Question for those who don't have Russell at #1 but in the Top 10

[Dr Hawk]

What else should he have done to put him as the greatest of all-time? 11 rings weren't enough, what does he lack that Jordan or Kareem don't?

[Kawhi]

He wasn't exactly a great offensive force.

[FreezingTsmoove]

Be a more skilled player than Jordan and Kareem

[Rocketswin2013]

yeah I don't see how Kareem gets ranked over him, and especially Jordan.

[livinglegend]

He wasn't exactly a great offensive force.
you mean a scoring force? because offense is more than just scoring.

[Dr Hawk]

He wasn't exactly a great offensive force.

He wasn't, but he still got 11 rings, more than anyone on history. He was so good defensively and had such impact that allowed his team to win 11 times. It doesn't really matter if he is an offensive or defensive force, all that matters is the impact he brings to the table

[Dr Hawk]

Be a more skilled player than Jordan and Kareem

Still got twice the rings Jordan got. His defensive impact was enough

[Kawhi]

He wasn't, but he still got 11 rings, more than anyone on history. He was so good defensively and had such impact that allowed his team to win 11 times. It doesn't really matter if he is an offensive or defensive force, all that matters is the impact he brings to the table
Context. He won his rings in a league where two playoff series wins is enough to win a ring.

Also, he played on hilariously stacked teams throughout. I've lost count of the amount of HOF players he played with.

- Cousy
- Heinsohn
- Sam Jones
- Sharman
- Ramsey
- K.C. Jones
- Havlicek
- Lovellette
- Howell

[Dr Hawk]

Context. He won his rings in a league where two playoff series wins is enough to win a ring.

Also, he played on hilariously stacked teams throughout. I've lost count of the amount of HOF players he played with.

- Cousy
- Heinsohn
- Sam Jones
- Sharman
- Ramsey
- K.C. Jones
- Havlicek
- Lovellette
- Howell

Where do you place him in your all-time list?

[Kawhi]

Where do you place him in your all-time list?
3rd actually, behind Jordan and Kareem. Who, in my opinion, are the only two to have a legit shot at the GOAT title. Jordan has his points, Kareem has his.

[KiiiiNG]

I have him second behind LeBron.

Here's how my top 6 looks

1. LeBron
2. Russell
3. Kareem
4. Wilt
5. Shaq
6. Magic

^ can't go wrong with these 6

[dubeta]

I have him second behind LeBron.

Here's how my top 6 looks

1. LeBron
2. Russell
3. Kareem
4. Wilt
5. Shaq
6. Magic

^ can't go wrong with these 6

:applause:


The Dray n' Klay fam approves this list, which automatically makes it the official list in ISH circles

[G0ATbe]

He averaged 15ppg in one of the weakest eras ever....that automatically disqualifies him from GOAT discussions in my book. Wouldnt even crack my top 50 if not for 11 rings.

He'd be a 5ppg/10-12rpg/2bpg guy in this era at best.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

What else should he have done to put him as the greatest of all-time? 11 rings weren't enough, what does he lack that Jordan or Kareem don't?

Well, other than things like questionable offensive Impact (the celtics surprisingly were around dead last on offense)

His portability is questionable. (Dominance wise)

Otoh, the celtics had a losing record without russell

[Asukal]

I have him number 2.

The only reason why he isn't number one is because he had it easier than MJ.

Key points:
- played in a "bush league" (Wilt's own words)
- has a stacked team
- he is his team's defensive anchor yet he didn't have to shoulder the offense

[ClipperRevival]

What else should he have done to put him as the greatest of all-time? 11 rings weren't enough, what does he lack that Jordan or Kareem don't?

He wasn't dominant on both ends. If he had been an offensive force that you can run your offense through like the other GOAT level bigs, he would be the undisputed GOAT. And if you think about it, he is the only big that wasn't dominant on both ends to even sniff the top 25-30. But he won so much, he has to be ranked way up there. It wasn't all coincidence or the supporting cast. He was the only constant for all their titles. I mean you play to win and he did that better than anyone.

[Dr Hawk]

He wasn't dominant on both ends. If he had been an offensive force that you can run your offense through like the other GOAT level bigs, he would be the undisputed GOAT. And if you think about it, he is the only big that wasn't dominant on both ends to even sniff the top 25-30. But he won so much, he has to be ranked way up there. It wasn't all coincidence or the supporting cast. He was the only constant for all their titles. I mean you play to win and he did that better than anyone.

