Does Bill Russell deserve consideration for GOAT candidate?

[Turbo Slayer]

Yes? No? Explain why.

[hiphopanonymous]

Did anyone else win 14 of the highest possible basketball honors in 15 years? (2xNCAA on record shattering team 1 Gold in record shattering team 11 NBA (8 peat) rings in 13 seasons.

He's got a strong case. Anyone who did numerous majorly impactful things no one else has ever done has a case and he's pretty solidly in that boat. If you favor influence on winning the team game of basketball he's literally number one in that category. All-time great tier rebounder and possibly goat tier rim protector as well. One of the better passing bigs too. Middle road scorer but who cares with all the rest.

[Turbo Slayer]

Bill Russell was an all-time elite rebounder. One of the best ever. He led the whole NBA in rebounds 3X straight coming out of his rookie year. He did it again 2X in 1964 and 1965.

Bill Russell is a terror on defense. He anchored the most dominant defensive dynasty of alltime no question.

[j3lademaster]

Great player no doubt, but I do have my doubts about 60s basketball in general. Even if I take that era at face value, based on stats and first hand accounts of of people who were around watching them play (some anecdotal), Wilt is the better player but with a much inferior resume. Even with Wilt’s drop off in the playoffs he heavily outplays Russell in their meetings. I mean, can anyone even imagine what a 34/55 game even looks like? That’s 14-15 boards... a quarter. That’s bullying at the highest level.

I will concede that I’m more about player performance than rings compared to most those, so full disclosure.

[Bronbron23]

Yes? No? Explain why.

Definitely its all about winning. If you have that to go along with accolades and good enough stats its hard to argue against.

And the less teams argument is weak. All it ment was that teams were loaded. Plus now days every year theres only 3-5 contenders anyway. The other teams don't stand a chance so whats the difference?

[Turbo Slayer]

Definitely its all about winning. If you have that to go along with accolades and good enough stats its hard to argue against.

And the less teams argument is weak. All it ment was that teams were loaded. Plus now days every year theres only 3-5 contenders anyway. The other teams don't stand a chance so whats the difference?

There are 30 teams today. Imagine in an alternate dimension, there was 10 teams today. There are 1 superstar in each team.

So there would be 3 superstars on each team. (3 stars on each of the 10 teams, wow!).

Teams would be loaded today.

[Shogon]

He doesn't deserve consideration because he already is the GOAT and it's inarguable.

Anyone who says otherwise is a ****ing moron.

You can't truthfully and genuinely cross compare eras because there are too many complex factors and what if's and but's... you can only look at the results.

The results say he won 11/13 as a pro (one year was his first year as a player coach and the other year he was injured), 2 back to back NCAA titles, 2 back to back HS titles... of those 11 NBA titles one was in his last year in the league and the moment he retired the Celtics promptly missed the playoffs entirely.

I think as kblaze once said... the guy basically didn't win it all but twice after the age of 14 or 15 or something...

To me it's pretty clear that's not just luck and it's not just the era.

The man won. He knew how to win like no one before or since. He understood the psychological impact he could have on his teammates... by playing the way he played.

He used to vomit before games because he would be so hyped up to win.

He is the GOAT. That's all there is to it. It really is that simple.

[coastalmarker99]

He doesn't deserve consideration because he already is the GOAT and it's inarguable.

Anyone who says otherwise is a ****ing moron.

he is not the Goat Wilt is he dominated Russell head to head and he owns the NBA record and is the greatest individual player ever. Wilt was only 9 points away with inferior teams to Russell's from having 6 rings and a 5 to 3 record against Russell in the playoffs and in those game 7's he dominated Russell individually.

I am sorry a centre that shoots 44 per cent from the field and never averaged over 20 points once in their career is not the goat

And also is here is the List of Hall of Fame help that Bill Russell had during his career
1. Bob Cousy
2. Tom Heinsohn
3. Sam Jones
4. Frank Ramsey
5. John Havlicek
6. Clyde Lovellette
7. Arnie Risen
8. Andy Phillip
9. Bill Sharman
10. K.C. Jones
11. Bailey Howell
12. Tom Sanders
He had more help than anyone else in NBA history in a league with 8-14 teams...

Even Elvin Hayes had a season shooting 50 percent and he was a much more prolific (in terms of shooting) scorer than Russell.



Honestly, If Russel had played in the 80's, 90's, and early 2000s, he would not be a top player in the league.

and Also Russell's quote about a past his prime chamberlain who had returned after suffering a career-threatening knee injury

Wilt is playing better then I used to –passing off, coming out to set up screens, picking up guys outside, and sacrificing himself for team play.’’ –Bill Russell, great moments in pro basketball, (by Sam Goldaper)p.24 if Russell admits that a old past his prime chamberlain could do his role better then him then think how much more dominate the Celtics would be with a prime Chamberlain on their teams instead of Russell. Wilt was more efficient and could change his role at will for his teams he did with the sixers and lakers.

