Bill Russell talking about the mental game of basketball. Great read.

[kshutts1]

Friend just sent me this. One of the best basketball items I've ever read, though it is long. So long it has to be two posts.

This is from Sports Illustrated article, published on October 25th, 1965.

"The first thing I am not about to do is look up the definition of psychology in the dictionary. Why bother? I mean, dictionaries are nice and all that, but did old Daniel Webster ever have to stand there at the top of the key and define five sweating monsters rushing down at him? He did not. Well, then.
I will not confuse you with Webster's words, because my definition of psychology is something else again, and I have been practicing it for a whole flock of years now and I ought to know. In my psychology you wear short pants and tape and sneakers, and this is the kind of thing you do:
Say I am standing next to a rookie who has just come into the game—some hotshot college All-America who is not yet used to his rookie role. The action is swirling all around him, and I say to him, casually, "Hey, what's the matter with you, baby? Don't they ever pass that ball to you? What are you, a nothing on this club?" Oh, yeah, they laugh it off. But you can see them thinking about what you said.
Or I find someone who is new in the league, and I stand next to him and hack and cough it up. Sometimes I feel I should get an Oscar for this. I know they're watching me out of the edge of their eyes, and they are figuring, "So this is the great Bill Russell. Hell, he's just a tired old cat. And here I am, as fresh as can be." They don't know that I have a reserve tank.
You say these are minor league tricks? Maybe. But you'd be surprised at how often they work. The thing is, you have to pick your spots. Let's say you are playing center opposite Wilt Chamberlain of the Philadelphia 76ers, and it is one hot and heavy game. The score is just about even, and it is the middle of the second quarter—the time when you're most tired before getting your second wind. Tired? Listen, you are so tired that your leg muscles burn, and you know in your heart that Wilt is as tired as you are. But you are both breathing shallowly so as not to give any sign of how you really feel. Now. Wilt is on defense, and he is leaning on you with all of his 250 pounds and you have your mouth up close to his ear and you say to him, pleasantly, "Hey, baby. I never thought I'd see the day when a great big guy like you would be pushing an old man like me around."
So what does Wilt say to you? Wilt says, "Don't give me that old psych, baby." (I have cleaned up that quote. I have also shown that psychology does not work every time. The trick is in knowing who to talk to under the basket.)
I have enough of these situations cataloged inside my head to do a master's thesis on The Psychology of Basketball, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Spook the Opposition. As a matter of fact, this is my thesis, and the next case is a psychological horror story.
This thing first happened years ago. Frank Ramsey, the star of the situation, is in retirement, but we still pull his old trick, often with K.C. Jones in Ramsey's role. Now. Here we have Nate Thurmond, 6 feet 11, of the San Francisco Warriors, who has a dandy little jump shot from about 15 feet out from the basket. He comes barreling downcourt, he stops short and he goes way up into the air off those powerful, springy legs. Things are tough already, right? But to make it worse, because of a switch, Thurmond is being guarded at the moment by little Ramsey, who is just 6 feet 3. Now. Frank has been all over Thurmond like a swarm of gnats, but what is he going to do about that jumper half a mile over his head? Does Ramsey try to jump with Thurmond? He does not. Ramsey runs at Thurmond, full blast. Then, as Thurmond goes up into the air, Ramsey squinches down and runs right under him. He doesn't touch him, just runs right under him, fast and low, going toward the opposite basket.
So here is Thurmond, hanging up there in the air with a head full of terrible worries. Things like: 1) My God, am I going to come down on top of Ramsey and hurt myself? 2) Wait a minute! Ramsey is supposed to be guarding me. Where does he think he's going? 3) How can I hit the basket with all this nonsense going on, anyway?
That was the idea, of course. Then, about the time Thurmond was pushing the ball away, he would suddenly realize where Ramsey was going. Frank was going for the far basket, that's where. And Thurmond knew, with that little stab of pain in his stomach, that if he missed the shot I would probably grab the rebound and fire off a long pass to Ramsey for an easy layup. This situation does not exactly figure to fill a shooter with an overwhelming mood of confidence. It would spook Thurmond something awful.
In our league I promise you that any team can beat any other team on a given night. The difference a lot of the time is all psychological. We use every little trick, every pressure, every mental gimmick we can. And there are certain rules that I live by. We'll call them Russell's Laws.
Russell's First Law: You must make the other player do what you want him to do. How? You must start him thinking. If he is thinking instead of doing, he is yours. There is no time in basketball to think: "This has happened; this is what I must do next." In the amount of time it takes to think through that semicolon, it is already too late.
Russell's Second Law: You got to have the killer instinct. If you do not have it, forget about basketball and go into social psychology or something. If you sometimes wonder if you've got it, you ain't got it. No pussycats, please. The killer instinct, by my definition, is the ability to spot—and exploit—a weakness in your opponent. There are psychological subrules in this category.
To wit: always try a rookie. If you score on him and he thinks that maybe you scored because you are Bill Russell the superstar, he is yours forever after and you can wear him like a bauble on a charm bracelet.
To wit, further: always try a veteran. In my first year in pro basketball I came up against veteran Johnny Kerr, now with Baltimore. I blocked so many shots on him that first night—perhaps you remember—that he was wild with rage. He was so fired up they had to take him out of the game. That is frustration. That is also psychology. (And I might point out that as soon as he calmed down enough that season Kerr deliberately changed his style of shooting when he played against Boston. That is a kind of reverse psychology.)
Russell's Third Law: Be cute but not cuddly. I mean, you should be nice at all times, but there is a lot to be said for an elbow in the chops when all else fails. This is forceful psychology. Last resort stuff.
Russell's Final Law: Remember that basketball is a game of habit. In getting good at it, we develop certain habits. Therefore, if you make a player deviate from his habits—by psyching him—you've got him.
Right about here I would like to insert another psychological situation. In every game there is a crucial turning point, right? It comes when you are eight points up on the opponent and they have the ball. Now. If they score, they are only six points down. If you score, you're 10 points ahead and you have broken the game open. Right?
If you believe the above statement to be true, you have just been psyched. A lot of players figure this to be true, but it ain't necessarily so. If you start believing in things like turning points, you are lost. You play your best. All the way.
In my own life there are some psychological high points. For example, at McClymonds High School in Oakland, where I began playing the game, I got a quick cram course. It boils down to this: never allow yourself to get angry while playing. In those days we had an all-Negro starting five, and those were explosive days, racially. Our coach, George Powles, knew it and we knew it, and one day before a game he called us together.
"Fellas," said Powles, "I know most high school kids occasionally get mad during games. But remember the spot you're in here. If you get mad and start a fight, it isn't just a fight. It's a riot. And you'll be the ones who are blamed. I'm not telling you not to get mad. But if you do get mad, use it to play better." It has stuck with me through the years.
My first experience with big-time, massive mob psychology came when the University of San Francisco was on its wild, 60-game winning streak in my college days. We were a great team—make no mistake about that—but once we got this terrible "unbeatable" monster idea loose, all we had to do a lot of times was show up at the gym and we had the game won. I remember the Christmas season of 1955 and the Holiday Festival Tournament in Madison Square Garden. These are critical games; careers are made and broken in this tournament. Well, here was UCLA, ready to meet us in the finals. UCLA had to be an awfully tough team to get that far. They were no patsies. In fact, there were those who were saying, "Here is where Bill Russell and San Francisco will get their lumps."

