Coined: "Bill Russell is not an all time great, he was only great Defensively"

[k0kakw0rld]

This is a response to your idiotic thread about LeBron


He plays with the ability God gifted him with. Not a great shooter but when his J is on, you know what he can do. Let's not act dumb here. fvckin idiot :cheers:

[Stringer Bell]

Russell wasn't a big scorer but he was an excellent passer and pick-setter. Havlicek said they really missed him on offense the next year because of how much he made things easier for their offense.

[feyki]

Russell wasn't a big scorer but he was an excellent passer and pick-setter. Havlicek said they really missed him on offense the next year because of how much he made things easier for their offense.

Exactly .

[Soundwave]

He's not even one of the 50 best offensive players in NBA history, maybe not even in the top 100.

[stephanieg]

His best case in the modern era would be KG, if KG only shot 44% on less volume. They have similar builds and heights and from the little footage of Russell I've seen he reminded me of KG in that he was mobile and liked finding cutters off the post.

[jlip]

:facepalm

[bizil]

GOAT wise, Russ ABSOLUTELY deserves to be in the top five. Peak value wise, I would rather centers such as Cap,Wilt, Dream, Shaq, Admiral, Moses, Robinson, Walton, McAdoo, and Ewing over Russ. It's two different criteria. But he was great at rebounding, passing, and defense though. NO OTHER center combined those three elements as well.

[feyki]

GOAT wise, Russ ABSOLUTELY deserves to be in the top five. Peak value wise, I would rather centers such as Cap,Wilt, Dream, Shaq, Admiral, Moses, Robinson, Walton, McAdoo, and Ewing over Russ. It's two different criteria. But he was great at rebounding, passing, and defense though. NO OTHER center combined those three elements as well.

I think , people confused with seperate good and great .

Celtics were allowed 10 points less when Russell playing , appromatixely . Also , his steals/rebounds ; hustle playing bring 7-8 possesions per 100 possesions . He was a 15 points margin force on defence at least .

Was there any player to 15 points margin on offence ? Of course , i do say ; there are four names ..

Curry,Oscar,Nash,Magic .


It's like , Kidd had offence and defence . Nash only had offence . So , Kidd > Nash . But There was big differantial on between two's offence .

[Psileas]

GOAT wise, Russ ABSOLUTELY deserves to be in the top five. Peak value wise, I would rather centers such as Cap,Wilt, Dream, Shaq, Admiral, Moses, Robinson, Walton, McAdoo, and Ewing over Russ. It's two different criteria. But he was great at rebounding, passing, and defense though. NO OTHER center combined those three elements as well.

I wouldn't take about half of these peaks over Russell's. I mean, guys like Robinson and Ewing had a lot of great seasons close to their peak levels, so, if someone picks their peaks over Russell's, why not pick their whole careers above Russell's? Well, I don't see that case, especially if we include playoffs, when especially Robinson would routinely underperform regardless of the level of opponent, while Russell raised his level, also regardless of the level of opponent.
It's scoring what makes people claim that they'd pick many peaks over Russell's, but Russell could easily be a 20+ ppg scorer if he chose to be, without his efficiency suffering. Imo, it's his indifference towards scoring and his high care of getting everyone involved offensively what hurt his efficiency. But his peak overall value is, imo, still higher than many higher scorers than him.

[Rolando]

The odd thing is: The game is different now.

Huge centers like Shaq, Wilt, Kareem, are not as well suited to today's game.

However, Bill Russell would actually be kicking more A$$. He fits the game now because he was agile enough to defend multiple positions. Fast enough to play at a high pace.

Bill Russell would be a perfect center for any existing team.

[Jasper]

Russell wasn't a big scorer but he was an excellent passer and pick-setter. Havlicek said they really missed him on offense the next year because of how much he made things easier for their offense.
right - and he was a great rebounder and out let passer.

He played within him self. -- - for the team.

[ImKobe]

It's a different league

Russell played a big part in the evolution of the NBA and was the face of the league during his era. He doesn't get this much respect solely because of his basketball ability... Think about it for a second. He was a black man in the 50s. He didn't just pioneer the game he also fought for the rights of his people and for black people who wanted to play in the league but didn't get a fair shot because of their skin color.

Plus he was a winner. Obviously by pure basketball ability it's hard to compare him to other greats but he did beat Wilt H2H so you know he deserves to be respected from a basketball standpoint as a top 10 GOAT.

Always had trouble ranking him, impact-wise he's top 3 all-time with MJ and Kareem.

[LAZERUSS]

It's a different league

Russell played a big part in the evolution of the NBA and was the face of the league during his era. He doesn't get this much respect solely because of his basketball ability... Think about it for a second. He was a black man in the 50s. He didn't just pioneer the game he also fought for the rights of his people and for black people who wanted to play in the league but didn't get a fair shot because of their skin color.

Plus he was a winner. Obviously by pure basketball ability it's hard to compare him to other greats but he did beat Wilt H2H so you know he deserves to be respected from a basketball standpoint as a top 10 GOAT.

Always had trouble ranking him, impact-wise he's top 3 all-time with MJ and Kareem.

In their 143 career H2H games, Russell outplayed Wilt in, at most, 30 of them. And in many, Chamberlain carpet-bombed Russell.

[ImKobe]

In their 143 career H2H games, Russell outplayed Wilt in, at most, 30 of them. And in many, Chamberlain carpet-bombed Russell.



Wilt’s record against Russell: 58-84
Russell’s record against Wilt: 84-58

Wilt's numbers dropped in the Playoffs

Russell's numbers increased

[LAZERUSS]

[QUOTE=ImKobe]Wilt

[ImKobe]

Greg Ostertag's record against Shaq in the Playoffs: 8-1

And Russell's numbers nose-dived when he faced WILT in the post-season.

false.

Wilt's scoring nose-dived when he faced Russell vs when he faced anyone else in the Playoffs

especially the last 3 years that they matched up, his ppg and his FG% decreased, one year his FG% dropped by almost 10% against Russell

[LAZERUSS]

false.