[Roundball_Rock]

Yes. I don't see how there can be a legit GOAT discussion without him including. People talk about rings all the time and then exclude the GOAT winner. Moreover, he wasn't just a team winner. He was a 5-time MVP himself, which is as many as MJ, more than LeBron and Wilt and just 1 less than Kareem.


And the less teams argument is weak. All it ment was that teams were loaded. Plus now days every year theres only 3-5 contenders anyway. The other teams don't stand a chance so whats the difference?

Exactly, the main difference is it dilutes teams to make it even easier for superstars to dominate.

[Shogon]

he is not the Goat Wilt is he dominated Russell head to head and he owns the NBA record and is the greatest individual player ever. Wilt was only 9 points away with inferior teams to Russell's from having 6 rings and a 5 to 3 record against Russell in the playoffs and in those game 7's he dominated Russell individually.

I am sorry a centre that shoots 44 per cent from the field and never averaged over 20 points in their career is not the goat

And also is here is the List of Hall of Fame help that Bill Russell had during his career
1. Bob Cousy
2. Tom Heinsohn
3. Sam Jones
4. Frank Ramsey
5. John Havlicek
6. Clyde Lovellette
7. Arnie Risen
8. Andy Phillip
9. Bill Sharman
10. K.C. Jones
11. Bailey Howell
12. Tom Sanders
He had more help than anyone else in NBA history in a league with 8-14 teams...

Even Elvin Hayes had a season shooting 50 percent and he was a much more prolific (in terms of shooting) scorer than Russell.



Honestly, If Russel had played in the 80's, 90's, and early 2000s, he would not be a top player in the league.

Blah blah blah blah blah...

If, if, if... all unprovable.

The results are the results.

Wilt Chamberlain was a better individual physical talent than Bill Russell. There's no disputing that. Chamberlain was more athletically gifted and a better scorer though Russell was no slouch athletically or otherwise. But basketball isn't 1 on 1.

And while that sounds like a cheap way out because it may sound like I'm judging Chamberlain based on what his teammates could or could not help him accomplish, that's not what's happening. Bill Russell elevated his teammates in ways that Chamberlain did not understand until after his career was over. Bill Russell understood it all along which is why he played the way that he did.

Here's Chamberlain, on the record, saying that Bill Russell was a better center than him. And he explains why. https://youtu.be/46RutBTe-as?t=221

[coastalmarker99]

Yes. I don't see how there can be a legit GOAT discussion without him including. People talk about rings all the time and then exclude the GOAT winner. Moreover, he wasn't just a team winner. He was a 5-time MVP himself, which is as many as MJ, more than LeBron and Wilt and just 1 less than Kareem.



Exactly, the main difference is it dilutes teams to make it even easier for superstars to dominate.

The context for Russell's 5 MVP's is important

indeed 1961 the year Russell won the mvp
Wilt averaged 38/27/2 on 51%, leading the league in ppg, rpg, and FG%, leading the Warriors to a 46-33 record, third in the league. The MVP, Bill Russell, didn't even make the all-NBA first team, and Wilt did. The first of many robberies for Wilt.

1962:
Wilt leads the Warriors to a 49-31 record, third in the league, averaging 50/25/2.5 on 51%, leading the league in ppg and rpg. The next closest guy in scoring, Walt Bellamy, was behind by 19 ppg. Again, Wilt made 1st team all-NBA over the MVP, Bill Russell. Highway robbery.

1965:
The Warriors start the season 11-27, and they need to make some changes. They trade Wilt, currently averaging 39/24/3 on 50%, to the Philadelphia 76ers. The Warriors would finish 17-63, going 6-36 in games Wilt didn't play. The Sixers had gone 36-44 the year previous, and

were 21-24 so far without Wilt. They didn't see immediate success, as it took them a while to gel, but they ended up going 19-16 in games Wilt played, and he averaged 30/22/4 on 53%. Russell won MVP leading the Celtics to 62 wins. I think Russell deserved this one. This was a weird year.

in my eyes, Wilt also should have won the MVP in 61, 62, and 64, and there is a case to be made for 1969.

[Phoenix]

He doesn't deserve consideration because he already is the GOAT and it's inarguable.

Anyone who says otherwise is a ****ing moron.

You can't truthfully and genuinely cross compare eras because there are too many complex factors and what if's and but's... you can only look at the results.

The results say he won 11/13 as a pro (one year was his first year as a player coach and the other year he was injured), 2 back to back NCAA titles, 2 back to back HS titles... of those 11 NBA titles one was in his last year in the league and the moment he retired the Celtics promptly missed the playoffs entirely.

I think as kblaze once said... the guy basically didn't win it all but twice after the age of 14 or 15 or something...

To me it's pretty clear that's not just luck and it's not just the era.

The man won. He knew how to win like no one before or since. He understood the psychological impact he could have on his teammates... by playing the way he played.

He used to vomit before games because he would be so hyped up to win.

He is the GOAT. That's all there is to it. It really is that simple.

