For a culture that only values rings and MVP's why isn't Russell seen as the Goat.

[coastalmarker99]

For someone who won 11 rings and had a lot of great finals performances, it is strange that Russell rarely gets bought up in the Goat debate nowadays.


As If Wilt or Kareem his two main rivals in the GOAT center debate hypothetically had even remotely close to the same titles as Russell has.


Let's say 8 to 9 titles they would be seen by 99% percent of people nowadays as the undisputed Goat regardless of the era they played in.


You could make the argument that if Russel had even averaged 23 to 25 PPG for his career despite winning fewer rings than he did in reality.


Let's say 9 rings that he would get ranked a lot more as the Goat.

[TheGoatest]

I agree that anyone who ever says "rings" in an argument for GOAT and doesn't have Russell as the GOAT is a desperate hypocrite. Personally, I don't. It feels good to know that you don't need to immediately adjust your criteria for GOATness in desperation whenever someone mentions a particular player.

[Spurs m8]

You guys just REALLY don't get it....do you?

[1987_Lakers]

Cause he played a super long time ago and most fans aren't very knowledgeable when it comes to past players.

People always use the "his offense sucked" excuse to why he shouldn't be in the convo, which I guess is a fair point even though his offense wasn't bad per say, but these same people have no idea just how dominant he was on the defensive end.

The data suggests that he was the most dominant defensive player in NBA history by far and it isn't even close, that to me means something.

[coastalmarker99]

Cause he played a super long time ago and most fans aren't very knowledgeable when it comes to past players.

People always use the "his offense sucked" excuse to why he shouldn't be in the convo, which I guess is a fair point even though his offense wasn't bad per say, but these same people have no idea just how dominant he was on the defensive end.

The data suggests that he was the most dominant defensive player in NBA history by far and it isn't even close, that to me means something.

Do you think it would a lot harder for the modern-day fan to dismiss Russell even with 9 rings instead of 11 had he posted greater PPG numbers for his career and in the finals?

Personally the main difference would be that rings+high scoring = more valid GOAT argument, at least going by the logic of modern fans.

People constantly use Russell's low scoring as a slight against him, so as not to have him as a valid GOAT candidate.


They wouldn't be able to do this against Russell and it wouldn't matter even if Russell won a little less than 11 titles because very few would dare assume that others would be able to win more in Russell's place.


So, they would have to bring Russell's era even lower than they already try to.

As he would have the best Finals resume ever which is the Holy Grail of modern fans arguments.

Their second best argument would be if Boston happened to lose some Finals' series and there might appear some "6/6 > 9/12" crap here and there, but that's totally ridiculous and even most casual fans try to find something better to come up with.

[kawhileonard2]

Russell only had to win 2 series for a title. From 1985 forward you had to win 4 series for a title. Imagine coming into the league playing with the guy who won league mvp and was ROY on your squad.

[1987_Lakers]

Do you think it would a lot harder for the modern-day fan to dismiss Russell even with 9 rings instead of 11 had he posted greater PPG numbers for his career and in the finals?

Personally the main difference would be that rings+high scoring = more valid GOAT argument, at least going by the logic of modern fans.

People constantly use Russell's low scoring as a slight against him, so as not to have him as a valid GOAT candidate.


They wouldn't be able to do this against Russell and it wouldn't matter even if Russell won a little less than 11 titles because very few would dare assume that others would be able to win more in Russell's place.


So, they would have to bring Russell's era even lower than they already try to.

As he would have the best Finals resume ever which is the Holy Grail of modern fans arguments.

Their second best argument would be if Boston happened to lose some Finals' series and there might appear some "6/6 > 9/12" crap here and there, but that's totally ridiculous and even most casual fans try to find something better to come up with.

If you put Russell in today's NBA and he dominated the defensive end like he did in the 60's, won all these titles there is no doubt some people would have him as the GOAT.

People would see for themselves just how dominant of a defender he was. In his prime he was pretty much leading Boston to historic defensive numbers year in and year out. If people saw just how dominant he was on that end with their own eyes they would understand how good of a player he is.