Wilt's scoring nose-dived when he faced Russell vs when he faced anyone else in the Playoffs

especially the last 3 years that they matched up, his ppg and his FG% decreased

Remove WILT from Russell's post-season games, and his numbers were massively higher. Russell had several Finals in which he averaged over 20 ppg, with a high of 24 ppg. In his two Finals against Wilt... 11.2 ppg and 9.9 ppg.

Chamberlain's career post-season FG% against Russell was .513. In that same time frame, his career post-season FG% was .520.

Russell's career post-season FG% was .439 in the 10 years in which he played against Wilt. Against Wilt? .411. Again, remove Wilt's 49 playoff games against Russell, and Russell likely shot around .460 in those ten seasons.

[LAZERUSS]

false.

Wilt's scoring nose-dived when he faced Russell vs when he faced anyone else in the Playoffs

especially the last 3 years that they matched up, his ppg and his FG% decreased, one year his FG% dropped by almost 10% against Russell

In their 143 career H2H games, Chamberlain outscored Russell, per game, by a 28.7 ppg to 14.5 ppg margin. His rpg margin was 28.7 rpg to 23.7 rpg. And his FG% margin was .497 to .382.

And a prime Chamberlain was averaging 30+ ppg against Russell in their post-season H2H's...all while blowing him away in rpg and FG% (as well as known block totals.)

[LAZERUSS]

And again...if Russell held an 85-58 record against Wilt (29-20 in the playoffs), then Ostertag's 8-1 playoff record against Shaq should remove all doubt as to who the much more dominant center was between the two.

[bizil]

I wouldn't take about half of these peaks over Russell's. I mean, guys like Robinson and Ewing had a lot of great seasons close to their peak levels, so, if someone picks their peaks over Russell's, why not pick their whole careers above Russell's? Well, I don't see that case, especially if we include playoffs, when especially Robinson would routinely underperform regardless of the level of opponent, while Russell raised his level, also regardless of the level of opponent.
It's scoring what makes people claim that they'd pick many peaks over Russell's, but Russell could easily be a 20+ ppg scorer if he chose to be, without his efficiency suffering. Imo, it's his indifference towards scoring and his high care of getting everyone involved offensively what hurt his efficiency. But his peak overall value is, imo, still higher than many higher scorers than him.

If you look at Russ's SHOOTING PERCENTAGES, NO WAY would I take him over any of the centers I named peak wise. Russ ONLY shot 44% from the field as a CENTER!!! And from there averaged 15.1 points a night. And u mention playoffs, Russ shot ONLY 43% from the field during his playoff career. On that percentage, he averaged 16.2 points a game.

He was also a PISS POOR free throw shooter in his career too. I'm sorry, but there are TOO MANY RED FLAGS when it comes to Russ's scoring. Give me 20-10 big men like the ones I named who are very good to great on defense over Russ peak wise.

If he shot a MUCH HIGHER shooting percentage and averaged 15.1 points a season, that would look MUCH BETTER!! Because he was on a deep team where he didn't need to score a lot of points. But 44% for an interior big man is VERY AVERAGE!! It's not like he was a finesse big man who took a lot of midrange jump shots.

GOAT status and peak value are two different things. Russ's team accolades, solo accolades, and impact on the sport ENABLE him to be a top 5 GOAT of all time. GOAT is the DEFINITIVE LIST to get you in the HOF. So I view Russ as a top five player of all time HISTORICALLY! But in terms of peak value, I would rather have 7-9 centers over Russ.

[senelcoolidge]

Russell is an all time great, but not as great as Wilt. Unless you're only counting who was on better teams and won more championships. Russell was a great defensive player and rebounder. Pretty good passer too. But Wilt was a greater defender, rebounder, and passer than Russell. It's a no brainer really. Wilt took inferior teams within games of winning during the Celtic dynasty run..that in itself is impressive. The Celtics were stacked..multiple HoFer's..c'mon.

[Deuce Bigalow]

And again...if Russell held an 85-58 record against Wilt (29-20 in the playoffs), then Ostertag's 8-1 playoff record against Shaq should remove all doubt as to who the much more dominant center was between the two.
Wilt 2

Russell 11

Wilt 4 MVPs

Russell 5 MVPs

Russell named GOAT on NBA's 35th anniversary team

Wilt?

Ostertag??

[Klay 3D]

What is the definition of an all-time great? I consider Ben Wallace one so Bill Russell is a no-brainer.

[feyki]

Russell is an all time great, but not as great as Wilt. Unless you're only counting who was on better teams and won more championships. Russell was a great defensive player and rebounder. Pretty good passer too. But Wilt was a greater defender, rebounder, and passer than Russell. It's a no brainer really. Wilt took inferior teams within games of winning during the Celtic dynasty run..that in itself is impressive. The Celtics were stacked..multiple HoFer's..c'mon.


:biggums: :biggums: :biggums:

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt 2

Russell 11

Wilt 4 MVPs

Russell 5 MVPs

Russell named GOAT on NBA's 35th anniversary team

Wilt?

Ostertag??

The 1980 Voting was interesting. Evidently a minority of those voters actually saw Wilt and Russell play. Why? Because the sportswriters consistently voted Wilt over Russell nearly every year in the First Team All-NBA selections. Wilt held a 7-2 margin in their 10 years in the league together.

As for MVPs, they SPLIT them, 4-4, in their 10 years in the league together. However, Wilt routed Russell in Chamberlain's rookie season (and was obviously robbed in '62)..and then routed him three straight years from the mid-to-late 60's. Clearly, Wilt was considered the more dominant player in his rookie season, and by the mid-60's it was nearly unanimous.

BTW, ESPN's Sports Century "poll" in 1999 had Wilt considerably ahead of Russell. In fact, Magic was also ahead of him.