Especially if he averaged a triple double while doing so.

*runs away*

https://i.gifer.com/R4Rr.gif

[coastalmarker99]

Blah blah blah blah blah...

If, if, if... all unprovable.

The results are the results.

Wilt Chamberlain was a better individual physical talent than Bill Russell. There's no disputing that. Chamberlain was more athletically gifted and a better scorer though Russell was no slouch athletically or otherwise. But basketball isn't 1 on 1.

And while that sounds like a cheap way out because it may sound like I'm judging Chamberlain based on what his teammates could or could not help him accomplish, that's not what's happening. Bill Russell elevated his teammates in ways that Chamberlain did not understand until after his career was over. Bill Russell understood it all along which is why he played the way that he did.

Here's Chamberlain, on the record, saying that Bill Russell was a better center than him. And he explains why. https://youtu.be/46RutBTe-as?t=221

Wilt's FG% and his teammates FG% in first 5 PO series against the Celtics:

Year WC team Mates

1960 .50.0 .37.5

1962 .46.8 .35.4

1964 .51.7 .34.8

1965 .55.5 .38.2

1966 .50.9 .35.2

Gee, I wonder why Wilt took so many of his team's shots during his first seven years

Also as well Overall FG% in 49 PO games: .50.8 Wilt .38.7 Wilt's teammates

.41.7 Russell .40.6 Russ' teammates

Also, Russ' mates were much better FT shooters in the 49 PO games: .77.3 Russ' mates .72.8 Wilt's

Bill Russell's teammates shot better from the line because Bill Russell a known poor foul shooter gave them tips and encouragement to improve their percentage/s.

94 meetings between Russell and Wilt in the regular season and 49 in the playoffs, here are the numbers:

Wilt put up 30/28/4 on 49% FG to Russell's 14/23/4 on 37% FG. In the playoffs, those numbers go to Wilt averaging 26/28/4 on 51% FG to Russell's 15/24/5 on 41% FG.

Saying that Russell is greater than Wilt would be like saying Draymond is greater than Barkley because he won more. It is stupid and totally glosses over who was hands down BY A MILE, the better player.

[coastalmarker99]

Blah blah blah blah blah...

If, if, if... all unprovable.

The results are the results.

Wilt Chamberlain was a better individual physical talent than Bill Russell. There's no disputing that. Chamberlain was more athletically gifted and a better scorer though Russell was no slouch athletically or otherwise. But basketball isn't 1 on 1.

And while that sounds like a cheap way out because it may sound like I'm judging Chamberlain based on what his teammates could or could not help him accomplish, that's not what's happening. Bill Russell elevated his teammates in ways that Chamberlain did not understand until after his career was over. Bill Russell understood it all along which is why he played the way that he did.

Here's Chamberlain, on the record, saying that Bill Russell was a better center than him. And he explains why. https://youtu.be/46RutBTe-as?t=221

And They played against each other in 8 playoff years: 49 games. Those same years, Wilt played 46 playoff games against other teams/centers. The results Wilt's P/G vs. others in PO in 8 years was 26.5 Wilt's P/G vs. Russell in PO in 8 years was 25.7

So Russell held Wilt to 0.8 fewer P/G

Rebounds: 24.6 (vs. others) vs. 28.4 (vs. Russ) Wilt had 3.8 MORE rebounds vs. Russ than vs.others

TS%: . 52.9 vs. .51.8 Russell held him to 1% lower shooting

Russell vs. Others & vs. Wilt in PO in 8 years Russell P/G: 16.5 (vs. others) 14.9 (vs. Wilt) Wilt held Russell to 1.6 fewer P/G

Russell R/G: 23.8 (vs. Others) vs. 24.7 (vs. Wilt) Russell had 0.9 more rebounds

Russell TS%: .50.8 (vs. others) vs .456 Russell had 5% lower shooting efficiency vs. Wilt

Wilt also averaged more FTA/FGA against Russ than against other centers in the PO: .52 vs .60

Russell averaged fewer FTA/FGA against Wilt: .56 vs .37

Wilt averaged 2.5 fouls per game against Russ and 2.5 vs. others. Russell averaged 3.3 PF/G vs. others and 4.1 vs. Wilt.

Overall, Wilt vs. Russell as % of Wilt vs. others: P/G 97% Rb/G 114% A/G 84% FG% 94% FT% 114% TS% 98% FTA/FGA 115% PF/G 101%

Except for assists--which are dependent on teammates making their shots--Wilt's numbers were basically the same against Russ Russ vs. Wilt as % Russ vs. others P/G 90% Rb/G 104% A/G 98% FG% 90% FT% 99% FTA/FGA67% TS% 90% PF/G 124%

Except for rebounds, Russell's numbers were worse in every category

Thus, Wilt held down Russell more than Russ held down Wilt in the PO in those 8 years.



Wilt fans say he dominated Russ individually but that Russ’s teammates outplayed Wilt’s. I will look at the actual record, series by series and game by game.