So according to this, he should be your #1

[WayOfWade]

It has to do with the fact that winning was easier back then, although 11 titles is by no means an easy feat. Back in the day though (before my dad was even born) there were less teams and less rounds in the playoffs, and the Free Agency rules back then made it easier for great teams to retain their pieces and stay great, Money wasn't that big an issue (maybe it was, I'm just infers don't at this point). I have Russel at #2, dominated the arguable MDE Wilt

[ClipperRevival]

So according to this, he should be your #1

Lol. I just explained to you. To be THE GOAT, especially for a big, you need to be dominant both ways. Russell wasn't. I know a good deal of people dismiss this type of thinking and have him #1 and I have no problem with that.

I have MJ, KAJ and Russell 3rd. Russell just couldn't match the body of work of the other two when you consider the commonly used criteria for GOAT. I just call him the GOAT winner.

I mean let's not take this too seriously. It's just a subjective list.

[Dr Hawk]

Lol. I just explained to you. To be THE GOAT, especially for a big, you need to be dominant both ways. Russell wasn't. I know a good deal of people dismiss this type of thinking and have him #1 and I have no problem with that.

I have MJ, KAJ and Russell 3rd. Russell just couldn't match the body of work of the other two when you consider the commonly used criteria for GOAT. I just call him the GOAT winner.

I mean let's not take this too seriously. It's just a subjective list.

But I'm curious. What did MJ and KAJ do to surpass Russell that Wilt, Magic or Duncan didn't? What is your reasoning behind it?

[ClipperRevival]

But I'm curious. What did MJ and KAJ do to surpass Russell that Wilt, Magic or Duncan didn't? What is your reasoning behind it?

For KAJ.

GOAT college player
GOAT level longevity
6 MVP
2 FMVP (should be 3 in 1980)
6 rings
All time leading scorer
GOAT level peak
Most devastating offensive weapon
All time leading scorer.

I always say KAJ is the only guy who has a case as GOAT with MJ when you look at the entire body of work. He covered more bases than anyone.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Scoring/2-way play, obviously. That's why I have Duncan over him. That along with carrying his team to a chip with a historically weak supporting cast. It's not his fault at all, Russell never had to pull off something like 2003 for Duncan. And that, my friend, is why he is #2 and not #1. Still, no shame in being the second greatest player of all time.

:applause:

[ClipperRevival]

But I'm curious. What did MJ and KAJ do to surpass Russell that Wilt, Magic or Duncan didn't? What is your reasoning behind it?

Duncan had the longevity but couldn't touch KAJ's peak and offensive game. Plus 6 MVPs. But no doubt Duncan is top 10 and maybe higher. So no discredit to him.

Magic also didn't peak as high as KAJ, didn't have the longevity and was an average defender.

[Dr Hawk]

For KAJ.

GOAT college player
GOAT level longevity
6 MVP
2 FMVP (should be 3 in 1980)
6 rings
All time leading scorer
GOAT level peak
Most devastating offensive weapon
All time leading scorer.

I always say KAJ is the only guy who has a case as GOAT with MJ when you look at the entire body of work. He covered more bases than anyone.

Thanks for the answer


Scoring/2-way play, obviously. That's why I have Duncan over him. That along with carrying his team to a chip with a historically weak supporting cast. It's not his fault at all, Russell never had to pull off something like 2003 for Duncan. And that, my friend, is why he is #2 and not #1. Still, no shame in being the second greatest player of all time.

:applause:

Didn't Hakeem do some heavy carrying job aswell? Where do you rank him? He is considered as the GOAT 2-way center

[LAZERUSS]

For KAJ.

GOAT college player
GOAT level longevity
6 MVP
2 FMVP (should be 3 in 1980)
6 rings
All time leading scorer
GOAT level peak
Most devastating offensive weapon
All time leading scorer.

I always say KAJ is the only guy who has a case as GOAT with MJ when you look at the entire body of work. He covered more bases than anyone.

And yet, a PRIME Kareem, in his first ten seasons...went to TWO Finals, and won ONE ring. Hell, he missed the playoffs in his supposed prime twice. Furthermore, he was nowhere near as dominant as a PRIME Chamberlain had been...nor did he face anywhere near the competition that Chamberlain did in his prime, either (other than Wilt's Lakers and the Knicks...both of whom were done after '73.)