[the mesiah]

He is an all time great because he was the face of the team that won 11 chips but he would have to be in the right system to translate in any era unlike the other top 10 consistent players that make up the top 10 lists

[Kblaze8855]

Even someone trying to downplay him would have to concede he was at least....Draymond Green with something like Rodmans rebounding. He was 4th and 5th in the NBA in assists in a couple seasons. But you also kinda have to wonder if you watch enough of his footage...what he could have done as a scorer. Not by trying to finesse his way around and make hooks and jumpers. But by taking advantage of being one of the 3-4 best athletes in the league and usually the best athlete on the floor. He could probably just Lebron it and back out to 30 feet and explode to the rim whenever he wanted. Something like this:




https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FrightenedForsakenIguanodon-size_restricted.gif


What is gonna be done about that in 1959? Hes faster than all your players....hes 6'9''...and an olympic level high jumper.

What does a team do about that in the 60s?

He could have scored a lot more just off going coast to coast himself more often. Hes shown he could....but instead he chose to rebound and start fast breaks.

He just wanted to win. Nothing else. Im sure he could have scored a lot just off driving to the basket especially in transition.

[GINOBILI!]

Greg Ostertag's record against Shaq in the Playoffs: 8-1

.
:bowdown:

[HurricaneKid]

The record for rebounds in a game, never to be broken, was Wilt dominating Russell for 55 boards.

Russell is an interesting case study. No one would ever put another defensive player in the top 50 but still manage to put Russell in the top 5. He was 5th-7th on his team in pts/min for the majority of the Celtics Championships.

I tend to put a far greater emphasis on defense than most (just look at what a player like Kyrie does to a team at Championship level play), but have a really hard time putting him in the top 10. Some of that is my bias towards anything before Magic/Bird as it just doesn't pass the eye test to me. But most of it is just the befuddlement over how a guy that was completely subpar offensively is so revered while other defensive specialists are never given such respect.

[bizil]

Even someone trying to downplay him would have to concede he was at least....Draymond Green with something like Rodmans rebounding. He was 4th and 5th in the NBA in assists in a couple seasons. But you also kinda have to wonder if you watch enough of his footage...what he could have done as a scorer. Not by trying to finesse his way around and make hooks and jumpers. But by taking advantage of being one of the 3-4 best athletes in the league and usually the best athlete on the floor. He could probably just Lebron it and back out to 30 feet and explode to the rim whenever he wanted. Something like this:




https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FrightenedForsakenIguanodon-size_restricted.gif


What is gonna be done about that in 1959? Hes faster than all your players....hes 6'9''...and an olympic level high jumper.

What does a team do about that in the 60s?

He could have scored a lot more just off going coast to coast himself more often. Hes shown he could....but instead he chose to rebound and start fast breaks.

He just wanted to win. Nothing else. Im sure he could have scored a lot just off driving to the basket especially in transition.

Good points! No doubt Bill was a freak athlete WAY AHEAD of his time in that realm. But his FG% and scoring acumen inside FOR BEING SO ATHLETIC still was average at best. It's not so much his scoring average that bothers me, its more about his shooting percentages.

[LAZERUSS]

A prime Russell had regular seasons of 18-19 ppg; playoffs of 20 ppg; and Finals of 22-24 ppg.

In fact, he had better offensive numbers in some of his Finals than D-Rob or Ewing ever had. Without looking them up, something like 22 ppg on a .530, and 24 ppg on a .540. He also had an 18 ppg on a .702 FG%.

[Genaro]

Russell is overrated as ****. He had a stacked team in a pre professional era with 9 teams in the league.
Wilt, I think he would be great in any era. Russell just was in the right place in the right time. He's not in my top 10.

[bizil]

The record for rebounds in a game, never to be broken, was Wilt dominating Russell for 55 boards.

Russell is an interesting case study. No one would ever put another defensive player in the top 50 but still manage to put Russell in the top 5. He was 5th-7th on his team in pts/min for the majority of the Celtics Championships.

I tend to put a far greater emphasis on defense than most (just look at what a player like Kyrie does to a team at Championship level play), but have a really hard time putting him in the top 10. Some of that is my bias towards anything before Magic/Bird as it just doesn't pass the eye test to me. But most of it is just the befuddlement over how a guy that was completely subpar offensively is so revered while other defensive specialists are never given such respect.

Good points made! That's why PEAK WISE, I would take many centers ahead of Russ. A lot of those centers were EPIC two way players and were beasts on the boards.

But on a GOAT level, Russ was a 5 time MVP and has 11 rings. So because of those accolades, he's going to get MUCH MORE LOVE than other defensive specialists. Russ was also a better offensive player (passing and scoring) than other defensive bigs like Rodman, Ben, Thurmond, etc. But with that said, I think Russ's peak value is GREATLY OVERRATED by many.

[Psileas]

If you look at Russ's SHOOTING PERCENTAGES, NO WAY would I take him over any of the centers I named peak wise. Russ ONLY shot 44% from the field as a CENTER!!! And from there averaged 15.1 points a night. And u mention playoffs, Russ shot ONLY 43% from the field during his playoff career. On that percentage, he averaged 16.2 points a game.

He was also a PISS POOR free throw shooter in his career too. I'm sorry, but there are TOO MANY RED FLAGS when it comes to Russ's scoring. Give me 20-10 big men like the ones I named who are very good to great on defense over Russ peak wise.

If he shot a MUCH HIGHER shooting percentage and averaged 15.1 points a season, that would look MUCH BETTER!! Because he was on a deep team where he didn't need to score a lot of points. But 44% for an interior big man is VERY AVERAGE!! It's not like he was a finesse big man who took a lot of midrange jump shots.

GOAT status and peak value are two different things. Russ's team accolades, solo accolades, and impact on the sport ENABLE him to be a top 5 GOAT of all time. GOAT is the DEFINITIVE LIST to get you in the HOF. So I view Russ as a top five player of all time HISTORICALLY! But in terms of peak value, I would rather have 7-9 centers over Russ.