I examined all 49 PO games. I tracked data in four categories: TS%, Pts, Reb, Ast.

The overall data showed this: PTS: Wilt: 43-6 (Wilt had more points than BR in 43 games vs. 6 games for Russ.) REB: Wilt: 32-18 (1 tie) AST: BR: 27-15 (7 ties) TS%: Wilt: 32-17

I figured out Russ/Wilt’s teammates’ data by subtracting Russ/Wilt’s stats from team stats.

PTS: BR's teammates: 40-9 (BR teammates had more points than Wilt's in 40 of those games, vs. 9 for Wilt's mates.) REB: BR teammates, 33-15 (1 tie) AST: BR teammates: 28-16-5 TS%: BR teammates, 26-23

Celtics were 29-20 against Wilt's teams in the playoffs, and four-game 7's against him by a total combined margin of 9 points think about that if 10 points goes Wilt's way then he has 6 rings and Russell now has 7 rings.

[Shogon]

Stats, stats, stats.

If, if, if.

lol, lol, lol.

[86Celtics]

Greatest winner of all time, greatest defensive player of all time. Of course he is the discussion.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Stats, stats, stats.

If, if, if.

lol, lol, lol.

How many rings does it take for numbers to suddenly become irrelevant? Because you Lebron fans argue stats ALL THE TIME.

That poster is doing the same thing for Wilt. Again, why are numbers irrelevant now?

Russell won more than Wilt. Sure. He also played with more teammates who would've been HOFers...without him.

[coastalmarker99]

How many rings does it take for numbers to suddenly become irrelevant? Because you Lebron fans argue stats ALL THE TIME.

That poster is doing the same thing for Wilt. Again, why are numbers irrelevant now?

Russell won more than Wilt. Sure. He also played with more teammates who would've been HOFers...without him.

exactly like John Havlicek and if for him not being hurt in the 1973 Ecf the celtics might won the title 4 years after Russell retired and they also won the title in 1974 and 1976 and had the best record in the Nba in 1975 you can not argue that Russel did not have a stacked team and the nba's best front office with Red helping him out a great deal.

if you gave Russell a different team and supporting cast his impact would have not been so high as it was on the Celtics he was in the perfect situation for him as a highly great role player who had to only focus on one side of the floor compared to Wilt who had to do everything for his teams to stand a chance like LeBron had to do against golden state.

[Whoah10115]

He doesn't deserve consideration because he already is the GOAT and it's inarguable.

Anyone who says otherwise is a ****ing moron.

You can't truthfully and genuinely cross compare eras because there are too many complex factors and what if's and but's... you can only look at the results.

The results say he won 11/13 as a pro (one year was his first year as a player coach and the other year he was injured), 2 back to back NCAA titles, 2 back to back HS titles... of those 11 NBA titles one was in his last year in the league and the moment he retired the Celtics promptly missed the playoffs entirely.

I think as kblaze once said... the guy basically didn't win it all but twice after the age of 14 or 15 or something...

To me it's pretty clear that's not just luck and it's not just the era.

The man won. He knew how to win like no one before or since. He understood the psychological impact he could have on his teammates... by playing the way he played.

He used to vomit before games because he would be so hyped up to win.

He is the GOAT. That's all there is to it. It really is that simple.

Bill Russell's Son said Jordan was better, and Russell agreed.

[BigShotBob]

But.....Russell wouldn't have won against Jordan. So Jordan's the GOAT.

But yes Russell is in the discussion.

[AirBonner]

But.....Russell wouldn't have won against Jordan. So Jordan's the GOAT.

But yes Russell is in the discussion.

Russell was like Hakeem but on steroids. Russell would have MJ known as the Wilt of sg’s.

[Turbo Slayer]

But.....Russell wouldn't have won against Jordan. So Jordan's the GOAT.

But yes Russell is in the discussion. No. Size is more important than skill in a 1v1. Russell would have no problems guarding MJ inside and outside because Russell height is 6' 10" and his wingspan is a freakish 7' 4".

Michael Jordan is only 6' 4" in height so Russell has a 6 inch advantage over him.

And in a 5v5 game if you insert Bill Russell into the Celtics today and insert MJ to the NYK, the Celtics are going to dominate the Knicks.

[Roundball_Rock]

The context for Russell's 5 MVP's is important

I'm on your side generally speaking about Wilt and giving proper due to older players. What I meant about the 5 MVP's is if we are starting out a GOAT discussion we can't exclude Russell. The thing people always say is he wasn't dominant. 5 MVP's isn't dominant? (I agree Wilt>Russell BTW).


exactly like John Havlicek and if for him not being hurt in the 1973 Ecf the celtics might won the title 4 years after Russell retired

True, but let's remember the Celtics went from champs to missing the playoffs after Russell retired. They got bad, were able to draft Dave Cowens as a result and then became good in the 70's with Havlicek, Cowens leading the way.

[SouBeachTalents]

If you could have a player for one playoff run, are you really taking Russell over peak Jordan, Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem, LeBron etc.?