In fact, a past-his-prime Chamberlain had more TEAM success in his four years in the league with Kareem, than KAJ did.

Oh, and a PRIME Chamberlain was FAR more dominant against the same centers that a PEAK Kareem would face a few years later (and most of them were on their last legs, as well.)

So how did Kareem win five more rings?

It was pure MAGIC.

Remove Magic from KAJ's career, and he likely would have retired in the mid-80's, broke, and considered a major under-achiever.

Of course, had Wilt had MAGIC for ten seasons (as well as players like Worthy and Wilkes), is there any doubt that he would have won MANY more rings than the two that he actually did?

[FKAri]

His teams were obscenely stacked. He was just the icing on the cake. He shouldn't even be top 10 if you're making a "best" players list.

[Nuff Said]

I don't understand why would Russell need an offensive game to be considered goat. He everything he needed to do to win. Not only that but I saw somewhere that his scoring actually increased in the playoffs as opposed to wilt who usually decreased. Didn't he win something like 11/13 titles? What exactly would him being an offensive force do for his team?

[ClipperRevival]

I don't understand why would Russell need an offensive game to be considered goat. He everything he needed to do to win. Not only that but I saw somewhere that his scoring actually increased in the playoffs as opposed to wilt who usually decreased. Didn't he win something like 11/13 titles? What exactly would him being an offensive force do for his team?

True. And that's why some have him as the GOAT. But there are others, like myself, who feel that to be the GOAT, you need to be dominant or very good on both ends, especially for a big because there is nothing more impactful than a dominant, two way big.

[ClipperRevival]

His teams were obscenely stacked. He was just the icing on the cake. He shouldn't even be top 10 if you're making a "best" players list.

Lol. They were "stacked" because Russell was 10-0 in game 7s. And 9 of those came in different playoff years. So technically, had he lost all those game 7s, he would have two rings. If his teams were THAT stacked, they would not have been pushed to 10 game 7s. Russell was the man who drove that team. The only constant on all 11 titles.

[livinglegend]

True. And that's why some have him as the GOAT. But there are others, like myself, who feel that to be the GOAT, you need to be dominant or very good on both ends, especially for a big because there is nothing more impactful than a dominant, two way big.

Why do more than necessary?
And you don't really know his offensive game because you have never watched any of his games. All you know is that he wasn't a big time scorer, but offense is much more than just scoring.

[sdot_thadon]

What else should he have done to put him as the greatest of all-time? 11 rings weren't enough, what does he lack that Jordan or Kareem don't?
A few things:
▪he wasn't an elite offensive player at any point of his career scoring wise. (There aren't any other non elite offensive players in the top 10.)
▪There's never a question he always had the best teams in his league.
▪one less round to get rings back then(not really a big deal imo, just something to consider)

And for me specifically I didnt get to see him play as a complete picture, i had to read about his impact and leadership, etc to fill in the blanks.

Even with that I still have him at no.3.

[FKAri]

Lol. They were "stacked" because Russell was 10-0 in game 7s. And 9 of those came in different playoff years. So technically, had he lost all those game 7s, he would have two rings. If his teams were THAT stacked, they would not have been pushed to 10 game 7s. Russell was the man who drove that team. The only constant on all 11 titles.

Sam Jones should surely be atleast top 20 then, no? What about Bob Cousy? Where is he ranked? Auerbach was 15 years ahead of the times. Hell, the Celtics were the only team that actually talked about defensive principles and strategy. Russell is a great, transcendent player. But purely from an ability point of view he isn't top 3. Most accomplished is obviously a different matter entirely.

[tmacattack33]

What else should he have done to put him as the greatest of all-time? 11 rings weren't enough, what does he lack that Jordan or Kareem don't?

11 rings in a field of 10 teams equates to 3.5 rings in a field of 30 teams

And then there's the fact that the league wasn't even fully integrated until like 1975. And the fact that not many foreigners were playing bball at the time. And the fact that bball was not as popular at the time as it is now. This severely limited the talent pool

[dhsilv]

What else should he have done to put him as the greatest of all-time? 11 rings weren't enough, what does he lack that Jordan or Kareem don't?

offense...winning without super human talent around him. The better question is for people who have him so high, why does someone get ranked so high on nothing but rings?