[kshutts1]

Continued....

Somewhere out in this great land, maybe even today, there must be some tourney committeeman still kicking himself for what happened next. First, both teams were quartered at the same hotel. This is not the grandest thing in the world for two keyed-up college basketball teams. And, through a second terrible mistake, we both got assigned to the same dining room for our pregame meal.
There was the UCLA team around the table. Their coach had a rule, I think, that they had to eat in perfect silence; the idea was that they were supposed to brood on the game or something like that. Then we walked into the room like a big birthday party. We were laughing and shouting and throwing dinner rolls at each other and gagging it up and disturbing everybody in the place. We were also eating like crazy and, out of the corners of our eyes, we could see the Uclans coming apart. "Look, they're not even worried," those guys were thinking to themselves. "They're not in the least worried about us, about the title."
The game that followed wasn't much; the meal was one of America's great moments in sports. Honestly, we could have just thrown our sneakers out there on the floor and those guys would have jumped this high. We beat them 70-53.
Things are a lot tougher than that in the pros, of course, but psychology is always a help. Say we are playing Baltimore, and Walt Bellamy, as usual, is giving me trouble. Well, I do not breathe hard around Bellamy; he knows this psych. I breathe easily

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

[QUOTE=kshutts1]Continued....

Somewhere out in this great land, maybe even today, there must be some tourney committeeman still kicking himself for what happened next. First, both teams were quartered at the same hotel. This is not the grandest thing in the world for two keyed-up college basketball teams. And, through a second terrible mistake, we both got assigned to the same dining room for our pregame meal.
There was the UCLA team around the table. Their coach had a rule, I think, that they had to eat in perfect silence; the idea was that they were supposed to brood on the game or something like that. Then we walked into the room like a big birthday party. We were laughing and shouting and throwing dinner rolls at each other and gagging it up and disturbing everybody in the place. We were also eating like crazy and, out of the corners of our eyes, we could see the Uclans coming apart. "Look, they're not even worried," those guys were thinking to themselves. "They're not in the least worried about us, about the title."
The game that followed wasn't much; the meal was one of America's great moments in sports. Honestly, we could have just thrown our sneakers out there on the floor and those guys would have jumped this high. We beat them 70-53.
Things are a lot tougher than that in the pros, of course, but psychology is always a help. Say we are playing Baltimore, and Walt Bellamy, as usual, is giving me trouble. Well, I do not breathe hard around Bellamy; he knows this psych. I breathe easily

[Suguru101]

Had already read the first part, but the second is very interesting. Thanks :applause:

[bigt]

Thanks for the share, a fantastic read, and well written too.

[ClipperRevival]

I think this is what separated Russell from Wilt, the mental game. The ability to always think and do the right thing at every situation. I bet Wilt was more of a simpleton out there, just trying to get his points. Russell was noticeably shorter and lighter than Wilt and he still won all those rings. He's a winner. Wilt is a choker. I don't think Wilt wanted it as much as Russell. And the results show.

[kshutts1]

I loved that Russell gave props where due -- he spoke of Baylor and Oscar being smart and tough, how he couldn't use mind games against Wilt (so much for the ISH thought that Wilt was fragile).

The story I liked the most, though, was about Neil Johnston. Russell knew he could block the shot often, but he worried about blocking him TOO MUCH. If he blocked him enough, Johnston would change his shot, and thus be, in theory, more effective against Russell.

Whether you agree with the way in which Russell chose to act there... just that level of thought about the game is astounding. I'm sure we've all played against someone who was completely overmatched; we were better than they were in all, or nearly all, facets of the game. And we toyed with them to an extent. But did any of us consider that if we beat them too badly, that that person would come back and play us differently and beat us the next time? I know I never thought of that. I never considered that.

[ClipperRevival]

I loved that Russell gave props where due -- he spoke of Baylor and Oscar being smart and tough, how he couldn't use mind games against Wilt (so much for the ISH thought that Wilt was fragile).

The story I liked the most, though, was about Neil Johnston. Russell knew he could block the shot often, but he worried about blocking him TOO MUCH. If he blocked him enough, Johnston would change his shot, and thus be, in theory, more effective against Russell.

Whether you agree with the way in which Russell chose to act there... just that level of thought about the game is astounding. I'm sure we've all played against someone who was completely overmatched; we were better than they were in all, or nearly all, facets of the game. And we toyed with them to an extent. But did any of us consider that if we beat them too badly, that that person would come back and play us differently and beat us the next time? I know I never thought of that. I never considered that.

Yeah, that Neil Johnston story is pretty astounding. But the vast majority of us aren't simply good enough to impose our will on another opponent. We actually have to compete instead of dictating the action. Russell, as an all time great, had the ability to impose his will on the game and therefore, had a different view of the game. Sort of like a God-like view, if you want to call it that.

[kshutts1]

Yeah, that Neil Johnston story is pretty astounding. But the vast majority of us aren't simply good enough to impose our will on another opponent. We actually have to compete instead of dictating the action. Russell, as an all time great, had the ability to impose his will on the game and therefore, had a different view of the game. Sort of like a God-like view, if you want to call it that.
Totally agree. And that's why I hold all of the greats in such high esteem.

There are arguments against every player that ever played the game, but...