I already mentioned why Russell only shot 44%: He practically never was focused on primarily trying to score, which resulted in him taking a lot of random, bad shots. The Celtics were playing at high enough paces offensively to tire their opponents, since they were already a defensive juggernaut.
Look at this, for example: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1964.html
The Celtics have the league's best record by their FGA's dwarfing everyone else's, no matter that other teams had Wilt or West+Baylor or Oscar. Yet, they are dead last in FG%, and it's definitely not because of Russell (who shot better than team average and posted many assists). They were simply gunning without caring about percentages and Russell was no different. Russell for a different team would have no trouble shooting around 47% yearly, which would put him in the top 10 in the league (Wilt was at 50-54% those same seasons).

[Rolando]

I already mentioned why Russell only shot 44%: He practically never was focused on primarily trying to score, which resulted in him taking a lot of random, bad shots. The Celtics were playing at high enough paces offensively to tire their opponents, since they were already a defensive juggernaut.
Look at this, for example: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1964.html
The Celtics have the league's best record by their FGA's dwarfing everyone else's, no matter that other teams had Wilt or West+Baylor or Oscar. Yet, they are dead last in FG%, and it's definitely not because of Russell (who shot better than team average and posted many assists). They were simply gunning without caring about percentages and Russell was no different. Russell for a different team would have no trouble shooting around 47% yearly, which would put him in the top 10 in the league (Wilt was at 50-54% those same seasons).

Like I said before, Russell's game would actually translate perfect to today's league. He'd still be crushing it.

[bizil]

I already mentioned why Russell only shot 44%: He practically never was focused on primarily trying to score, which resulted in him taking a lot of random, bad shots. The Celtics were playing at high enough paces offensively to tire their opponents, since they were already a defensive juggernaut.
Look at this, for example: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1964.html
The Celtics have the league's best record by their FGA's dwarfing everyone else's, no matter that other teams had Wilt or West+Baylor or Oscar. Yet, they are dead last in FG%, and it's definitely not because of Russell (who shot better than team average and posted many assists). They were simply gunning without caring about percentages and Russell was no different. Russell for a different team would have no trouble shooting around 47% yearly, which would put him in the top 10 in the league (Wilt was at 50-54% those same seasons).

Still not buying that argument. He never focused on scoring BECAUSE he was never a great scorer to begin with. Red and Russ are both TOO SMART for him to take a ton of bad shots. The bottom line is Russ was NEVER an alpha dog quality scorer. If Red had a Wilt on his team, he would have played inside-outside and let Wilt DOMINATE the paint. So the way I look at it, Red played to the Celtics' strengths. If Wilt was on the Celtics, his scoring would have been WAY MORE IMPRESSIVE than Russ. A great coach puts his players in position to maximize their strengths. Red was the GOAT coach, so TRUST ME he would have utilized Wilt in a different manner than he would Russ.

[bizil]

Like I said before, Russell's game would actually translate perfect to today's league. He'd still be crushing it.

Russell's game would indeed translate to today. I mean SHIT, Deandre Jordan made All NBA 1st team!! LOL But Russ was great at EVERYTHING except scoring at the same time. So WHAT'S wrong in taking guys like a Shaq, Wilt, David, Dream, Ewing, Kareem or Moses over him peak wise?

GOAT wise, he's arguably greater than all of them. But PEAK WISE, I would rather have a more dominant interior scoring presence than him. That's not knocking Russ, but he NEVER SHOWED he was a great scorer. Let's remember Draymond Green is a BETTER ALL AROUND player than Durant. BUT KD is CLEARLY the better player. When comparing Russ to some of the other great dominant big men, the same applies.

[stephanieg]

But most of it is just the befuddlement over how a guy that was completely subpar offensively is so revered while other defensive specialists are never given such respect.

Yeah, outside of analytic communities I don't see people ranking Rodman or Ben Wallace too highly. Lots of people put Dirk over KG.

[feyki]

Yeah, outside of analytic communities I don't see people ranking Rodman or Ben Wallace too highly. Lots of people put Dirk over KG.

Ben is one of the most underrated player ever .

Kg wasn't close to Ben or Russell defensively .

[Psileas]

Still not buying that argument. He never focused on scoring BECAUSE he was never a great scorer to begin with. Red and Russ are both TOO SMART for him to take a ton of bad shots. The bottom line is Russ was NEVER an alpha dog quality scorer. If Red had a Wilt on his team, he would have played inside-outside and let Wilt DOMINATE the paint. So the way I look at it, Red played to the Celtics' strengths. If Wilt was on the Celtics, his scoring would have been WAY MORE IMPRESSIVE than Russ. A great coach puts his players in position to maximize their strengths. Red was the GOAT coach, so TRUST ME he would have utilized Wilt in a different manner than he would Russ.

NOBODY on the Celtics was concerned with scoring. I've shown that their efficiency was constantly somewhere between mediocre to CRAP compared to the rest of the league. Within all those dynasty years, there had been a total of 1 25+ ppg scoring season, by Sam Jones, a guy who, up to then hadn't even posted a single 20 ppg season (in 7 seasons in total), and his efficiency didn't even suffer. Havlicek? He never got more than 21.6 ppg during the Dynasty years, then he erupts to 27.5 and 28.9, on better efficiency than in his Dynasty seasons in the early 70's, yet, you're telling me that Russell's numbers supposedly represent his personal apex, just because he defined the Dynasty himself and never played for different schemes?
No, Russell couldn't score like Wilt or Kareem, but he could still be a constant 18-20 ppg scorer/at least same efficiency with eyes closed. But, even if this weren't the case, everyone agrees that he was head and shoulders more valuable than any of his teammates, who, after the late 50's, weren't receiving a single MVP vote altogether. And that's because his defensive impact was higher than the defensive or offensive impact of any player in history and, of course, way higher than the defensive or offensive impact of any player of the Celtics. Which leads me to not recognizing some of these guys' peaks as higher than Russell's, scoring notwithstanding.