[ClipperRevival]

A few things:
▪he wasn't an elite offensive player at any point of his career scoring wise. (There aren't any other non elite offensive players in the top 10.)
▪There's never a question he always had the best teams in his league.
▪one less round to get rings back then(not really a big deal imo, just something to consider)

And for me specifically I didnt get to see him play as a complete picture, i had to read about his impact and leadership, etc to fill in the blanks.

Even with that I still have him at no.3.

"There's never a question he always had the best teams in his league."

Ignorance confirmed.

[livinglegend]

11 rings in a field of 10 teams equates to 3.5 rings in a field of 30 teams

And then there's the fact that the league wasn't even fully integrated until like 1975. And the fact that not many foreigners were playing bball at the time. And the fact that bball was not as popular at the time as it is now. This severely limited the talent pool

Why?
If you make a 10 teams league with all the current NBA players, winning championship would be as hard as it is right now. You would have 10 very talented teams battling each other.

[livinglegend]

offense...winning without super human talent around him. The better question is for people who have him so high, why does someone get ranked so high on nothing but rings?

You never watched him play. Therefore, you can't really judge his offense. You can't tell if he was great a starting fast breaks or at setting picks or at moving the ball, etc. And it's not only rings, he had 5 MVPs.

[livinglegend]

Sam Jones should surely be atleast top 20 then, no? What about Bob Cousy? Where is he ranked? Auerbach was 15 years ahead of the times. Hell, the Celtics were the only team that actually talked about defensive principles and strategy. Russell is a great, transcendent player. But purely from an ability point of view he isn't top 3. Most accomplished is obviously a different matter entirely.

You never watched him play so you can't really judge his ability. All you know is that he won 11 rings in 12 tries. He had 5 MVPs.

[dhsilv]

You never watched him play. Therefore, you can't really judge his offense. You can't tell if he was great a starting fast breaks or at setting picks or at moving the ball, etc. And it's not only rings, he had 5 MVPs.

I've seen some youtube videos. I was far from impressed with what he did. Again we're talking top 10, this isn't a question of if he was great. Yes I know he won the mvp...that was a very different time.

[ClipperRevival]

Sam Jones should surely be atleast top 20 then, no? What about Bob Cousy? Where is he ranked? Auerbach was 15 years ahead of the times. Hell, the Celtics were the only team that actually talked about defensive principles and strategy. Russell is a great, transcendent player. But purely from an ability point of view he isn't top 3. Most accomplished is obviously a different matter entirely.

I agree. GOAT list wise, he is up there. Individual talent wise, he would be much lower on the list.

And yeah, it's tough to rank where Jones should be. 10 rings but not as "the man". But still always one of their best players.

[Nuff Said]

offense...winning without super human talent around him. The better question is for people who have him so high, why does someone get ranked so high on nothing but rings?
He's got 5 mvps (more than mde wilt), has all star game mvp, multiple all nba teams and all star teams and would've had many defensive nba teams as well. His resume would literally stack as the goat if he had fmvp and defensive teams. Why would anyone rank him extremely high???

[livinglegend]

I've seen some youtube videos. I was far from impressed with what he did. Again we're talking top 10, this isn't a question of if he was great. Yes I know he won the mvp...that was a very different time.

So MVP didn't mean anything before? Can you explain why (more specifically than ''that was a very different time'')?

[sdot_thadon]

"There's never a question he always had the best teams in his league."

Ignorance confirmed.
Sure buddy, not sure what it does for you in particular but let's not act like it hasn't been common knowledge for decades bro. You tell me what teams were better than Russells teams please, I'm sure everyone would like to know.:coleman:

[ClipperRevival]

Sure buddy, not sure what it does for you in particular but let's not act like it hasn't been common knowledge for decades bro. You tell me what teams were better than Russells teams please, I'm sure everyone would like to know.:coleman:

What's funny is I was ignorant about Russell just like you only a few years ago. I saw 11 rings and immediately thought, "monopoly on talent." But I did the research. Tell you what, do some research and come back to me with an answer.

[sdot_thadon]

What's funny is I was ignorant about Russell just like you only a few years ago. I saw 11 rings and immediately thought, "monopoly on talent." But I did the research. Tell you what, do some research and come back to me with an answer.
You know what happens when you assume bro? I figure you're old enough to know. I didn't see 11 rings and think anything, I read books. And if you read my post you'd see I have him at 3 despite that. FOH man.