MJ
Kareem
Shaq
Wilt
Russell
Oscar
Bird
Magic

... all were so good relative to their peers that they could impose their will against them. And this is not against kids at a playground, but other professionals. Just remarkable. And that's not a definitive list, nor one I'll ask anyone to agree with. Just my take. I'd rather this thread be about Bill Russell, and the excellent first-hand view of which we were provided.

[ClipperRevival]

Totally agree. And that's why I hold all of the greats in such high esteem.

There are arguments against every player that ever played the game, but...

MJ
Kareem
Shaq
Wilt
Russell
Oscar
Bird
Magic

... all were so good relative to their peers that they could impose their will against them. And this is not against kids at a playground, but other professionals. Just remarkable. And that's not a definitive list, nor one I'll ask anyone to agree with. Just my take. I'd rather this thread be about Bill Russell, and the excellent first-hand view of which we were provided.

That must be such an amazing feeling, to know that you can impose your will on the game anytime you want to. That's like being a God on a basketball court. The rest of us mortals are just trying our best to compete and get the best of our opponent.

[Harison]

GOAT basketball mind :bowdown: He or Bird, that is.

[HOoopCityJones]

Totally agree. And that's why I hold all of the greats in such high esteem.

There are arguments against every player that ever played the game, but...

MJ
Kareem
Shaq
Wilt
Russell
Oscar
Bird
Magic

... all were so good relative to their peers that they could impose their will against them. And this is not against kids at a playground, but other professionals. Just remarkable. And that's not a definitive list, nor one I'll ask anyone to agree with. Just my take. I'd rather this thread be about Bill Russell, and the excellent first-hand view of which we were provided.

Kobe and Lerbon are in this discussion too.


Game 4 in the Finals after Shaq fouls out and game 6 vs Celtics come to mind.

[Asukal]

The reason he is #2 for me. :bowdown: :applause:

[jlip]

This is the article I was alluding to yesterday when I made this post about killer instinct:


Killer instinct is not particularly garbage, but the way it's often defined is garbage. The phrase is too subjectively defined, and the label is selectively attributed to players based upon media narratives and facial expressions.

Today the average fan or sports media personality would never consider a player who rarely took the last shot in a close game or rarely scored over 20ppg to be one who possess "killer instinct." But in 1965 Bill Russell wrote an article for Sports Illustrated describing what killer instinct was and how he uses it to gain an edge over his opponent. Not one person from back then questioned whether he had it.

I would also suggest people read his 2008 interview (http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/rus0int-2)with the Academy of Achievement. Russell was arguably the most brilliant basketball player ever. He treated the game like it was a science.

[GimmeThat]

on the topic of the mental part of the game

I just remember watching the Lakers against the Mavs in that 3rd year run, where after they had gone 2-0, they ended up being swept. (or maybe won 1, but I remember it being a clean sweep)

having the mental part of the game is important, but then as I call it, they simply ran into a team that was hungrier than them.

Wilt was eventually taught not to compete with Russell at his own game. While he probably always preferred to impose his own will upon Russell.


Russell never gave him the satisfaction he wanted in beating him as a head to head match up.

But then I can't see how one is suppose to even care about satisfaction given by others.


if in order to reach the highest height, we ought to pack as light as possible.
Wilt always seemed to wanted to pack more.

[HylianNightmare]

Great stuff

[CavaliersFTW]

I think this is what separated Russell from Wilt, the mental game. The ability to always think and do the right thing at every situation. I bet Wilt was more of a simpleton out there, just trying to get his points. Russell was noticeably shorter and lighter than Wilt and he still won all those rings. He's a winner. Wilt is a choker. I don't think Wilt wanted it as much as Russell. And the results show.
Jesus, no.

You believe this based on nothing too.

https://youtu.be/G94iJr8ZbzM?t=11m32s

"What were his (Wilt's) best qualities?"

Russell:
"I don't know what was his best his strength, or his smarts. Cause he was equally adept at both."

Russell in other interviews has stated Wilt was the smartest opponent he faced along with Oscar Robertson.

[PHILA]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdd2biHVlyA&t=1m37s


What was the toughest thing for you playing against Wilt?

"I could never play him the same way two games in a row, because it would not work. And so the whole time we played against each other, every game was different."

[ClipperRevival]

Jesus, no.

You believe this based on nothing too.

https://youtu.be/G94iJr8ZbzM?t=11m32s

"What were his (Wilt's) best qualities?"

Russell:
"I don't know what was his best his strength, or his smarts. Cause he was equally adept at both."

Russell in other interviews has stated Wilt was the smartest opponent he faced along with Oscar Robertson.

The more I study Russell/Wilt, the more I am realizing that Wilt was more of a "let me get mine" type of guy and Russell was the, "I could care less about stats, I want to win" type of guy.

Wilt lost to Russell 5 times in game 7s in the playoffs by a combined total of 9 points. And the two that are completely unforgiveable are his loses in 1968 and 1969, which were Russell's last 2 years in the league. In both seasons, Wilt's 76ers (1968) and Lakers (1969) had the HCA and were perceived to be the far superior teams. Yet, Wilt let his team lose game 7 both times, at HOME.

They don't call him the "Big Dipper" for nothing. The guy disappeared when it mattered most. He could've easily had 4-5 rings and had Russell's ring count down to 7-8 and made this debate much more interesting. But as it stands, it's 2 to 11.

[ClipperRevival]

And in 1968, Wilt's 76ers had a 3-1 lead against the Celtics and they lost 3 straight, with game 7 at home. :facepalm If that's not choking, I don't know what is. Do you think a guy like MJ would score 20 and 14 points in games 6 and 7 with the championship on the line? :oldlol:

[ClipperRevival]

In 1969, Wilt again is up on Russell 3-2 and his Lakers lose games 6 and 7, with game 7 at home, again. He scores 8 points in game 6 and 18 points in game 7 including 4/13 from the FT in a game they lost by 2 points.

You can't make this stuff up. This is supposed to be one of the best ever? Talent wise, he was. But clutch performance wise? Way down the list.

[DatAsh]

Do you think a guy like MJ would score 20 and 14 points in games 6 and 7 with the championship on the line? :oldlol:
Probably not, but he also wouldn't bring down 20+ rebounds or defend the way that Wilt did. Completely different games.