[coastalmarker99]

If you could have a player for one playoff run, are you really taking Russell over peak Jordan, Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem, LeBron etc.?

Hell no and anyone who says they would is out of their mind the 4 four players I would take over everyone is one a peak wilt in 1967 and LeBron as well along with Jordan and Kareem in 1977 and Shaq in the early 2000's there are at least 10 to 20 players I would take over Russell for a peak playoff run as well

[Carbine]

One quote that really stood out to me in Russell's book about leadership was this.

He once grabbed a rebound and started the fastbreak himself. He knew he could do this aspect of the game as good or better than Cousy could at the time, but afterwards he thought that by him doing the fastbreak himself off a rebound it was going to take away from Cousy's game. Afterall, he was known as the fast break PG of the era.

So he stopped doing it. By adding another facet to his game he was in turn taking away something from another. If he kept doing it, maybe it causes turmoil, jealousy, etc.

That shows you the kind of mindset he had. He was never about himself, he was always about what was best for his teammates - a chameleon.

[Carbine]

Hell no and anyone who says they would is out of their mind the 4 four players I would take over everyone is one a peak wilt in 1967 and LeBron as well along with Jordan and Kareem in 1977 and Shaq in the early 2000's there are at least 10 to 20 players I would take over Russell for a peak playoff run as well

That's now how the GOAT works. I don't think many people look at GOAT as who you would take for a playoff run first overall - it's about a careers worth of play, or at very least an extended period of play. 8-10 years

[BigShotBob]

Russell was like Hakeem but on steroids. Russell would have MJ known as the Wilt of sg’s.

Defensively Russell was better but offensively Hakeem was better.


No. Size is more important than skill in a 1v1. Russell would have no problems guarding MJ inside and outside because Russell height is 6' 10" and his wingspan is a freakish 7' 4".

Michael Jordan is only 6' 4" in height so Russell has a 6 inch advantage over him.

And in a 5v5 game if you insert Bill Russell into the Celtics today and insert MJ to the NYK, the Celtics are going to dominate the Knicks.

MJ's 6'6 not 6'4.

And just because Russell might be able to win more than MJ (since bigs in general have more impact than guards in a 5 v 5 setting) doesn't mean that he's the better player. MJ in '86-88 was better than Magic, Bird, and Isiah but he didn't win as much because the Bulls were the traveling cocaine circus.

With all things being equal (both with Knicks-like casts) MJ runs roughshod on him.

[Carbine]

BTW, someone in here mentioned about peers.

Bob Pettit, Jerry West and Phil Jackson have all recently said they would start a team with Bill Russell. There isn't 3 more powerful names from that era than those guys. Just FYI.

[Carbine]

Defensively Russell was better but offensively Hakeem was better.



MJ's 6'6 not 6'4.

And just because Russell might be able to win more than MJ (since bigs in general have more impact than guards in a 5 v 5 setting) doesn't mean that he's the better player. MJ in '86-88 was better than Magic, Bird, and Isiah but he didn't win as much because the Bulls were the traveling cocaine circus.

With all things being equal (both with Knicks-like casts) MJ runs roughshod on him.

He was measured 6'4 and 1/2 he is definitly not 6'6

[coastalmarker99]

Defensively Russell was better but offensively Hakeem was better.



MJ's 6'6 not 6'4.

And just because Russell might be able to win more than MJ (since bigs in general have more impact than guards in a 5 v 5 setting) doesn't mean that he's the better player. MJ in '86-88 was better than Magic, Bird, and Isiah but he didn't win as much because the Bulls were the traveling cocaine circus.

With all things being equal (both with Knicks-like casts) MJ runs roughshod on him.

Agreed we saw it with Wilt in 1967 against Russell when he had a team to back him up that could match Russell's and he dominated him and beat him in 5 and it took injuries to the 76ers in 1968 for the Celtics to win otherwise Russell would have gone home in 5 again vs Wilt when Wilt had a great team around him. It would be the same for Jordan against Russell.

[BigShotBob]

He was measured 6'4 and 1/2 he is definitly not 6'6

With shoes he's 6'6

[Roundball_Rock]

That's now how the GOAT works. I don't think many people look at GOAT as who you would take for a playoff run first overall - it's about a careers worth of play, or at very least an extended period of play. 8-10 years

Yeah, the way I always look at GOATs (in any sport) is if I am starting a team from scratch who am I taking with my first pick? I don't know who the rest of the team will be. All I know is get the player they were during their career.

So if we are talking a team from scratch are you more likely to succeed with Russell or a Hakeem or Shaq? Give me Russell. Consistency matters.

People point to Russell's offense but forget offense is more than scoring. He was top 10 in assists several times in his career. Sure, he wasn't a great scorer but he was great at every other facet of the game. I can get why he is polarizing but it is no coincidence he won wherever he went.