[ClipperRevival]

Alright, I guess I gotta school people again.

1967 - 76ers
1968 - 76ers
1969 - Lakers

P.S. Laz, I don't want to hear your damn excuses about 1968 so don't even bother.

[GrapeApe]

Russell won at every level. From HS through his NBA career all he did was win. He won an NCAA title at San Fransisco of all places. You don't have the kind of success he had by accident. His impact went way beyond the numbers and he had intangible qualities that cannot be quantified. Everyone that played with him or against him has talked about it. He pioneered and did things on the court that are the foundation for many of today's fundamentals of basketball.

[LAZERUSS]

Alright, I guess I gotta school people again.

1967 - 76ers
1968 - 76ers
1969 - Lakers

P.S. Laz, I don't want to hear your damn excuses about 1968 so don't even bother.

'67...with an equal roster, that was healthy, well, we saw what happened, right?

Chamberlain DESTROYED Russell's eight-time defending, and 60-21 Celtics in the EDF's, 4-1, and were a mere four points away from a sweep in game four. And in the clinching game five, they annihilated the Celtics...all with Wilt murdering Russell in every facet of the game.

And whether you don't want to hear "damn excuses" from '68, YOU already KNOW what actually happened. The Sixers that ran away with the best record in the league, were NOT remotely close to the team that Boston edged in game seven by four points. In a series in which an injured Chamberlain outrebounded, outshot, and then outscored Russell by nearly 10 ppg.

'69. Worst series of Wilt's career. And yet he STILL outplayed Russell. And in game seven, he BADLY outplayed him...in a two point loss, and in which he was not even on the floor in the last five minutes of the game.

[iamgine]

Russ was indeed one of the greatest of all time.

Just because he's not #1 doesn't diminish that.

[Nuff Said]

Russ was indeed one of the greatest of all time.

Just because he's not #1 doesn't diminish that.
It's just I. Any see why anyone doesn't have him as number one. He literally did exactly what he was supposed to do. Absolutely dominated his competition and yet ppl still ask more of him. He won more mvp's than the offensively dominating wilt chamberlain so clearly people were aware of his greatness. They named the fmvp after him, a one-sided defensive role player. Not offensive and clutch Sam jones with 9 or 10 rings himself. They named the award after Bill Russell. He maximized his talent there's really nothing more he could've done and yet ppl still aren't convinced.

[Asukal]

Wilt only won once against Russ and only near the end of his career.

Wilt is Russell's b!tch. :bowdown:

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt only won once against Russ and only near the end of his career.

Wilt is Russell's b!tch. :bowdown:

Yep...

Russell averaged 14.5 ppg, 23.7 rpg, and shot .382 against Wilt in their 143 career matchups.

All while holding Chamberlain to 28.7 ppg, 28.7 rpg, and on a .497 FG%.

[Cold soul]

For KAJ.

GOAT college player
GOAT level longevity
6 MVP
2 FMVP (should be 3 in 1980)
6 rings
All time leading scorer
GOAT level peak
Most devastating offensive weapon
All time leading scorer.

I always say KAJ is the only guy who has a case as GOAT with MJ when you look at the entire body of work. He covered more bases than anyone.

Nobody does this but if you factor the NBA and College accolades wise Kareem is easily the GOAT. Jordan was great in college but not on Kareem level.

[FKAri]

He's got 5 mvps (more than mde wilt), has all star game mvp, multiple all nba teams and all star teams and would've had many defensive nba teams as well. His resume would literally stack as the goat if he had fmvp and defensive teams. Why would anyone rank him extremely high???


So MVP didn't mean anything before? Can you explain why (more specifically than ''that was a very different time'')?

If you look at NBA history stats in 2045 and you see that Steve Nash won back to back MVPs in a time that lined up with,

prime kobe
prime dirk
prime duncan
prime kg
barely out of prime shaq
entering prime wade
entering prime lebron

what conclusion could you come up with? All this stuff you hear now about Nash "not deserving" would be gone. It would just be an NBA statistic.