[ClipperRevival]

Or how about 1970 against the Knicks. Sure, the Knicks had the better team but playing against a hobbled Willie Reed in game 7, he should've been more aggressive. He scores 21 points and 1/11 from the FT. In game 6, he scored 45 points so he was capable of doing more. He just didn't go after it. This is what betas do. They don't have that killer instinct. They can't sense when they have a wounded animal and go for the kill.

[ClipperRevival]

Check this out. It talks about the Wilt/Russell rivalry. Starts right away and stops at about 13:00.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDpM8476YsA

[ClipperRevival]

Wilt really had a chance to cement his status as the GOAT right there with MJ. But he came up short when it mattered most and let 4-5 additional rings get past his fingertips. He lost 5 playoff series to Russell's Celtics that went to 7 games. Five of them and lost them all. That's a 5 ring swing right there!!!!

And this is exactly why there is such a thing as clutchness and choking. What good are all those individual numbers if you shrink when it matters most? Isn't the point of playing to win?

[CavaliersFTW]

Didn't Russell score 2 points in G7 of the Finals?

"He won though"

Move along people nothing but some logical Olympics here.

[ClipperRevival]

Didn't Russell score 2 points in G7 of the Finals?

"He won though"

Move along people nothing but some logical Olympics here.

Russell's game was never about scoring. It was about winning. So he tried to do all of the necessary things to win, whatever it took.

And I guess him being perfect against Wilt in game 7's prove this huh? :cheers:

You can throw Wilt's rebounding and early scoring numbers at me, I could care less. It's about winning and the guy had plenty of legit chances to win many more rings but came up short. That's what's most important to me.

[BoutPractice]

Didn't Russell score 2 points in G7 of the Finals?

"He won though"

Move along people nothing but some logical Olympics here.

For a player like Russell, just counting the number of points he scored is a bit misleading - it won't tell you how good a game he had.

It's not about double standards... just simple observation. I've seen many players score in single digits yet completely dominate a game. Jason Kidd and Ben Wallace come to mind. In the latest Euro tournament, Gobert would sometimes have that kind of game as well.

Russell is probably the all-time king of that category... (Trying to keep that thread focused on him. I'm a big Wilt fan, but the eternal Wilt VS Russell debate is not as interesting as breaking down what exactly made Russell so good...).

[CavaliersFTW]

I suppose it was Russell's superior bball IQ, stability under pressure, and will to win over Chamberlain that enabled him to secure victory after "Losing the ball off the support!" on the 1965 EDF games final inbound play on his own home court.

Understanding his strengths detailed by that clippers guy it's obvious Russell's spirit left his own body and possessed John Havlicek to steal the ball and save the game. After of course, Wilt's spirit had initially possessed his own body to **** up and turn it over off the inbound play.

Another flawless victory for Bill Russell and blunder for Wilt Chamberlain, according to ISH :lol

[CavaliersFTW]

Russell's game was never about scoring. It was about winning. So he tried to do all of the necessary things to win, whatever it took.
Sounds identical to Wilt. Being that Wilt's roles and statistics changed so much team to team.

Did whatever it took. Only there's one minor difference... Wilt was actually CAPABLE of scoring (and in greater volume or accuracy than any other player ever) when it was needed of him. Unlike Russell.

:cheers:

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Sounds identical to Wilt. Being that Wilt's roles and statistics changed so much team to team.

Did whatever it took. Only there's one minor difference... Wilt was actually CAPABLE of scoring (and in greater volume or accuracy than any other player ever) when it was needed of him. Unlike Russell.

:cheers:

Personally, while I dont rate Wilt nearly as much as others
(I might seem like a wilt hater because of my reply to DarkCock, but its not me hating on wilt, its more of me hating his arrogance)

I will say that I definately put Peak Wilt above Peak Russell.

that being said, while wilt was a better player than Russell, I believe that its unfair to look at the raw box scores and say Wilt Dominated Russell.

After all, Wilt's scoring went down against Russell, and to be honest, that was Russell's main goal.

While Wilt, in my opinion, was the 3rd to 4th best man to man defender ever

(Thurmond, Russell, Laker Wilt/Motivated Shaq)

I believe that his off-ball defense, even in his laker years, wasnt exactly perfect. now, he was an ATG level defender, obviously, but if he had, for example, Russell's off-ball defense, his defensive impact alone would probably put him ahead of even the likes of Jordan, easily.

But that being said, I believe a part of Russell that makes me, "like him"
is 2 things

1. He kind makes me go wtf, since he basically told wilt to sex him up in the middle of a game according to this.

2. He is a great man defender while also being a monsterous off-ball defender.


In my opinion, Russell didnt have a postiive impact offensively. yes, I realize that he was a good passer, kept the ball in, started breaks, etc, but you know what I mean.

I personally consider all these ideas of killer instinct to be exageratted. IF that was Wilt's only flaw, then yeah, he would be the unanimous GOAT.

But when Russell played against Wilt, his goal wasnt to outscore him, it was to defend him, while still being able to defend Wilt's teams.

He was succesful in that regard. (Wilt still dominated, but his numbers werent "otherworldly" against Russell. I realize he averaged around 34ppg ish in his scoring years)


THAT being said, If you told me to build a team, not a dynasty, but a team, I would pick Wilt over Russell as the Center, not taking in other factors of course

(I dont believe a team of stars can dominate like people think they can. Team USA of last year, despite having Curry, Davis, etc, would struggle in the nba).

I will agree that Wilt had more impact on many of their matchups.

However, I will say that this matchup, is basically like Tony Allen vs Durant, but obviously, Allen will be better off-ball, and his defensive impact would be GOAT level.

Rebounding wise, Russell was inferior. his actual rebound rate rarely went passed 20 tbh, though alot of factors influenced this.

I cant type much right now.

Overall, I do have Russell ahead of Wilt all time, but I am well aware that a swing of luck a long time ago, or them being on different teams, would change that.

[warriorfan]

Personally, while I dont rate Wilt nearly as much as others
(I might seem like a wilt hater because of my reply to DarkCock, but its not me hating on wilt, its more of me hating his arrogance)

I will say that I definately put Peak Wilt above Peak Russell.

that being said, while wilt was a better player than Russell, I believe that its unfair to look at the raw box scores and say Wilt Dominated Russell.