The problem is there was no defensive stats back then, and there is still not alot of defensive stats today, to judge how good of a defender you are... you have to watch them. Fans just use stats to judge past players (mostly offensive stats) and come up with a dumb conclusion to how they were as a player, judging Bill Russell by just stats is the worst thing you could possibly do.

[TheGoatest]

You guys just REALLY don't get it....do you?

No, we don't. Please explains to us the true formula for what makes a GOAT, in similar fashion to this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=133UlXRYIeg

[kawhileonard2]

If you put Russell in today's NBA and he dominated the defensive end like he did in the 60's, won all these titles there is no doubt some people would have him as the GOAT.

People would see for themselves just how dominant of a defender he was. In his prime he was pretty much leading Boston to historic defensive numbers year in and year out. If people saw just how dominant he was on that end with their own eyes they would understand how good of a player he is.

The problem is there was no defensive stats back then, and there is still not alot of defensive stats today, to judge how good of a defender you are... you have to watch them. Fans just use stats to judge past players (mostly offensive stats) and come up with a dumb conclusion to how they were as a player, judging Bill Russell by just stats is the worst thing you could possibly do.

Russell had a guy who averaged 28 ppg and 28 rpg on him. No on did that on Joakim Noah.

[1987_Lakers]

Russell had a guy who averaged 28 ppg and 28 rpg on him. No on did that on Joakim Noah.

28/28 in the 60's is not the same as 28 ppg and 28 rpg in 2022. You post on realgm, I'm sure that has been discussed there many times, you should know this.

[Axe]

Probably because russell was a selfless type of player, kinda like pippen. He prioritized winning and elevating his own teammates for a long time instead of hogging the ball to carve out eye-catching stats for himself. Also, players who end their careers averaging more than 22 ppg usually tend to be more decorated too, thus attracting media and the fans alike. But russell obviously isn't that type of guy.

[coastalmarker99]

Russell had a guy who averaged 28 ppg and 28 rpg on him. No on did that on Joakim Noah.

What made Russell such a beast on defence was his help defence not one on one defence.



I am going to take a look at Wilt's teammates' offensive performances vs non-Celtic teams in the playoffs.

1960 vs Nationals Arizin averages 30 PPG on 50% and the Warriors as an entire team shoot 42%

Now against Boston in the ECF Wilt's teammates collectively shoot 34.45 from the field and Arizin is held to 24 PPG on 39%.

1961 vs Nationals Wilt's teammates collectively shoot .33.2 from the field.

1962 vs Nationals Wilt's teammates collectively shoot 33.26 from the field.

Now against Boston in the ECF Wilt's teammates collectively shoot 31.31 from the field.


1964 vs Hawks Wilt's teammates collectively shoot 41.25 from the field.

Now against Boston in the finals, Wilt's teammates collectively shoot 40.7 from the field.


1965 vs Royals Wilt's teammates collectively shoot 45.96 from the field.

Now against Boston in the ECF Wilt's teammates collectively shoot 36.16 from the field.


1967 vs Royals Wilt's teammates collectively shoot 44.1 from the field.

Now against Boston in the ECF Wilt's teammates collectively shoot 40.81 from the field.

[Mask the Embiid]

He was playing with like 7 other hall of famers on his team.

It was only like 10 teams in the league

There was no free agency so if you had the best team in the league one year…..you would most likely have the best team in the league the next year

That 3 is enough. Could give a dozen reasons why most ppl don’t consider him the goat.

[kawhileonard2]

What made Russell such a beast on defence was his help defence not one on one defence.



I am going to take a look at Wilt's teammates' offensive performances vs non-Celtic teams in the playoffs.

1960 vs Nationals Arizin averages 30 PPG on 50% and the Warriors as an entire team shoot 42%

Now against Boston in the ECF Wilt's teammates collectively shoot 34.45 from the field and Arizin is held to 24 PPG on 39%.

1961 vs Nationals Wilt's teammates collectively shoot .33.2 from the field.

1962 vs Nationals Wilt's teammates collectively shoot 33.26 from the field.

Now against Boston in the ECF Wilt's teammates collectively shoot 31.31 from the field.


1964 vs Hawks Wilt's teammates collectively shoot 41.25 from the field.

Now against Boston in the finals, Wilt's teammates collectively shoot 40.7 from the field.