Ultimately, Russell OBVIOUSLY won MVPs because he was the best player on the best team. That's the best way to look at it. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Boogey]

He averaged 15ppg in one of the weakest eras ever....that automatically disqualifies him from GOAT discussions in my book. Wouldnt even crack my top 50 if not for 11 rings.

He'd be a 5ppg/10-12rpg/2bpg guy in this era at best.ditto

[Asukal]

Yep...

Russell averaged 14.5 ppg, 23.7 rpg, and shot .382 against Wilt in their 143 career matchups.

All while holding Chamberlain to 28.7 ppg, 28.7 rpg, and on a .497 FG%.

Oh come on we all know Wilt padded his stats when the games are out of reach. :whatever:

Russ slayed that nikka. :bowdown:

[sdot_thadon]

Alright, I guess I gotta school people again.

1967 - 76ers
1968 - 76ers
1969 - Lakers

P.S. Laz, I don't want to hear your damn excuses about 1968 so don't even bother.
I'll buy 67 but not really on board with the other 2, and even if I was that's only 3 total seasons out of 11 rings/13 years. You get the point. And I really hope you're not being condescending, and going on about ignorance and such and only looking at the damn team records bro.

[LAZERUSS]

Oh come on we all know Wilt padded his stats when the games are out of reach. :whatever:

Russ slayed that nikka. :bowdown:

What we do know is that Wilt played nearly every minute, of nearly every game. He was playing in blowout wins, blowout losses, close wins, and close losses.

BTW, here is game recap in which Wilt played 35 minutes, and Russell played 40...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196003190BOS.html

The fact was, in their 143 H2H games, Russell played nearly as many minutes per game, as Chamberlain did.


Oh, and here is one of my favorites...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196202090BOS.html

As you can see, Wilt's Warriors overcame a huge 4th quarter deficit, in a win, with Chamberlain scoring 48 points.

Oh, and the two would go at it again the very next night...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196202100PHW.html

[Straight_Ballin]

Yep...

Russell averaged 14.5 ppg, 23.7 rpg, and shot .382 against Wilt in their 143 career matchups.

All while holding Chamberlain to 28.7 ppg, 28.7 rpg, and on a .497 FG%.

Bottom line, Russell ensured that his team won over Wilt's team by being a better team player. Stats only tell half the story.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

What we do know is that Wilt played nearly every minute, of nearly every game. He was playing in blowout wins, blowout losses, close wins, and close losses.

BTW, here is game recap in which Wilt played 35 minutes, and Russell played 40...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196003190BOS.html

The fact was, in their 143 H2H games, Russell played nearly as many minutes per game, as Chamberlain did.


Oh, and here is one of my favorites...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196202090BOS.html

As you can see, Wilt's Warriors overcame a huge 4th quarter deficit, in a win, with Chamberlain scoring 48 points.

Oh, and the two would go at it again the very next night...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196202100PHW.html


No, but dont you know?

those close, 1-5 point losses in the playoffs were actually the celtics winning by 50 because

wilt was a wimp who simply played through horrible injuries and took the celtics to 7 games in 68

God this is even worse than the Isiah thread.

Oh, btw, what happened in 68 is common knowledge you know where :cheers:

as for who is better than who, Like I said before, I think that Russell's defensive impact outweighed Wilts offensive impact.

But at the same time, Wilts defensive impact + offensive impact > Russell's overall impact.

[LAZERUSS]

Bottom line, Russell ensured that his team won over Wilt's team by being a better team player. Stats only tell half the story.

Better argument...

Russell's team's ensured success over Wilt's teams, despite Wilt being the better player.

And the stats tell the complete story when they are formulated over 143 games.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Alright, I guess I gotta school people again.

1967 - 76ers
1968 - 76ers
1969 - Lakers

P.S. Laz, I don't want to hear your damn excuses about 1968 so don't even bother.

a wise man once said

context != excuses

[Stout]

I have him second behind LeBron.

Here's how my top 6 looks

1. LeBron
2. Russell
3. Kareem
4. Wilt
5. Shaq
6. Magic

^ can't go wrong with these 6
You can, and you did.

[Ca$H]

Russell is Ben Wallace in a weak era. If you have him in the top 5 it's based solely on career accolades and not peak play/actual impact regardless of era so Kobe should be in the top 5 too based on that criteria.