After all, Wilt's scoring went down against Russell, and to be honest, that was Russell's main goal.

While Wilt, in my opinion, was the 3rd to 4th best man to man defender ever

(Thurmond, Russell, Laker Wilt/Motivated Shaq)

I believe that his off-ball defense, even in his laker years, wasnt exactly perfect. now, he was an ATG level defender, obviously, but if he had, for example, Russell's off-ball defense, his defensive impact alone would probably put him ahead of even the likes of Jordan, easily.

But that being said, I believe a part of Russell that makes me, "like him"
is 2 things

1. He kind makes me go wtf, since he basically told wilt to sex him up in the middle of a game according to this.

2. He is a great man defender while also being a monsterous off-ball defender.


In my opinion, Russell didnt have a postiive impact offensively. yes, I realize that he was a good passer, kept the ball in, started breaks, etc, but you know what I mean.

I personally consider all these ideas of killer instinct to be exageratted. IF that was Wilt's only flaw, then yeah, he would be the unanimous GOAT.

But when Russell played against Wilt, his goal wasnt to outscore him, it was to defend him, while still being able to defend Wilt's teams.

He was succesful in that regard. (Wilt still dominated, but his numbers werent "otherworldly" against Russell. I realize he averaged around 34ppg ish in his scoring years)


THAT being said, If you told me to build a team, not a dynasty, but a team, I would pick Wilt over Russell as the Center, not taking in other factors of course

(I dont believe a team of stars can dominate like people think they can. Team USA of last year, despite having Curry, Davis, etc, would struggle in the nba).

I will agree that Wilt had more impact on many of their matchups.

However, I will say that this matchup, is basically like Tony Allen vs Durant, but obviously, Allen will be better off-ball, and his defensive impact would be GOAT level.

Rebounding wise, Russell was inferior. his actual rebound rate rarely went passed 20 tbh, though alot of factors influenced this.

I cant type much right now.

Overall, I do have Russell ahead of Wilt all time, but I am well aware that a swing of luck a long time ago, or them being on different teams, would change that.

Don't
know
ball

[Crown&Coke]

"This has happened; this is what I must do next." In the amount of time it takes to think through that semicolon, it is already too late.


the coach leaps up and yells, "Who the devil is guarding Jones?" and they all look a little embarrassed, including those who are not sure which Jones he means. I don't suppose we can take credit for that, but it helps, too.


I'll say that for it. But bring on the lions. All your best lions, please. We'll give them a few fakes, we'll talk to the rookie lions a little, we'll steer the other lions around, we'll spook them up. And maybe you'll see some lions with their manes down around their knees."


I loved these three.

Russell is a G

[sdot_thadon]

I read this some years back in the si archives, it made me look into Russells career deeper than the stats and understand what truly made him great. The cerebral aspect was interesting not because he's the only one to do these things but because he's the only one I've ever read break it down. The most unspoken quality about him was he did what his team needed instead of what he wanted to do.

[jlip]

I read this some years back in the si archives, it made me look into Russells career deeper than the stats and understand what truly made him great. The cerebral aspect was interesting not because he's the only one to do these things but because he's the only one I've ever read break it down. The most unspoken quality about him was he did what his team needed instead of what he wanted to do.

This

[Asukal]

Sounds identical to Wilt. Being that Wilt's roles and statistics changed so much team to team.

Did whatever it took. Only there's one minor difference... Wilt was actually CAPABLE of scoring (and in greater volume or accuracy than any other player ever) when it was needed of him. Unlike Russell.

:cheers:

He was also incapable of winning more than 2. :oldlol: :lol :roll: :applause:

[artificial]

It's amazing the immense respect Bill had for the game.

Throwing up before every game and in the playoffs even that late into his career shows a human side of Russell, but is also a testament to how seriously he took every game.

Not only he was physically committed to playing basketball, but you can tell that every bit of him was focused on winning every single game.

[Harison]

"What were his (Wilt's) best qualities?"

Russell:
"I don't know what was his best his strength, or his smarts. Cause he was equally adept at both."

Russell in other interviews has stated Wilt was the smartest opponent he faced along with Oscar Robertson.

You missing the point. Nobody is saying Wilt was stupid, its about a) what type of intelligence it is, b) how you use it, and c) praises by players doesnt automatically make it true, or to the extent of truth you are implying. I.e. when Bird said MJ is God disguised as a human, is MJ God now? Also Bird said Len Bias was better than him. Is it so? Take praises with a grain of salt and context.

Its a bit of simplification, but to get my point across - Wilt's primary uses for his intelligence was how to get his own stats and records, as well as how to have fun outside of the game. Wilt was literally dissing Russell in interviews for his desire to win, and instead said its more important to have fun (i.e. cars, woman, etc).

I think it was Jerry West who said that you had to adapt to Wilt, because he refused to adapt to teamplay. Higher BBIQ players know teamplay is more important than personal stats (and Rus is a GOAT team player), while Wilt cared more about statpadding than winning.

Bottom line, any reasonable and knowledgeable basketball fan would agree Russell has higher BBIQ than Wilt, and its nothing to be ashamed of. In my books, Russell has GOAT BBIQ, and only Bird has an argument as well.

[knicksman]

Killer instinct for me is shaming your opponents and draining fadeaway jumpers in your face is the ultimate display of killer instinct. And thats the reason why kobe is 5/7 while bran is 2/6

[ClipperRevival]

It's amazing the immense respect Bill had for the game.

Throwing up before every game and in the playoffs even that late into his career shows a human side of Russell, but is also a testament to how seriously he took every game.

Not only he was physically committed to playing basketball, but you can tell that every bit of him was focused on winning every single game.

Yup. For decades, I thought Russell was overrated and that he just played on stacked teams. It was pure IGNORANCE on my part. I didn't really study up on Wilt/Russell until recently. I feel stupid having thought this way all this time.

Russell was simply a winner. Like you said, it's not just his physical talent but he was completely focused on winning mentally too. And that makes a huge difference when you have guys who have similar physical talents as you do.

:bowdown: To the greatest winner ever.

[Vaniiiia]

Yup. For decades, I thought Russell was overrated and that he just played on stacked teams. It was pure IGNORANCE on my part. I didn't really study up on Wilt/Russell until recently. I feel stupid having thought this way all this time.