1965 vs Royals Wilt's teammates collectively shoot 45.96 from the field.

Now against Boston in the ECF Wilt's teammates collectively shoot 36.16 from the field.


1967 vs Royals Wilt's teammates collectively shoot 44.1 from the field.

Now against Boston in the ECF Wilt's teammates collectively shoot 40.81 from the field.

Again Russell only had to win 2 series for a title. He also had a guy who averaged 28 ppg and 28 rpg on his. No one ever did that to Joakim Noah. Came into the league playing with ROY and league mvp as well.

[bison]

Gee, it’s almost like a players all time ranking isn’t determined by one single metric alone. Almost as if it’s actually a combination of not only various metrics, but also things like context and cultural impact that can’t be measured by numbers alone.

[1987_Lakers]

He was playing with like 7 other hall of famers on his team.


Some of those guys made the hall of fame strictly by playing with Russell. K.C. Jones, Frank Ramsey, & Tom Sanders never made an All-star team but all are in the HOF.

Lets also keep in mind the Lakers by far had the best duo in West & Baylor and still always lost to Russell, the '62 Lakers had 4 players who made the All-star team that year and lost.

Russell was a huge underdog in '69 but still won.

[1987_Lakers]

Russell did infact have the best overall cast throughout the 60's, but the perception of him playing with a stacked cast compared to the rest of the league is a myth. They were far from the 2017 Warriors.

Lots of teams had multiple hall of famers, even if they were just an average team. The '65 Royals with Oscar Robertson had 4 hall of famers in their prime but they didn't even win 50 games.

[iamgine]

For someone who won 11 rings and had a lot of great finals performances, it is strange that Russell rarely gets bought up in the Goat debate nowadays.


As If Wilt or Kareem his two main rivals in the GOAT center debate hypothetically had even remotely close to the same titles as Russell has.


Let's say 8 to 9 titles they would be seen by 99% percent of people nowadays as the undisputed Goat regardless of the era they played in.


You could make the argument that if Russel had even averaged 23 to 25 PPG for his career despite winning fewer rings than he did in reality.


Let's say 9 rings that he would get ranked a lot more as the Goat.

Well you answered it yourself actually. Russell has the rings but he's not seen as MVP. He's more often seen as having a stacked team.

[Axe]

Russell did infact have the best overall cast throughout the 60's, but the perception of him playing with a stacked cast compared to the rest of the league is a myth. They were far from the 2017 Warriors.

Lots of teams had multiple hall of famers, even if they were just an average team. The '65 Royals with Oscar Robertson had 4 hall of famers in their prime but they didn't even win 50 games.
It seems a team with above average offensive firepower is considered 'formidable' over ones that aren't. But then again, the league has also turned into a scoring festival these days.

[SouBeachTalents]

What really hurts Russell's GOAT argument is not having FMVP & DPOY in his era. He would've had an absolutely ridiculous resume of something like 5 MVP's, 7 or so FMVP's, 11 or so DPOY's, along with his 11 titles. If he were the all time leader in rings, FMVP's, and DPOY, I think he'd get a lot more support for GOAT.

[Spurs m8]

Gee, it’s almost like a players all time ranking isn’t determined by one single metric alone. Almost as if it’s actually a combination of not only various metrics, but also things like context and cultural impact that can’t be measured by numbers alone.

:applause::applause::applause::applause:

[SATAN]

Gee, it’s almost like a players all time ranking isn’t determined by one single metric alone. Almost as if it’s actually a combination of not only various metrics, but also things like context and cultural impact that can’t be measured by numbers alone.

I think the point is "6 rings" is what many MJ stans used to point out when they would rant about LeBron and it was completely obvious they had no idea BR, or anyone else at all had won more than 6.

[Soundwave]

Two major reasons hurt Russell's case

1.) He wasn't the no.1 offensive option on many of those teams, often times he was like the no.3 scoring option and would focus mainly on playing defence. Which is fine, but in American sports in particular people don't wanna hear that shit, they want explosive scoring ... Jordan, Gretzky, Babe Ruth, etc. fit into that prototype, Bill Russell doesn't.

2.) Basketball in the 50s/60s, whether it's fair or not was still a sport basically in its infancy, I think for a lot of people anything pre-ABA merger "doesn't really count". Not saying I agree with that exactly, but I definitely think that is a line of thinking that's out there.