1.Russell
2.KAJ
3.MJ
4.Duncan
5.Kobe
6.Magic

[Dr Hawk]

Russell is Ben Wallace in a weak era. If you have him in the top 5 it's based solely on career accolades and not peak play/actual impact regardless of era so Kobe should be in the top 5 too based on that criteria.

1.Russell
2.KAJ
3.MJ
4.Duncan
5.Kobe
6.Magic

Is that your actual Top6?

[Marchesk]

Russell is Ben Wallace in a weak era.

Except for 10 more titles, 5 more MVPs during the era of Wilt, and having the FMVP named after him. Also being 10-0 in game 7s.

Other than that, let's see:

Russell did average 4.3 assists for his career with a high of 5.8. Wallace averaged 1.3 with a high of 2.4. Wallace never averaged 10 points a game. Russell peaked at 18.9.

Wallace's best scoring finals was 10.8 on 47.8% with 1.4 asists. Russell had a 23.6 finals on 53.8% with 3.6 assists.

[juju151111]

Bottom line, Russell ensured that his team won over Wilt's team by being a better team player. Stats only tell half the story.
It has noting to do with team player. Russell can't do what Wilt did scoring wise. While Wilt can do what Russell did. Lol if you think Russell is actually better then Wilt. Can't believe i actually sticking up for Wilt, but that makes no sense.

[Hizack]

Years Bill Russell　　　　Number of teams　　　　# of rounds played
won championship　　　　　in the league　　　　　　　in the Playoffs　
　　　　1957　　　　　　　　　　　8　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2
　　　　1959　　　　　　　　　　　8　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2
　　　　1960　　　　　　　　　　　8　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2
　　　　1961　　　　　　　　　　　8　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2
　　　　1962　　　　　　　　　　　9　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2
　　　　1963　　　　　　　　　　　9　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2
　　　　1964　　　　　　　　　　　9　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2
　　　　1965　　　　　　　　　　　9　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2
　　　　1966　　　　　　　　　　　9　　　　　　　　　　　　　　3
　　　　1968　　　　　　　　　　 12　　　　　　　　　　　　　　3
　　　　1969　　　　　　　　　　 14　　　　　　　　　　　　　　3

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　


　Years Kareem /
　Magic / Jordan　　　　Number of teams　　　　# of rounds played
won championship　　　　　in the league　　　　　　　in the Playoffs　
　　　　1971　　　　　　　　　　　17　　　　　　　　　　　　　　3
　　　　1980　　　　　　　　　　　22　　　　　　　　　　　　　　3
　　　　1982　　　　　　　　　　　23　　　　　　　　　　　　　　3
　　　　1985　　　　　　　　　　　23　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4
　　　　1987　　　　　　　　　　　23　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4
　　　　1988　　　　　　　　　　　23　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4
　　　　1991　　　　　　　　　　　27　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4
　　　　1992　　　　　　　　　　　27　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4
　　　　1993　　　　　　　　　　　27　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4
　　　　1996　　　　　　　　　　　29　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4
　　　　1997　　　　　　　　　　　29　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4
　　　　1998　　　　　　　　　　　29　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4

[LAZERUSS]

Years Bill Russell　　　　Number of teams　　　　# of rounds played
won championship　　　　　in the league　　　　　　　in the Playoffs　
　　　　1957　　　　　　　　　　　8　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2
　　　　1959　　　　　　　　　　　8　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2
　　　　1960　　　　　　　　　　　8　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2
　　　　1961　　　　　　　　　　　8　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2
　　　　1962　　　　　　　　　　　9　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2
　　　　1963　　　　　　　　　　　9　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2
　　　　1964　　　　　　　　　　　9　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2
　　　　1965　　　　　　　　　　　9　　　　　　　　　　　　　　2
　　　　1966　　　　　　　　　　　9　　　　　　　　　　　　　　3
　　　　1968　　　　　　　　　　 12　　　　　　　　　　　　　　3
　　　　1969　　　　　　　　　　 14　　　　　　　　　　　　　　3

