my dude...

1) Where's the objective evidence that offense is harder?

2) Since it's the case for "most", show me 10 examples of notable scorers playing as elite defenders for sustained periods of time.

Thanks in advance for both.

[G.O.A.T]

C'mon my dude...

1) Where's the objective evidence that offense is harder?

2) Since it's the case for "most", show me 10 examples of notable scorers playing as elite defenders for sustained periods of time.

Thanks in advance for both.

you're dealing with a troll or someone who won't ever be smart enough to have this conversation with you.

[knicksman]

C'mon my dude...

1) Where's the objective evidence that offense is harder?

2) Since it's the case for "most", show me 10 examples of notable scorers playing as elite defenders for sustained periods of time.

Thanks in advance for both.

cmon bro, theres a reason why you can find defenders in the 2nd round. Theres a lot of players in this league that can defend but not all players can score. Theres a reason why bill russell type of players hasnt won since then. It was just luck that he played on a young NBA league. But right now, youre not winning without elite offensive players. Jordan, kobe, shaq, hakeem, duncan, bird, kareem, magic. The GOATS after russell retired, and guess what, theyre all elite offensive players.

[Pointguard]

No offense OP but you are comparing the guy that ran the best offensive machine ever to a player that wasn't skilled offensively. There is no player that ran the offense better than Magic. Magic could have scored, as Lazeruss said 25ppg easily. Magic was responsible for more easy baskets than any player that ever played the game. He could feed a player in their sweet spot better than any player that played the game. He could get non offensive players involved offensively. Magic didn't just create offense - he multiplied it. Nobody is close to Magic in that regards.

Russell played in a wide open era. The game would be played a little quicker than that run and gun Pheonix team a few years back and a lot faster than any team now. It was basically a fast break type of game. No team, outside of the Celtics, played great team defense more than 2 years in a row back then. There were individual players - like Wilt, but teams rarely committed to it outside of Boston. Look it up. And Russell was one of the fastest players in the league. Russell was also one of the longest players in the league as well. Russell also played with the best point guard in the league as well. He had the best clutch shooters too. So he had space to operate. And he averaged a little more than a basket a quarter from the field.

Aurabach said Coose ran a fast break better than Magic (has to be the biggest joke in basketball) and Russell still wasn't getting more than just opportune baskets. The Magic model doesn't transfer at all to a Russell model.

[Hey Yo]

No offense OP but you are comparing the guy that ran the best offensive machine ever to a player that wasn't skilled offensively. There is no player that ran the offense better than Magic. Magic could have scored, as Lazeruss said 25ppg easily. Magic was responsible for more easy baskets than any player that ever played the game. He could feed a player in their sweet spot better than any player that played the game. He could get non offensive players involved offensively. Magic didn't just create offense - he multiplied it. Nobody is close to Magic in that regards.

Russell played in a wide open era. The game would be played a little quicker than that run and gun Pheonix team a few years back and a lot faster than any team now. It was basically a fast break type of game. No team, outside of the Celtics, played great team defense more than 2 years in a row back then. There were individual players - like Wilt, but teams rarely committed to it outside of Boston. Look it up. And Russell was one of the fastest players in the league. Russell was also one of the longest players in the league as well. Russell also played with the best point guard in the league as well. He had the best clutch shooters too. So he had space to operate. And he averaged a little more than a basket a quarter from the field.

Aurabach said Coose ran a fast break better than Magic (has to be the biggest joke in basketball) and Russell still wasn't getting more than just opportune baskets. The Magic model doesn't transfer at all to a Russell model.
You just described LeBron's first 7yrs in the league with role players

The one big difference is that James had to be the first scoring option in those years. Magic did not.

[NumberSix]

Bill Russell = Joakim Noah

[jlip]

Let

[Roundball_Rock]

No offense OP but you are comparing the guy that ran the best offensive machine ever to a player that wasn't skilled offensively. There is no player that ran the offense better than Magic. Magic could have scored, as Lazeruss said 25ppg easily. Magic was responsible for more easy baskets than any player that ever played the game. He could feed a player in their sweet spot better than any player that played the game. He could get non offensive players involved offensively. Magic didn't just create offense - he multiplied it. Nobody is close to Magic in that regards.

I agree. Magic arguably is the GOAT offensive player. The OP was intended to show that players can contribute to their team without being a dominant scorer. In Magic's case that was via being the GOAT playmaker; in Russell's case by being the GOAT defender and the GOAT or second GOAT rebounder. Often people boil it down to scoring and ignore everything else. I remember Bruce Blitz arguing that Dale Ellis>Pippen because Ellis's peak ppg was higher. :lol


you're dealing with a troll or someone who won't ever be smart enough to have this conversation with you.

I also suspect he is very young. He likely is a 14-15 year old troll.


Bill Russell = Joakim Noah

Russell has 5 MVP's, second most all-time behind KAJ and tied with MJ. That=Noah?

[QUOTE]It appears that Russell

[Pointguard]

You just described LeBron's first 7yrs in the league with role players

The one big difference is that James had to be the first scoring option in those years. Magic did not.

The big difference between them is that Wade and Bosh looked considerably worse with Lebron while Kareem and Worthy looked much better. And very few Lebron teams ever looked very balanced. Lebron never ran the best offense in the league, much less the best ever. Magic's was significantly a better passer but Lebron is a great passer. Magic was thoroughly consistent and very clutch. Magic dictated when he wanted to run and had a much easier time getting easier baskets than Lebron. Lebron sometimes gets confused and doesn't know how to get out of ruts. With that said Lebron still is a top 5 all around player for sure.