Russell was simply a winner. Like you said, it's not just his physical talent but he was completely focused on winning mentally too. And that makes a huge difference when you have guys who have similar physical talents as you do.

:bowdown: To the greatest winner ever.
:facepalm

For decades? You're a dumbass then. It's been common knowledge that Bill was a monster of a competitor, and had the mental side of the game mastered. How the **** can you go decades without knowing any of this?

You can't be trusted on anything basketball related, and have no credibility to stand on.

You're over here talking about Bill Russell as if you just discovered that the Earth isn't flat. :oldlol:

Calling you slow is an understatement, you sluggish mother ****er...

[ClipperRevival]

:facepalm

For decades? You're a dumbass then. It's been common knowledge that Bill was a monster of a competitor, and had the mental side of the game mastered. How the **** can you go decades without knowing any of this?

You can't be trusted on anything basketball related, and have no credibility to stand on.

You're over here talking about Bill Russell as if you just discovered that the Earth isn't flat. :oldlol:

Calling you slow is an understatement, you sluggish mother ****er...

Like I said, I didn't fully appreciate his greatness and thought he was somewhat overrated. I was ignorant of his situation. I have no problem admitting this. And I could care less if some 13 year old Bron fan don't respect my opinions. :oldlol:

[Vaniiiia]

Like I said, I didn't fully appreciate his greatness and thought he was somewhat overrated. I was ignorant of his situation. I have no problem admitting this. And I could care less if some 13 year old Bron fan don't respect my opinions. :oldlol:
You went from one extreme to the other. So now that you know he was a mental Giant you're over here sucking his dick and putting him over Wilt.

Wilt was the much better player and only an idiot would take Russell over him. It's true that Wilt was a bit of an underachiever but it's like comparing Dwight Howard to Joakim Noah.

Give me Howard even though Noah is a more extreme competitor. And you better bet your ass Bill Russell benefited from those stacked Celtics teams.... and of course he's overrated. Is he top 5? **** no, not even close. Dude was garbage on offense. FOH with the lame rhetoric. Yeah he had a winning personality bla bla bla. He was also trash.

It's like giving Derek Fisher credit for the Lakers 5 rings because he was the leader. No dude.. those are Shaq and Pau's rings. Fisher undoubtedly played a big role though and had great leadership qualities. But come on.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Like I said, I didn't fully appreciate his greatness and thought he was somewhat overrated. I was ignorant of his situation. I have no problem admitting this. And I could care less if some 13 year old Bron fan don't respect my opinions. :oldlol:

Decades?
how old are you lol.

That being said, I cant blame you. I thought that myself a few years back.

Thought he was a durant stan

[ClipperRevival]

Decades?
how old are you lol.

That being said, I cant blame you. I thought that myself a few years back.

Thought he was a durant stan

I just turned 39. I shouldn't have said decades. Maybe 15 years? But as long as I can remember, I always held Wilt higher, simply because of the eye popping individual numbers. I've always been a stat geek ever since I was a kid, collecting basketball cards, studying the stats of each player. So I mistakenly thought since Russell had so many rings and Wilt had so little, there had to be a great disparity in the supporting cast. This is simply false.

The more I study up on these two, the more I realize Russell was an alpha and Wilt was a beta, mentally. And Wilt wanted the individual numbers while Russell could care less and only wanted to win.

[ClipperRevival]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc5wizzVVC8

I'm sure some of you already saw this but Bill Simmons did a piece on Russell a few years back. It gives you an insight on what type of mindset he had. Very prideful man who didn't want anything given to him.

[LAZERUSS]

The more I study Russell/Wilt, the more I am realizing that Wilt was more of a "let me get mine" type of guy and Russell was the, "I could care less about stats, I want to win" type of guy.

Wilt lost to Russell 5 times in game 7s in the playoffs by a combined total of 9 points. And the two that are completely unforgiveable are his loses in 1968 and 1969, which were Russell's last 2 years in the league. In both seasons, Wilt's 76ers (1968) and Lakers (1969) had the HCA and were perceived to be the far superior teams. Yet, Wilt let his team lose game 7 both times, at HOME.

They don't call him the "Big Dipper" for nothing. The guy disappeared when it mattered most. He could've easily had 4-5 rings and had Russell's ring count down to 7-8 and made this debate much more interesting. But as it stands, it's 2 to 11.

1968...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328011&postcount=14

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328006&postcount=13

BTW, a Wilt who was NOTICEABLY LIMPING that entire series, slaughtered Russell in game five of that series...which, would have been the clincher had Wilt's badly injured teammates contributed anything in that game (he outscored Russell, 28-8, outrbounded Russell, 30-24, and outshot Russell, 11-21 to 4-10.)

1969...

No doubt Wilt's worst post-season series of his entire career.

BUT, in game seven, Chamberlain wiped the floor with Russell. BTW, Russell completely disappeared in the 4th quarter of that game seven. In fact, Wilt pulled down as many rebounds on his injured leg, two, in two straight sequences, as Russell did in the entire quarter. Oh, and Chamberlain outrebounded Russell in that 4th quarter, 7-2...despite missing the last five minutes of that game. For the game, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 18-6; outrebounded Russell, 27-21; and outshot Russell from the field, 7-8 to 2-7. One more thing...remove Wilt and Russell's FG%'s in that game, and Russell's teammates outshot Wilt's by a staggering .477 to .360 margin...in a two point win!

Overall, in their eight post-season H2H's, Chamberlain dramatically outscored, outrebounded, and outshot Russell by a huge margin. In fact, he outscored, outrebounded, and outshot Russell in EVERY one of those eight series, and some by eye-popping margins.

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt really had a chance to cement his status as the GOAT right there with MJ. But he came up short when it mattered most and let 4-5 additional rings get past his fingertips. He lost 5 playoff series to Russell's Celtics that went to 7 games. Five of them and lost them all. That's a 5 ring swing right there!!!!

And this is exactly why there is such a thing as clutchness and choking. What good are all those individual numbers if you shrink when it matters most? Isn't the point of playing to win?

So a Chamberlain taking his 40-40 roster, that had gone 34-46 the year before without him, and missed the playoffs...to a game seven, one point loss against Russell's 62-18 Celtics, ...in a series in which Chamberlain outscored Russell per game, 30.1 ppg to 15.6 ppg; outrebounded Russell, per game, 31.4 rpg to 25.2 rpg; outhsot Russell from the floor in the series by a .555 to .447 margin; and even outshot Russell from the line by a .583 to .472 margin...is what you consider "choking?"