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　


　Years Kareem /
　Magic / Jordan　　　　Number of teams　　　　# of rounds played
won championship　　　　　in the league　　　　　　　in the Playoffs　
　　　　1971　　　　　　　　　　　17　　　　　　　　　　　　　　3
　　　　1980　　　　　　　　　　　22　　　　　　　　　　　　　　3
　　　　1982　　　　　　　　　　　23　　　　　　　　　　　　　　3
　　　　1985　　　　　　　　　　　23　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4
　　　　1987　　　　　　　　　　　23　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4
　　　　1988　　　　　　　　　　　23　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4
　　　　1991　　　　　　　　　　　27　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4
　　　　1992　　　　　　　　　　　27　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4
　　　　1993　　　　　　　　　　　27　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4
　　　　1996　　　　　　　　　　　29　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4
　　　　1997　　　　　　　　　　　29　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4
　　　　1998　　　　　　　　　　　29　　　　　　　　　　　　　　4

Yep...Kareem, Magic, and MJ were blowing away losing teams away in the first rounds, and then blowing away .500 teams in the second rounds.

Russell didn't have those opportunities. For instance, in his last season, and without HCA, his teams beat a 55-27 team, a 54-28 team (that would win the title the next year), and a 55-27 team in the Finals.

[dhsilv]

Yep...Kareem, Magic, and MJ were blowing away losing teams away in the first rounds, and then blowing away .500 teams in the second rounds.

Russell didn't have those opportunities. For instance, in his last season, and without HCA, his teams beat a 55-27 team, a 54-28 team (that would win the title the next year), and a 55-27 team in the Finals.
1
38-34
34-38

2
35-37
33-39

3
49-26
46-29

4
38-41
51-28

5
49-31
54-26

6
42-38
53-27

7
55-25
48-32

8
40-40
49-31

9
45-35
55-25
45-35

10
40-42
62-20
52-30

Yeah brutal path every year to the title...

[dhsilv]

Except for 10 more titles, 5 more MVPs during the era of Wilt, and having the FMVP named after him. Also being 10-0 in game 7s.

Other than that, let's see:

Russell did average 4.3 assists for his career with a high of 5.8. Wallace averaged 1.3 with a high of 2.4. Wallace never averaged 10 points a game. Russell peaked at 18.9.

Wallace's best scoring finals was 10.8 on 47.8% with 1.4 asists. Russell had a 23.6 finals on 53.8% with 3.6 assists.

While we don't have on off data, we have team data so we can at least get roughly right.

Russel's "best guess" per 100 lets just take peak stats so I don't have to spend more time of this.

Points: 15.34
Assists: 5.64

Wallace
Points: 14.9
Assists: 3.5

So at least now we have adult numbers to compare and not some childish ignorant per game crap as if we're living in the 60's and nobody had even a high school education.

[Spurs5Rings2014]

Duncan had the longevity but couldn't touch KAJ's peak and offensive game. Plus 6 MVPs. But no doubt Duncan is top 10 and maybe higher. So no discredit to him.

Duncan's peak is underrated af on here. #1. #2, Kareem's peak and MVP's were in a historically weak era where it didn't translate to much winning (1 title). And that's with the #2 GOAT PG. Alternatively, Kareem can't touch Duncan on the defensive end, who is arguably the GOAT defender.

[dankok8]

Russell's teams playing two rounds in the playoffs would be like today's teams playing the Conference Finals and then the Finals for the title. Russell still wins 9-10 titles minimum if he has to beat two more weak teams each year.

NOT like today's teams playing the First and Second Round

[ClipperRevival]

I'll buy 67 but not really on board with the other 2, and even if I was that's only 3 total seasons out of 11 rings/13 years. You get the point. And I really hope you're not being condescending, and going on about ignorance and such and only looking at the damn team records bro.

Again showing your ignorance. In 1969, the Lakers were supposed to destroy the old and aging Celtics. But to lose to that team, when it was Russell's last year in the league and when he was also the head coach, LOL, was very damaging to Wilt's career. I guess you could put it on par with LeBron's 2011 finals performance.

P.S. Again, Laz, I don't want to hear your thoughts on Wilt.

[Clifton]

What else should he have done to put him as the greatest of all-time? 11 rings weren't enough, what does he lack that Jordan or Kareem don't?
Offense?

He was good on that end, don't get me wrong, but um, Jordan and Magic exist. There isn't anything you can do on defense to make up for the kind of dominance those two could exert on a basketball game.

[Dr Hawk]

Offense?

He was good on that end, don't get me wrong, but um, Jordan and Magic exist. There isn't anything you can do on defense to make up for the kind of dominance those two could exert on a basketball game.

I'm curious, where do you place him in your all-time list?