[bizil]

NOBODY on the Celtics was concerned with scoring. I've shown that their efficiency was constantly somewhere between mediocre to CRAP compared to the rest of the league. Within all those dynasty years, there had been a total of 1 25+ ppg scoring season, by Sam Jones, a guy who, up to then hadn't even posted a single 20 ppg season (in 7 seasons in total), and his efficiency didn't even suffer. Havlicek? He never got more than 21.6 ppg during the Dynasty years, then he erupts to 27.5 and 28.9, on better efficiency than in his Dynasty seasons in the early 70's, yet, you're telling me that Russell's numbers supposedly represent his personal apex, just because he defined the Dynasty himself and never played for different schemes?
No, Russell couldn't score like Wilt or Kareem, but he could still be a constant 18-20 ppg scorer/at least same efficiency with eyes closed. But, even if this weren't the case, everyone agrees that he was head and shoulders more valuable than any of his teammates, who, after the late 50's, weren't receiving a single MVP vote altogether. And that's because his defensive impact was higher than the defensive or offensive impact of any player in history and, of course, way higher than the defensive or offensive impact of any player of the Celtics. Which leads me to not recognizing some of these guys' peaks as higher than Russell's, scoring notwithstanding.

The thing is Hondo and Sam Jones were VERY SKILLED periemter players. Who over time got to show their worth scoring as the years went on. I agree with that. But Russ was a freak athletic 6'9 center. THERE IS A REASON the FG% title goes to a big man every year. The reason WHY is because they are closer to the basket.

If u put Wilt in that Celtics system, Red would have ADJUSTED his offense to fit Wilt. FROM THERE, Wilt would have put up scoring numbers that would have BLOWN AWAY what Russ did.

Once again, I view Russ as a top 5 GOAT icon. And the GOAT list IS THE MOST IMPORTANT list! But peak wise, I would RATHER have centers who were more proven scoring the ball. Alpha dog scoring ability is the MOST VALUABLE asset to have in the sport. Bill NEVER really showed that kind of ability. The situations u are talking about in terms of what Bill COULD HAVE DONE are hypothetical. I'm BASING my argument on facts!! Which are the numbers Bill put up.

[LAZERUSS]

Russell is an all time great, but not as great as Wilt. Unless you're only counting who was on better teams and won more championships. Russell was a great defensive player and rebounder. Pretty good passer too. But Wilt was a greater defender, rebounder, and passer than Russell. It's a no brainer really. Wilt took inferior teams within games of winning during the Celtic dynasty run..that in itself is impressive. The Celtics were stacked..multiple HoFer's..c'mon.

This.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

Even Russell himself said that Wilt would do a better job in his (Russell's) role, than he would have done in Wilt's.

BTW...with EQUAL rosters that were healthy...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1967-nba-eastern-division-finals-celtics-vs-76ers.html

Too bad the above didn't include rpg, apg, and FG%...

Russell... 23.4 rpg, 6.0 apg, and on a .358 FG%.
Wilt... 32.0 rpg, 10.0 apg, and on a .556 FG%.

[Psileas]

The thing is Hondo and Sam Jones were VERY SKILLED periemter players. Who over time got to show their worth scoring as the years went on. I agree with that. But Russ was a freak athletic 6'9 center. THERE IS A REASON the FG% title goes to a big man every year. The reason WHY is because they are closer to the basket.

If u put Wilt in that Celtics system, Red would have ADJUSTED his offense to fit Wilt. FROM THERE, Wilt would have put up scoring numbers that would have BLOWN AWAY what Russ did.

Once again, I view Russ as a top 5 GOAT icon. And the GOAT list IS THE MOST IMPORTANT list! But peak wise, I would RATHER have centers who were more proven scoring the ball. Alpha dog scoring ability is the MOST VALUABLE asset to have in the sport. Bill NEVER really showed that kind of ability. The situations u are talking about in terms of what Bill COULD HAVE DONE are hypothetical. I'm BASING my argument on facts!! Which are the numbers Bill put up.

You know Russell was a freak athlete, you know (I guess) that he had great handles for his position, and yet you don't think Russell could exploit his freakish athleticism by driving against his opponents more, by dunking more and by taking less random mid range shots, as he did, had he decided to spend more energy on scoring? What exactly would be the factor limiting him? You've never provided an answer to this.
But, either way, Russell didn't care. He cared about winning and he got exactly this. You say you love facts, well, this is the only fact. Now, if you think his prime doesn't stick up to the best ones, be it, but then stop pretending that for some reason he has to be regarded as a top-5 player legacy-wise because you base this on titles and MVP's. Of course, you'll find it difficult to do so, but you don't get titles as practically the sole MVP candidate (among your teammates) if you don't have a ridiculously good prime, and MVP's are awards decided by others and a guy having 5 of them is also still not a guy without a ridiculously good prime, especially if guys like the "VERY SKILLED periemter players" that you were mentioning weren't getting a single such vote. So, in your view, a guy who had not a top-7/8 prime (among centers alone) was, somehow capable enough of winning 11 titles in 13 seasons while playing with players who, while good, weren't anywhere near as great as he was? How does this add up??
And, no, Red's Celtics wouldn't "adjust" to Wilt or to anyone. Wilt (my favorite player) would be the one to have to adjust his game according to Red's plans a lot more than vice-versa, Hannum-wise. Red wasn't exactly the kind of coach who would be doing favors to high usage players. I guess Wilt would have to quickly learn how to be a 25/25/7/elite defense guy (not saying he wouldn't be able to do it) or he'd clash with Red pretty soon.