Jordan is still the only NBA player who has 6 championships and was the offensive catalyst/no.1 option one all 6 of the championship teams.

There's not really even that many superstar players with more than 5 titles. At 5, you have Russell, Kareem, Magic, Jordan and Kobe and that's basically it (5 players total). Moving up to 6 that list becomes Jordan, Russell, Kareem only. Then looking at those 3, only one was the go to no.1 option on all 6 or more titles (Jordan).

[Round Mound]

The greatest defender ever. As someone posted his level of help defense was unreal. People should watch videos of him and his level of anticipation on every play is insane. He was also a great passer and a top athlete. Lets also not forget his rebounding he was the 2nd best rebounder of his era.

[Overdrive]

What really hurts Russell's GOAT argument is not having FMVP & DPOY in his era. He would've had an absolutely ridiculous resume of something like 5 MVP's, 7 or so FMVP's, 11 or so DPOY's, along with his 11 titles. If he were the all time leader in rings, FMVP's, and DPOY, I think he'd get a lot more support for GOAT.

I think that's a big part of it. Posting 25ppg on 9 titles wouldn't have helped him more than winning 7 dpoys, 8 FMVPs. Accolades are the most tangible things when it comes to greatness. Curry has great stats for his finals career yet he is made fun of by the very same fanbase that says the extra accolades aren't important when comparing other players.

They are, because nobody cares about the tales of the 60s, but a resume like

11 Titles
(Atleast)8 FMVPs
7 DPOYs
5MVPs

Shits on anything anyone else has ever done in the NBA.

11 titles?
Others have 9, 8 or 7 and people will argue these players made the 11 titles Celtics too stacked for others to overcome them

[TheGoatest]

What really hurts Russell's GOAT argument is not having FMVP & DPOY in his era.

It doesn't hurt him anymore than it hurts to argue that Jayson Tatum is in fact not the greatest eastern conference finals performer of all time, despite Tatum having won all the ECF MVP trophies that were won in the history of the NBA:

https://sportshub.cbsistatic.com/i/r/2022/05/30/eea25b72-45ae-46cf-a2ef-17f290193dda/thumbnail/1200x675/a81495c6b89a22d156c4902e238e1252/tatum-trophy-us.jpg

[Gohan]

Im sorry but yall are delusional. One player could never be a good enough defender to make that much of an impact. Def at bill russells height. That sh1t might have worked in the 60s but it doesnt work now with all the smart, athletic, skilled black players today. Now if he was playing against nothing but white boys in todays nba then maybe but we are talking about these big muscular black men now.

[Gohan]

It doesn't hurt him anymore than it hurts to argue that Jayson Tatum is in fact not the greatest eastern conference finals performer of all time, despite Tatum having won all the ECF MVP trophies that were won in the history of the NBA:

https://sportshub.cbsistatic.com/i/r/2022/05/30/eea25b72-45ae-46cf-a2ef-17f290193dda/thumbnail/1200x675/a81495c6b89a22d156c4902e238e1252/tatum-trophy-us.jpg

Context is not your friend

[HylianNightmare]

Definitely a more valid argument then l4bron

[julizaver]

For someone who won 11 rings and had a lot of great finals performances, it is strange that Russell rarely gets bought up in the Goat debate nowadays.


As If Wilt or Kareem his two main rivals in the GOAT center debate hypothetically had even remotely close to the same titles as Russell has.


Let's say 8 to 9 titles they would be seen by 99% percent of people nowadays as the undisputed Goat regardless of the era they played in.


You could make the argument that if Russel had even averaged 23 to 25 PPG for his career despite winning fewer rings than he did in reality.


Let's say 9 rings that he would get ranked a lot more as the Goat.