[dankok8]

Russell 2 of 2 NCAA titles, 1 of 1 Olympics, and 11 of 13 NBA titles in his basketball career. Haters can make all the excuses they want to. Russell has a great case for GOAT.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Absolutely not, his offense game isn't great enough. Basically a Kevin Garnett type player.

Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, Kareem are all big men you take ahead of him.

Wing players you take Jordan, Lebron, Kawhi over him.

[Stephonit]

No he doesn't deserve consideration. Too much of a threat to the modern NBA with its narratives and mythologies based on media marketing hype.

[HylianNightmare]

Yes. Rings. Pretty simple. Theres like 6 or 7 names that are all acceptable goat answers depending on when you were born

[fourkicks44]

Even Bill Russell himself is the first one to tell you it was a white boys league back then.

More stronger than the mechanics argument is fact the league was weaker because the one brother permitted on each team were only tokens for the Cracker crowds.

Not disputing his greatness but context is need.

[Horatio33]

Absolutely not, his offense game isn't great enough. Basically a Kevin Garnett type player.

You do know Garnett won MVP and averaged over 20ppg for quite a few seasons. Good post up game, ran the floor like a guard, good outside shooter, really athletic.

[HylianNightmare]

You do know Garnett won MVP and averaged over 20ppg for quite a few seasons. Good post up game, ran the floor like a guard, good outside shooter, really athletic.

And Russell could get it done offensively he had what like 6 guys that at one point or another made an all star game on his team? Pretty sure Billy could've put up offensive numbers.

[light]

Yes? No? Explain why.

Of course he deserves consideration. There is no question about that. He will always be in the conversation.

[Psileas]

Do you think the Celtics' greatness, all-time, should really get compared more to the greatness of the Lakers or to the Warriors, Bulls and Spurs? If you belong to the first category, then, yes, it's inevitable Russell should be in the consideration.

[Carbine]

Spurs shouldn't be on that list. They never repeated.

You can't be one of the sports all time dynasty without that notch on your belt. And I'm a Spurs fan.

[Phoenix]

The best case for Russell, simply, is winning. He facilitated it at every level in a way that's unequalled. There's lots of players where the sum of their game is greater. Or better stats. He'll never win that argument. His play simply led to unparalleled winning. Could you throw circumstances in there like number of teams and first round byes for the champs and all that? Sure. But every era has it's own conditions. He had the same hill to climb as everyone else.

That's his case. Do I think he's GOAT? No, but he brings a unique proposition to the table when discussing it.

[jlip]

Let me see... Tied with MJ for the second most league MVPs in NBA history (highest individual award), multiple rebounding titles (statistical domination... Let me guess. Only shot jacking, I mean...scoring titles count.), one of the best passing big men in the history of the game, arguably the greatest defensive player in NBA history,
elevated his game depending on the magnitude of the moment, and I haven't even gotten to championships yet of which he coached himself to two of them.

[Wally450]

Some people will have him as their GOAT. I have him at 4.

[Real14]

Him and Wilt don't deserve consideration because of the terrible competition they had in their era. End thread.

[Carbine]

That's something I never understood.

Russell played against Wilt.

Wilt then played against Kareem and more than held his own.

Old Kareem played against Hakeem and did fine.

Hakeem played against Shaq and was still Hakeem.

Shaq played against Duncan....

Duncan played against AD.....

[Turbo Slayer]

Him and Wilt don't deserve consideration because of the terrible competition they had in their era. End thread.

Then explain why in the Boston Celtics 11 championships runs (I'm talking specifically Finals series) they were pushed to 7 games 5-6 times and pushed to a Game 6 3 times. Competition was real back then.

Allow me to simplify things for you.

Imagine there is 10 teams today. Today there is 1 star on each team (so essentially 30 stars in the league today) and you as the commissioner reduce the # of teams to 10 teams in total. So there would be give or take THREE stars on each of the 10 teams.

It would have been WAY more competitive if there was 10 teams today since the talent pool was smaller and more concentrated. Since there are 30 teams today in the modern era there is more of a talent disparity today then it was in the 1960's b/c scrubs and poor talented can get in easily today when it was way harder back then.

But don't take my word for it. Here is what Bill Russell had to say about the matter regarding competition back then and now.


"If there was 12 teams, you couldn't have won that championship" - Bill Russell


"There was 80 jobs in professional basketball, so a lot of good players didn't make it there" - Bill Russell

[Turbo Slayer]

Every team back then in the 1960's was like the 2017-2019 Warriors. They were all superteams some better and some worse.

Bill Russell had to face off against other great centers including: Bob Petit, Wilt, Jerry Lucas, Willis Reed, and Wes Unseld.