[bizil]

You know Russell was a freak athlete, you know (I guess) that he had great handles for his position, and yet you don't think Russell could exploit his freakish athleticism by driving against his opponents more, by dunking more and by taking less random mid range shots, as he did, had he decided to spend more energy on scoring? What exactly would be the factor limiting him? You've never provided an answer to this.
But, either way, Russell didn't care. He cared about winning and he got exactly this. You say you love facts, well, this is the only fact. Now, if you think his prime doesn't stick up to the best ones, be it, but then stop pretending that for some reason he has to be regarded as a top-5 player legacy-wise because you base this on titles and MVP's. Of course, you'll find it difficult to do so, but you don't get titles as practically the sole MVP candidate (among your teammates) if you don't have a ridiculously good prime, and MVP's are awards decided by others and a guy having 5 of them is also still not a guy without a ridiculously good prime, especially if guys like the "VERY SKILLED periemter players" that you were mentioning weren't getting a single such vote. So, in your view, a guy who had not a top-7/8 prime (among centers alone) was, somehow capable enough of winning 11 titles in 13 seasons while playing with players who, while good, weren't anywhere near as great as he was? How does this add up??
And, no, Red's Celtics wouldn't "adjust" to Wilt or to anyone. Wilt (my favorite player) would be the one to have to adjust his game according to Red's plans a lot more than vice-versa, Hannum-wise. Red wasn't exactly the kind of coach who would be doing favors to high usage players. I guess Wilt would have to quickly learn how to be a 25/25/7/elite defense guy (not saying he wouldn't be able to do it) or he'd clash with Red pretty soon.

When I say I would take Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Dream, Kareem, Wilt, and Moses over Russ peak wise, WHATS THE BIG DEAL??? Those guys scoring dominance IS PROVEN!! U gotta understand peak value AND GOAT status are two different things. Once MJ retired the first time, Pippen's scoring average BARELY CHANGED!!

So there's NO GUARANTEE that Russ's scoring average would have jumped up a great deal in a different situation or team. SOME GUYS just are who they are scoring the rock!! Other guys like a Harden or T Mac will change teams and IMMEDIATELY explode into great scorers. My point is GREAT SCORING is just AS MUCH OF MINDSET AS IT IS ABILITY!!! Maybe Russ didn't have the MINDSET to be a dominant scorer!! U need to consider THAT!!

I consider Russ top 5 GOAT on the list THAT COUNTS THE MOST!! Which is GOAT status. So WHATS THE BIG DEAL if I don't hold Russ in that same regard peak wise. I mean SHIT, he had the luxury to play with MORE HOFers than ANY PLAYER EVER!! Those rings and MVPs make a HUGE DIFFERENCE when it comes to GOAT status. ESPECIALLY the number of MVP's and rings Russ won. U keep dealing in hypothetical situations when it comes to Russ's scoring. MAYBE he didn't have mindset to be a dominant alpha dog scorer. Men lie, women lie, NUMBERS DON'T!!!! And by looking at the numbers, Russ was NEVER A GREAT SCORER!!! And for u to keep making excuses AND DOWNPLAY PROVEN GREAT SCORING CENTERS IS SHAMEFUL!!!

So how am I wrong when using Russell's numbers as EVIDENCE that he was never a great scorer. ITS THE DAMN TRUTH!!! His scoring average was NEVER EPIC!!! His shooting percentage for a big man WAS NEVER EPIC!!! His free throw shooting was SUBPAR!!! Any argument TO THESE FACTS is simply hypotheticals and opinions. We WILL NEVER KNOW how good of a scorer Russ COULD HAVE BEEN on a different situation or team. So ALL WE HAVE is the numbers that he put up.

[Psileas]

When I say I would take Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Dream, Kareem, Wilt, and Moses over Russ peak wise, WHATS THE BIG DEAL??? Those guys scoring dominance IS PROVEN!! U gotta understand peak value AND GOAT status are two different things. Once MJ retired the first time, Pippen's scoring average BARELY CHANGED!!

So there's NO GUARANTEE that Russ's scoring average would have jumped up a great deal in a different situation or team. SOME GUYS just are who they are scoring the rock!! Other guys like a Harden or T Mac will change teams and IMMEDIATELY explode into great scorers. My point is GREAT SCORING is just AS MUCH OF MINDSET AS IT IS ABILITY!!! Maybe Russ didn't have the MINDSET to be a dominant scorer!! U need to consider THAT!!

I consider Russ top 5 GOAT on the list THAT COUNTS THE MOST!! Which is GOAT status. So WHATS THE BIG DEAL if I don't hold Russ in that same regard peak wise. I mean SHIT, he had the luxury to play with MORE HOFers than ANY PLAYER EVER!! Those rings and MVPs make a HUGE DIFFERENCE when it comes to GOAT status. ESPECIALLY the number of MVP's and rings Russ won. U keep dealing in hypothetical situations when it comes to Russ's scoring. MAYBE he didn't have mindset to be a dominant alpha dog scorer. Men lie, women lie, NUMBERS DON'T!!!! And by looking at the numbers, Russ was NEVER A GREAT SCORER!!! And for u to keep making excuses AND DOWNPLAY PROVEN GREAT SCORING CENTERS IS SHAMEFUL!!!

So how am I wrong when using Russell's numbers as EVIDENCE that he was never a great scorer. ITS THE DAMN TRUTH!!! His scoring average was NEVER EPIC!!! His shooting percentage for a big man WAS NEVER EPIC!!! His free throw shooting was SUBPAR!!! Any argument TO THESE FACTS is simply hypotheticals and opinions. We WILL NEVER KNOW how good of a scorer Russ COULD HAVE BEEN on a different situation or team. So ALL WE HAVE is the numbers that he put up.

Here's the gist: You are gripped too much on scoring. I don't know how Russell not being a great or efficient scorer is supposed to keep him out of the GOAT peak range when he was elite to GOAT level (either for his position or overall) in every other damn category - to such a degree that it made the Celtics perennial champions, while not even being close to this level when he was missing.
Do you realize that if you add these guys' scoring (not even Wilt's or Kareem's scoring) to Russell, you give him a prime Wilt-like individual level that blows them away and is arguably #1 prime ever? Seriously, you pit peak Russell against peak Ewing and you declare Ewing the winner because he's a much better scorer, when Russell is significantly to much better in any other category? You pick McAdoo over Russell due to scoring, when McAdoo was playing zero defense, was an inferior rebounder, much inferior passer and never posted his monstrous stats for any team that was anywhere near a title contender and therefore are padded? Not sold at all.