BTW, in that game seven, one point loss, Chamberlain scored Philly's last eight points, including 2-2 from the line with 36 secs left, and then a dunk over a helpless Russell with 5 secs left to pull Philly to within 110-109. Oh, and then the "clutch" Russell hit a guidewire with his inbounds pass, and gave the ball back to the Sixers under their basket. Only "Havlicek stole the ball!" prevented the Sixers from the biggest playoff upset in NBA history. Oh, and in that game seven...Chamberlain outscored Russell, 30-15; outrebounded Russell, 32-29; and outshot Russell from the field, 12-15 to 7-16.

Of course, Chamberlain was dominating Russell in the vast majority of their post-season games and series. How many "must win" games did Russell outscore Wilt by margins of 50-22 and 46-18?

And one more time...I have never gotten a decent response on this even ONE TIME...

In the '66 EDF's, Wilt's Sixers were down 3-1, and facing elimination (oh, an for the series, Chamberlain shot .509 from the floor, while his teammates collectively shot...get this... .352!) In the clinching game five loss, Wilt outscored Russell, 46-18, and outrebounded him, 34-31.

Fast forward to the next season.

Now it was Russell's Celtics who were down 3-1, and facing elimination. Did Russell erupt for a 46 point game on Chamberlain? Hell no! He quietly led his lambs to slaughter with a FOUR point game. How come? Where was this Russell who "owned" Wilt in the post-season? BTW, Chamberlain hung 29 points on Russell in that game...22 of which came in the first half when the game was still close (meaning, that had he needed to, he could have easily hung 40 on Russell.) Not only that, but Chamberlain outrebounded Russell, 36-21; outshot him, 10-16 to 2-5; outassisted him, 13-7; and even found time to block seven shots.

Yep...Wilt "the choker."

[LAZERUSS]

Or how about 1970 against the Knicks. Sure, the Knicks had the better team but playing against a hobbled Willie Reed in game 7, he should've been more aggressive. He scores 21 points and 1/11 from the FT. In game 6, he scored 45 points so he was capable of doing more. He just didn't go after it. This is what betas do. They don't have that killer instinct. They can't sense when they have a wounded animal and go for the kill.

I tell you what Clipper...

Find me another player who even played the same season with MAJOR KNEE SURGERY. And then, find me a player who not only played that same season following MAJOR KNEE SURGERY, but who then put up a seven game Finals of 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and shot .625 from the field. Or who put up "must win" games of 45-27 (on 20-27 shooting) and 21-24 (on 10-16 from the field.)

Oh, and when Reed was injured in the last three games of that series (after being in far better shape in the first four games)...a one legged Wilt outscored him, 88-11, outrebounded him, 71-3, and outshot him, 39-55 to 4-10. And somehow Reed won the FMVP???!!! Just a DISGRACE!

[Asukal]

Russell >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ILt

Not even a debate really. 11 to 2? That's murder. :oldlol: :lol :roll:

[LAZERUSS]

Russell >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ILt

Not even a debate really. 11 to 2? That's murder. :oldlol: :lol :roll:

Like Dumars' 3-1 margin over MJ.

Dumars >>>>>>>>>>>>> mj

Hell, Jordan couldn't even win a playoff game against Bird (0-6!)...

[LAZERUSS]

Russell >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ILt

Not even a debate really. 11 to 2? That's murder. :oldlol: :lol :roll:

How about this...


It doesn't work that way. You are claiming Russell was greater than Wilt by his 11-2 margin in rings. Russell actually held a 9-1 margin in TEAM rings from '60 thru '69 over Wilt's TEAMs, and a 7-1 margin in H2H TEAM wins.

So, if you are going to use that RIDICULOUS argument, then let the game's begin. And remember, these losses are directly blamed on the player, and not the TEAM:

Bird:

'80: Beaten badly by Dr. J, 4-1 in the '80 ECF's.
'82: Beaten by Dr. J in the '80 ECF's.
'83: Downright embarrassing. SWEPT by Marques Johnson.
'85: Easily whipped by Worthy in Finals.
'87: Blown apart by Worthy in the Finals.
'88: Shelled by Dantley in the '88 ECF's (shot .351 BTW.)
'90: Outplayed by Johnny Newman in first round loss
'91: Taken to task by Mark Aguirre.
'92: Someone by the name of Larry Sanders easily beats Bird.

BTW, as a sidenote, Bird only went 1-2 against the Bad Boys, and 1-2 against the Lakers (and in reality, it should have been 0-3.)


Kareem:

'70: Shelled by Reed in the ECF's.
'72: Dominated by WILT in the WCF's.
'73: Completely shutdown by Thurmond in the first round.
'74: Beaten by a 6-9 white red-head (and Cowens did outplay him in game 7)
'75: Kareem plays so poorly his team doesn't make the playoffs.
'76: Again, this career loser single-handedly keeps his team from making the playoffs.
'77: SWEPT by Walton in WCF's.
'78: Routed by Webster in the first round.
'79: Routed by Sikma in the second round.
'81: Single-handedly takes his 54-28 Lakers down the drain against Moses' 40-42 Rockets (in a series in which Moses just crushed him.)
'83: Meets Moses again...but this time Moses has even more help. A SWEEPING loss, all while getting annihilated by Moses.
'84: Beaten by Parish.
'86: Beaten badly by Sampson.
'89: Laimbeer almost shuts him out.

Furthermore, KAJ won his only ring in the '70's with the easiest ride to a title in NBA history (and was outplayed by Wilt in the '71 WCF's.) And he doesn't even play in the clinching road win in '80 (as Magic leads the Lakers to the title.) He is then a second banana from '82 thru '85. From '86 thru '87, he is the third wheel. And in his last title, his Lakers win DESPITE his awful play.


Jordan:

'85: Beaten by Ricky Pierce.
'86: Swept by Danny Ainge.
'87: Again, swept by Ainge.
'88: Blown away by Dumars.
'89: Easily beaten by Dumars.
'90: Again...beaten by Dumars.
'91: Finally beats Dumars.
'94: Knows he can't win, and quits. team goes 55-27 without and loses a close game seven to the 56-26 Knicks, who go on to lose a close game seven to the 58-24 Rockets.
'95: Comes back but is badly beaten by Nick Anderson.