[Turbo Slayer]

Let me see... Tied with MJ for the second most league MVPs in NBA history (highest individual award), multiple rebounding titles (statistical domination... Let me guess. Only shot jacking, I mean...scoring titles count.), one of the best passing big men in the history of the game, arguably the greatest defensive player in NBA history,
elevated his game depending on the magnitude of the moment, and I haven't even gotten to championships yet of which he coached himself to two of them. :applause:

[Axe]

Every team back then in the 1960's was like the 2017-2019 Warriors. They were all superteams some better and some worse.
The lakers simply aren't one of those teams. :oldlol:

[3ball]

.
Good team ORtg's (good team offense) didn't occur in Russell's day because there was no spacing.. but once the 3-point line was instituted, all 40 league MVP's have been dominant offensive players, so we know Russell wouldn't be MVP-caliber in the modern era, 3-pointer basketball

Since Russell isn't MVP-caliber, we conclude that MJ's 6 rings as the best player is the goat modern accomplishment (twice as many as anyone else)

[Axe]

.
Good team ORtg's (good team offense) didn't occur in Russell's day because there was no spacing.. but once the 3-point line was instituted, all 40 league MVP's have been dominant offensive players, so we know Russell wouldn't be MVP-caliber in the modern era, 3-pointer basketball

Since Russell isn't MVP-caliber, we conclude that MJ's 6 rings as the best player is the goat modern accomplishment (twice as many as anyone else)
Dude, stfu with your ridiculous stanning.

[3ball]

Dude, stfu with your ridiculous stanning.

How could Russell be MVP-caliber in 3-pointer basketball if all 40 MVP's since the line was instituted are dominant offensive players?

Since Russell isn't MVP-caliber, MJ's 6 rings as the best player is the goat modern accomplishment (twice as many as anyone else)

[Axe]

How could Russell be MVP-caliber in 3-pointer basketball if all 40 MVP's since the line was instituted are dominant offensive players?

Since Russell isn't MVP-caliber, MJ's 6 rings as the best player is the goat modern accomplishment (twice as many as anyone else)
Fmvps are nice but it ain't everything.

[3ball]

Fmvps are nice but it ain't everything.

No, I said regular MVP's

The last 40 regular season MVP's were dominant offensive players (since the 3-point line was instituted)

How could Russell be MVP-caliber in 3-pointer basketball if all 40 MVP's since the line was instituted are dominant offensive players?

Since Russell isn't MVP-caliber, MJ's 6 rings as the best player is the goat modern accomplishment (twice as many as anyone else)

[Duncan21formvp]

Russell went to a team from the get go with the 2nd best record in the league. It's like if MJ had gone to the Pistons in 1985 with Isiah there when the Pistons had the 4th best record in the East the season prior at 49-33 (1984). The Pistons in 1985 with MJ would have probably started winning titles immediately.


In 1957 Russell had 2 guys on his team that were 1st team in Cousy and Sharman while he himself did not even make any All NBA team. Also Heinsohn in his 1st year made the allstar team while Russell did not and it was Heinsohn who was ROY over Russell that year, not to mention the C's also had the league MVP on his team in Cousy.

Not to mention that for the C's first 8 titles you only had to win 2 playoff series and you were the champion.

[HoopsNY]

I'm on your side generally speaking about Wilt and giving proper due to older players. What I meant about the 5 MVP's is if we are starting out a GOAT discussion we can't exclude Russell. The thing people always say is he wasn't dominant. 5 MVP's isn't dominant? (I agree Wilt>Russell BTW).



True, but let's remember the Celtics went from champs to missing the playoffs after Russell retired. They got bad, were able to draft Dave Cowens as a result and then became good in the 70's with Havlicek, Cowens leading the way.

I'm not sure it's all that simple. For one, the Celtics won just 48 games the previous season and were pushed to 7 games in the finals against the Lakers. And not only did Russell retire, but so did Sam Jones, another HOF'er.

Add that with reduced production from Bailey Howell (another HOF'er), who went from almost 20/9 to 13/7, and it makes sense why they saw a considerable drop off from what they were able to do the previous season. Also, since Russell was the coach and Tom Heinsohn replaced him, I'm sure that shifted things a bit. In other words, it's complicated.

[HoopsNY]

Russell went to a team from the get go with the 2nd best record in the league. It's like if MJ had gone to the Pistons in 1985 with Isiah there when the Pistons had the 4th best record in the East the season prior at 49-33 (1984). The Pistons in 1985 with MJ would have probably started winning titles immediately.


In 1957 Russell had 2 guys on his team that were 1st team in Cousy and Sharman while he himself did not even make any All NBA team. Also Heinsohn in his 1st year made the allstar team while Russell did not and it was Heinsohn who was ROY over Russell that year, not to mention the C's also had the league MVP on his team in Cousy.

Not to mention that for the C's first 8 titles you only had to win 2 playoff series and you were the champion.

Solid points

[Axe]

How could Russell be MVP-caliber in 3-pointer basketball if all 40 MVP's since the line was instituted are dominant offensive players?

Since Russell isn't MVP-caliber, MJ's 6 rings as the best player is the goat modern accomplishment (twice as many as anyone else)
Doesn't mean that russell can't be a goat in his own ways tho

[Reggie43]

Definitely deserves it.