[ClipperRevival]

You play to win. And no one won more than Russell. And he didn't just win at the NBA level, he won 2 NCAA championship at the University of San Francisco. That school was nothing before he got there.

And let's check out Wilt's and Russell's playoff stats:

Wilt (160 games): 22.5 PPG, 24.5 RPG, 4.2 APG, 52% FG, 46% FT, 22.7 PER

Russell (165 games): 16.2 PPG, 24.9 RPG, 4.7 APG, 43% FG, 60% FT, 19.4 PER


And Russell was 10-0 in game 7's and they occurred in 9 different seasons. Meaning if he had lost all of those game 7's, he would only have 2 titles. And here are his stats in those games:

18.6 PPG, 29.3 RPG


And Wilt had the HCA advantage over Russell's team 3 times (1967, 1968 and 1969). And Wilt's team lost two of them.

In a vacuum, yes, Wilt was superior. He should be. He was 3-4 inches taller and 40-60 lbs heavier. But bball is a team game and no one did whatever it took to win better than Russell.

And it's not like Russell was JUST a GOAT level defender and rebounder like Rodman/Wallace. He was good enough to win 5 regular season MVPs and if the FMVP award was around his whole career, he would've had 7-9 FMVP. So he was "the man" for most of his titles, something a guy like Rodman/Wallace could never claim.

So if you look at the entire body of work, this dude just got it done.

[colts19]

The circumstance Russell played in did help. I have always said Wilt was the best player ever, even over MJ. However, you can only guess at how much his circumstance affected his success. The facts are that he was the main reason his team won 11 championships. Counting college he had twice as many championships as MJ. And played a lot less years. Give the man credit.

[LAZERUSS]

You play to win. And no one won more than Russell. And he didn't just win at the NBA level, he won 2 NCAA championship at the University of San Francisco. That school was nothing before he got there.

And let's check out Wilt's and Russell's playoff stats:

Wilt (160 games): 22.5 PPG, 24.5 RPG, 4.2 APG, 52% FG, 46% FT, 22.7 PER

Russell (165 games): 16.2 PPG, 24.9 RPG, 4.7 APG, 43% FG, 60% FT, 19.4 PER


And Russell was 10-0 in game 7's and they occurred in 9 different seasons. Meaning if he had lost all of those game 7's, he would only have 2 titles. And here are his stats in those games:

18.6 PPG, 29.3 RPG


And Wilt had the HCA advantage over Russell's team 3 times (1967, 1968 and 1969). And Wilt's team lost two of them.

In a vacuum, yes, Wilt was superior. He should be. He was 3-4 inches taller and 40-60 lbs heavier. But bball is a team game and no one did whatever it took to win better than Russell.

And it's not like Russell was JUST a GOAT level defender and rebounder like Rodman/Wallace. He was good enough to win 5 regular season MVPs and if the FMVP award was around his whole career, he would've had 7-9 FMVP. So he was "the man" for most of his titles, something a guy like Rodman/Wallace could never claim.

So if you look at the entire body of work, this dude just got it done.

In Russell's game seven's against WILT...

Russell 13.2 ppg, 24.5 rpg, and on a .465 FG%

How about Wilt in those games? 21.0 ppg, 28.5 rpg, and on...get this... a .638 FG%.

Without looking up their 49 career H2H playoff games, I know that Chamberlain outscored Russell by an average of 10+ ppg, outrebounded him by something like 4 rpg, and outshot him from the floor by a .513 to .411 margin.




Chamberlain OWNED Russell his entire career.

[LAZERUSS]

And Wilt had the HCA advantage over Russell's team 3 times (1967, 1968 and 1969). And Wilt's team lost two of them.

In the '68 EDF's, Chamberlain, and his team, were just DECIMATED by injuries, including missing a HOFer for the entire series. And they lost a game seven by four points.

In '69, they lost a game seven, by two points, and with Wilt's incompetent coach keeping Chamberlain on the bench in the last five minutes...in a game in which Wilt outscored Russell, 18-6; outrebounded Russell, 27-21; outshot Russell from the field, 7-8 to 2-7 (and by a TS% margin of .621 to .333), and added 10 blocks...or a triple-double beatdown of Russell.

Of course, when he had an EQUAL roster, that was healthy,...as was the case in '67...Wilt and his teammates just destroyed Russell and his eight-time defending (and 60-21) champs.

[HurricaneKid]

Here's the gist: You are gripped too much on scoring. I don't know how Russell not being a great or efficient scorer is supposed to keep him out of the GOAT peak range .

How many top 50 players scored as little and inefficiently as Russell?

I agree that people always focus far too much on scoring. But you are giving credit to Russell for skills and traits no other player gets credit for.

And before you say "11 Chips!" lets keep in mind that the league was 8-9 teams for the bulk of those championships. For instance, in 61 the Celtics beat a 38-41 team to get to the Finals. Yes, just one series against a sub .500 team to get to the Finals. 5 players on that team scored 20+ points per 36 min. Russell scored 13.8/36. That's half a point from being 9th on the team in scoring per min. But he had 6 HoF teammates so he is top 5?

[ClipperRevival]

In Russell's game seven's against WILT...

Russell 13.2 ppg, 24.5 rpg, and on a .465 FG%

How about Wilt in those games? 21.0 ppg, 28.5 rpg, and on...get this... a .638 FG%.

Without looking up their 49 career H2H playoff games, I know that Chamberlain outscored Russell by an average of 10+ ppg, outrebounded him by something like 4 rpg, and outshot him from the floor by a .513 to .411 margin.




Chamberlain OWNED Russell his entire career.

Well no sh*t. I already conceded that in a vacuum, Wilt was the superior player but that's NOT the same as helping your team win and playing the game the right way.

This is like the same as a Bron fan 50 years from now saying that he had a great game 2 in the 2016 finals with his near triple double but that he didn't have help. :rolleyes: That's what you do. You blindly look at individual numbers without context without considering each player's roles and impact beyond the numbers.