Oh, and how about Hakeem? While Wilt was "losing" to Russell in nine seasons...

'85: Blown out in the first round by Eaton
'86: Beaten by Parish
'87: Easily beaten in the second round by Alton Lister.
'88: SWEPT in first round by James Donaldson
'89: Beaten in the first round by Olden Polynice
'90: Beaten in the first round by Mychal Thompson (
'91: SWEPT in the first round by Divac.
'92: Single-handedly prevents his team from even making the playoffs.
'93: Beaten by Michael Cage
'96: SWEPT in the second round by Sam Perkins.
'97: Beaten by Greg Ostertag in the WCF's.
'98: Beaten by Greg Foster in the first round.
'99: Absolutely slaughtered by Shaq in the first round.
'00: Single-handedly keeps his team from making the playoffs.
'01: See above.
'02: Wiped out by Ben Wallace in the first round.


Furthermore...

MJ: LOST in NINE seasons.
Bird: LOST in TEN seasons.
Duncan: LOST in 12 seasons.
Kobe: LOST in 12 seasons.
Oscar: LOST in 13 seasons.
West: LOST in 13 seasons.
Baylor: LOST in 13 seasons.
Kareem: LOST in 14 seasons
Shaq: LOST in 15 seasons.
Hakeem: LOST in 16 seasons.

What a bunch of pathetic losers.


The REALITY was, Russell's CELTICS beat Wilt's TEAMS. Furthermore, Chamberlain outplayed Russell in one series, and beat him like a red-headed step child in their seven other H2H playoff series (including carrying his TEAM to a dominating win over Russell's eight-time defending Celtics in '67.)

[Asukal]

How about this...

How bout 11 to 2 rings? Murdered and butchered like poultry chicken. :oldlol:

[Timmy D for MVP]

I've been reading a great deal about Russell the last little bit, and one thing jumps out at me:

He was an absolute basketball genius. He talks a lot about his mental edge in terms of trying to get in the head of the other player, but his true mental edge was the fact that he was simply one of those players that were just purely geniuses among their peers.

And it's strange to me that he wasn't as successful as a coach. But I guess it's one of those things where being a basketball brain is only part of it.

[Lebron23]

And also having a stacked team for most of his NBA Career. It sucks that they only had 8-10 teams during his era. In the modern era he won't be the best player in the league while having a sub par offensive game. He would still get paid because he was a good rebounder, and shot blocker.

[ShaqTwizzle]

double post~~

[ShaqTwizzle]

Russell was good at containing Chamberlain.

Wilt @ Russell
Playoffs

1960 : 30ppg on .50%TS
1962 : 33ppg on .49%TS
1964 : 29ppg on .51%TS
1966 : 28ppg on .49%TS
1968 : 22ppg on .49%TS
1969 : 11ppg on .47%TS

Russ shut him down.

[GimmeThat]

how would I have coached Wilt?

I would have told him
'you should have been training with your basketball teammates and f*cking with your celebrity friends, not training with your celebrity friends and f*cking with your teammates'


nah, still would have went 2-11

[ClipperRevival]

1968...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328011&postcount=14

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328006&postcount=13

BTW, a Wilt who was NOTICEABLY LIMPING that entire series, slaughtered Russell in game five of that series...which, would have been the clincher had Wilt's badly injured teammates contributed anything in that game (he outscored Russell, 28-8, outrbounded Russell, 30-24, and outshot Russell, 11-21 to 4-10.)

1969...

No doubt Wilt's worst post-season series of his entire career.

BUT, in game seven, Chamberlain wiped the floor with Russell. BTW, Russell completely disappeared in the 4th quarter of that game seven. In fact, Wilt pulled down as many rebounds on his injured leg, two, in two straight sequences, as Russell did in the entire quarter. Oh, and Chamberlain outrebounded Russell in that 4th quarter, 7-2...despite missing the last five minutes of that game. For the game, Chamberlain outscored Russell, 18-6; outrebounded Russell, 27-21; and outshot Russell from the field, 7-8 to 2-7. One more thing...remove Wilt and Russell's FG%'s in that game, and Russell's teammates outshot Wilt's by a staggering .477 to .360 margin...in a two point win!

Overall, in their eight post-season H2H's, Chamberlain dramatically outscored, outrebounded, and outshot Russell by a huge margin. In fact, he outscored, outrebounded, and outshot Russell in EVERY one of those eight series, and some by eye-popping margins.

1968 and 1969 are the two seasons that really stick out and Wilt should've won both of these chips over Russell. But he didn't. And history is judging him accordingly.

In 1968, his team is up 3-1. You need to close that out.

In 1969, the Lakers clearly had the superior team and no one expected Boston to win, no one. And Wilt's Lakers had HCA and were up 3-2 and lost game 7 at home by 2 points. He shot 1-11 from the FT line in game 7.

And in both years, Russell was player/coach. This was his last 2 years in the league and he still beat Wilt twice, both in game 7s, both come from behind, both without HCA.

Come on man. How many more excuses can you give the guy? Wilt should've at least made the ring count 4 to 9 instead of 2 to 11. But he didn't.

[ClipperRevival]

I tell you what Clipper...

Find me another player who even played the same season with MAJOR KNEE SURGERY. And then, find me a player who not only played that same season following MAJOR KNEE SURGERY, but who then put up a seven game Finals of 23.2 ppg, 24.1 rpg, and shot .625 from the field. Or who put up "must win" games of 45-27 (on 20-27 shooting) and 21-24 (on 10-16 from the field.)

Oh, and when Reed was injured in the last three games of that series (after being in far better shape in the first four games)...a one legged Wilt outscored him, 88-11, outrebounded him, 71-3, and outshot him, 39-55 to 4-10. And somehow Reed won the FMVP???!!! Just a DISGRACE!

Again, if the guy is healthy enough to score 45 points in game 6, he is healthy enough to be more assertive in game 7. He was very passive in that game. Played like this wasn't game 7 for the championship but a regular pick up game. His body language was all wrong.

This wasn't as bad as 1968 and 1969 because the Knicks had the superior team but he had a wounded opponent in Reed and his killer instinct should've kicked in and he should've went after it.