[Roundball_Rock]

The Celtics were 39-33 when he got there. Win totals weren't inflated the way they would later become with expansion. The third best record was 37-35.

The Celtics won Russell's first year and basically didn't stop winning while he was there. 11 in 13 years, and one loss was due to Russell getting hurt.

The Celtics went from champs to missing the playoffs altogether when Russell retired. That isn't having a great impact?

[Overdrive]

Sam Jones retired the same year.

Judging by Russell's career arch he was definately the most impactful player ever, but I've seen too few clips, not even talking about games, to judge him as a player.

Going by accolades he's definately in the mix.

[Manny98]

all Bill Russell has is rings

as a basketball player he doesn't come close to Jordan or Bron

[Axe]

Some bball geeks just don't realize that, apart from being a perennial leader playing for his finalist team, russell also became a head coach of the celtics at the same time in his last two titles. :oldlol:

[Turbo Slayer]

all Bill Russell has is rings

as a basketball player he doesn't come close to Jordan or Bron Bill Russell's defense is WAY better than MJ's or LeBron's. Saying that "he doesn't come close to Jordan or Bron" is a ignorant take.

Bill Russell's teams led the league in defense for 12 out of 13 years. Find me another team or dynasty that can do this.

[HoopsNY]

The Celtics were 39-33 when he got there. Win totals weren't inflated the way they would later become with expansion. The third best record was 37-35.

The Celtics won Russell's first year and basically didn't stop winning while he was there. 11 in 13 years, and one loss was due to Russell getting hurt.

The Celtics went from champs to missing the playoffs altogether when Russell retired. That isn't having a great impact?

It definitely is, but the drop off in 1969 comes with a combination of things that I made mention of before.

1) Russell retires
2) Sam Jones retires
3) Howell's production drops off
4) Tom Heinsohn replaces Russell as coach

Another poster mentioned that Russell also came into a great situation. Boston already had the league's MVP, was a playoff team, with other All-NBA level players.

[Roundball_Rock]

Every team had great players. That is the advantage of a smaller league. Just imagine if there were 8 teams instead of 30. Look at how rosters would change. For one, you would have the worst 330 players (using 15 man rosters) removed from the game altogether. That would leave the 120 best. In other words, dozens of players who are currently starters would be buried as the 10th-12th men in an 8 team league.

[Axe]

Bill Russell's defense is WAY better than MJ's or LeBron's. Saying that "he doesn't come close to Jordan or Bron" is a ignorant take.

Bill Russell's teams led the league in defense for 12 out of 13 years. Find me another team or dynasty that can do this.
Bill had his own forte as a legend. Some geeks in ish are just plain clueless. :confusedshrug:

[Axe]

It definitely is, but the drop off in 1969 comes with a combination of things that I made mention of before.

1) Russell retires
2) Sam Jones retires
3) Howell's production drops off
4) Tom Heinsohn replaces Russell as coach

Another poster mentioned that Russell also came into a great situation. Boston already had the league's MVP, was a playoff team, with other All-NBA level players.
Winning every title in the 60s sans '67 is a very tiresome task but that's only natural because a dynasty can never last for an eternity.

[HoopsNY]

Winning every title in the 60s sans '67 is a very tiresome task but that's only natural because a dynasty can never last for an eternity.

Without question his impact cannot be ignored. But it would be naive to think he walked into a situation that was like Lebron's or Mj's. Russell had top tier management, coaching, and teammates. He's top 10 in my mind, but isn't considered GOAT.

[Axe]

Without question his impact cannot be ignored. But it would be naive to think he walked into a situation that was like Lebron's or Mj's. Russell had top tier management, coaching, and teammates. He's top 10 in my mind, but isn't considered GOAT.
Well, surely they had a lot of hofs there in that dynasty but the duo of russell and auerbach are mostly responsible for their success during the decade.

[Roundball_Rock]

Without question his impact cannot be ignored. But it would be naive to think he walked into a situation that was like Lebron's or Mj's. Russell had top tier management, coaching, and teammates. He's top 10 in my mind, but isn't considered GOAT.

True but Magic, Duncan, Kobe walked into arguably even more favorable situations and that is never held against them.

Yeah, the Celtics lost Russell and Sam Jones but they also gained JoJo White and still had a total of 3 HOF players (essentially the loss was Russell, if you argue White replaced Jones). That included Havlicek right in his best years at 29 years old in 70'.

The coaching change doesn't explain much. They won 2 chips with Heinsohn and made the finals or ECF 5 years in a row with him.


Howell's production drops off

Havlicek's went up--he went from shooting 40.5% to 46.4%. So did Don Nelson's. He went 7th in minutes to 3rd, his scoring from 11.6 to 15.4. So we can't just look at what went down and ignore the gains that happened.

In total, their top players were young. Havlicek 29, Sanders 31, Nelson 29, Siegfried 30, Howell 33, White 23. Yet they could not rise to the occasion to limit the void? We hear all the time on ISH that if Team X lost a legend and had a young core, they would not falloff much due to youth. So what happened?