[ClipperRevival]

In the '68 EDF's, Chamberlain, and his team, were just DECIMATED by injuries, including missing a HOFer for the entire series. And they lost a game seven by four points.

In '69, they lost a game seven, by two points, and with Wilt's incompetent coach keeping Chamberlain on the bench in the last five minutes...in a game in which Wilt outscored Russell, 18-6; outrebounded Russell, 27-21; outshot Russell from the field, 7-8 to 2-7 (and by a TS% margin of .621 to .333), and added 10 blocks...or a triple-double beatdown of Russell.

Of course, when he had an EQUAL roster, that was healthy,...as was the case in '67...Wilt and his teammates just destroyed Russell and his eight-time defending (and 60-21) champs.

Jesus Christ man. You are a lost cause. You really are. You always blame everyone else but Wilt. How can you expect anyone to take your opinions about Wilt seriously if you can't be objective?

Wilt's numbers from 1968 ECF

[ClipperRevival]

True Champions Can Admit When They Lost. They Accept It, Give Credit To The Opponent And Move On. I Guess That Makes Wilt And Yourself Losers Huh? Because That's What Losers Do. Make Excuses When Things Go Bad And Blame Everyone Else But Themselves.

[LAZERUSS]

[QUOTE=ClipperRevival]Jesus Christ man. You are a lost cause. You really are. You always blame everyone else but Wilt. How can you expect anyone to take your opinions about Wilt seriously if you can't be objective?

Wilt's numbers from 1968 ECF

[bizil]

When compared to some of the other great centers, Russ SIMPLY wasn't the two way threat that they were. That's ALL some of us on here are pointing out. GOAT wise, Russ is in the top five. So THAT ALONE speaks volumes about his greatness. But peak wise, I would prefer centers WHO PROVED they were better two way threats that Russ.

[LAZERUSS]

True Champions Can Admit When They Lost. They Accept It, Give Credit To The Opponent And Move On. I Guess That Makes Wilt And Yourself Losers Huh? Because That's What Losers Do. Make Excuses When Things Go Bad And Blame Everyone Else But Themselves.

Why was MJ 1-9 without Pippen? Couldn't win a playoff game in his highest scoring season? How come his numbers declined significantly against the Bad Boys in the playoffs? And how come he couldn't lead a team that won 55 games without him, to a title?

How come a prime Kareem only went to two Finals, and only won one title in his first 10 seasons?

How come Shaq went 1-8 against Ostertag? And was swept SIX times in the playoffs (and nearly EIGHT)?

How come Bird "only" won three rings, while playing alongside HOF-laden rosters his entire career?

How come Hakeem, who played for 18 seasons, only went to three Finals, and only won two rings? Not only that...how come he was blown out in the first round in EIGHT of his 15 playoff seasons?

You can go right down the list.

Yet ONLY Wilt gets no excuses.

GTFO you idiot.

[ClipperRevival]

Why was MJ 1-9 without Pippen? Couldn't win a playoff game in his highest scoring season? How come his numbers declined significantly against the Bad Boys in the playoffs? And how come he couldn't lead a team that won 55 games without him, to a title?

How come a prime Kareem only went to two Finals, and only won one title in his first 10 seasons?

How come Shaq went 1-8 against Ostertag? And was swept SIX times in the playoffs (and nearly EIGHT)?

How come Bird "only" won three rings, while playing alongside HOF-laden rosters his entire career?

How come Hakeem, who played for 18 seasons, only went to three Finals, and only won two rings? Not only that...how come he was blown out in the first round in EIGHT of his 15 playoff seasons?

You can go right down the list.

Yet ONLY Wilt gets no excuses.

GTFO you idiot.

HOPELESS. TRULY HOPELESS. YOU TRULY BRING ZERO OBJECTIVITY TO THE TABLE. YOUR NEED TO DEFEND WILT HAS SKEWED YOUR ENTIRE PERCEPTION OF EVERY OTHER GREAT. YOU SPEND ALL YOUR TIME BASHING OTHER GREATS IN AN ATTEMPT TO BRING THEM DOWN TO WILT'S LEVEL. YOU WOULD GET A MUCH BETTER RESPONSE IF YOU JUST GAVE SOME AND ADMITTED THAT WILT HAD FLAWS. BUT DAMN, YOUR INABILITY TO NOT GIVE AN INCH MAKES YOU A LOSER. ONLY LOSER'S CAN'T ADMIT WHEN THEY LOSE. THEY MAKE EXCUSES. TRUE CHAMPIONSHIPS ACCEPT DEFEAT AND TRY TO COME BACK HARDER NEXT TIME.

[ClipperRevival]

So a tear in a calf muscle is not an excuse? In a seven game series in which he averaged 22 ppg, 25 rpg, and 7 apg, all while battering Russell in the process?

Let's examine a typical calf tear...

http://www.jointhealing.com/pages/calf/calf_muscle_tears.html



Coaching not an excuse?

https://books.google.com/books?id=9BaqPfGcI84C&pg=PA353&lpg=PA353&dq=terry+pluto+on+butch+van+breda+kolff+and+wilt&source=bl&ots=rQyrS0Xpak&sig=7XGQHtTIMuzhauVpluzaHJTfdq0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinut2PkZnNAhUT2WMKHc6CB1AQ6AEIHDAA#v=on epage&q=terry%20pluto%20on%20butch%20van%20breda%20kolff %20and%20wilt&f=false



And again, as poorly as Wilt played in the '69 Finals (thanks to his incompetent coach), he still outplayed Russell. And he waxed Russell in game seven.

He was supposed to outplay Russell you genius. That was Russell's last year in the league and he was 37. He was even the coach for crying out loud. While Wilt was still close to his prime and had formed a super team with Baylor and West. Wilt's Lakers were supposed to DESTROY the aging Celtics. You know it, I know it and everyone else knows it. And Wilt was a huge reason they lost. Blaming anyone else makes you look like an idiot.

[warriorfan]

http://i33.tinypic.com/25q817l.jpg