Basketball is a team sport and while the ultimate measure for greatness are the rings you won for me it is not everything - we have Wilt, the man who rewrite the record book playing in 10 of Russell years. Celtics are the greatest dynasty team and Russell is GOAT winner in the sport, but Wilt was the better player and if put his mind on he could be even better defender than Russell. Kareem was also better than Russell. Russell was not very good offensive player, maybe if he was on scoring points he could have 1-2 seasons with 20 + ppg, but he was never efficient and dominant scorrer. Russell played always to his strength with the same team/system and that's how he won all those chips. Even MJ doesn't do everything by himself - as great of a player he is (arguably the GOAT) only after the Bulls became stronger team with the years he start winning. And to put something into perspective - MJ got 6 rings under PJ, Russell got all of his under Red Auerbach (even in Russell years as a coach he was there), Kobe got all his under PJ, Duncan got all his under GP. At their prime years Wilt and Kareem were the most dominant players but got only 1 rings in their first 10 seasons. Shaq got his first only when PJ arrived. Before that they changed teams, coaches but only after surrounded with proper cast and great coaches they starts winning.

[Lebron23]

Context is not your friend

You are a moron. I am going to strangle you, and make you suck my dick.

[John8204]

You have eight men who should be in the discussion for the GOAT....any one of the eight could be called the GOAT and it would be valid because these are the generational players

1. George Mikan (1946-1956, 57/58) - Mikan was the forefather of the NBA he's the best player from the longest period of time (He's the best player for a 50 year span of time) He won 7 championships(we only credit 5 NBA titles) and defined how the modern game was played. He was dominant and efficient and made the finals in 80% of his run. His career was shortened by injuries and the need to get a real job.

2. Bill Russell (1956-1969) - Bill is arguably the greatest defensive player of all-time and unarguably the greatest champion in NBA history. The knock on Bill is he played in an era where you only had a few teams and guys had to settle into specific roles to have jobs in the NBA. Most people would rank Bill as the Greatest of those Celtics teams but Bob Cousy and John Havlicek also have all-timer claims.

3. Wilt Chamberlain (1958-1973) - Basketball is a team sport and in a team sport the team typically wins. Basketball is also a generational sport and records were made to be broken. Wilt Chamberlain's records will never be broken. Wilt is the greatest technical player in NBA history...no player blocked, rebounded, assisted, or scored like Wilt and nobody ever will. In a dynasty era he only won two titles...often times because he played an ungodly amount of minutes.

4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (1969-1989) - The centers before him paved the way for Kareem...like Mikan he was physically superior to his contemporaries like Bill he was in championship contention for his career like Wilt he was able to put up incredible numbers(but different numbers). 6 Titles, 6 MVP's, 20 Seasons, All-Time Points Leader. The only knock that you really can have on Kareem is he only won with one of the two greatest PG's of all time (Oscar, and Magic) and the ABA had the better players in total as opposed to the NBA for KAJ's productive early years.

5. Larry Bird (1979-1992) - Larry Bird is the eye test player...he doesn't have the rings, MVP's, or stat's to justify calling him the GOAT. But the thing about Larry is he took guys that weren't all-timers and he made them into champions with his spacing, passing, and leadership. The one thing he does have that no other player on this list can say...is his GOAT challenger Michael Jordan never won a playoff game against him. Larry is in my opinion the true greatest small forward of all-time and the best all-around teammate of the eight goats.

6. Magic Johnson(1979-1991, 1996) - In NBA history can be defined really with two eras the Center Era and the Point Guard era..Magic is the man who defined the position he is with a doubt the greatest PG of all-time...and he's set the bar that no other player has come close to touching. He has MVP's and Titles and his rivalry and play with Bird established the league as something profitable. Magic was the first real five position player and even though he played on stacked teams he's an Icon.

7. Michael Jordan(1984-1993, 1995-1998, 2001-2003) - Greatest at his position and dominated a decade of basketball...one of only two men to retire with 30PPG average. He's unarguably the greatest two way player in modern basketball history. Most have Jordan at one and you really won't get much in the way of arguments against that. Really the only knocks on Jordan was that he left the league three times, he only won with Pippen whose terrible contract allowed the Bulls to overpay for role players and he performed his great feats during the blood doping era of the 90's.

8 Lebron James (2003-2022) - Forward/Guard, Point Forward, Shooting Guard like Magic he's a five position player, like Mikan nobody can rank all-time while Lebron is in the league. Lebron is picking up career records and setting his bar that I doubt anyone will beat. And he did this all when he was about 14/15 years old...and this is what Lebron haters don't get about the guy he's gone from being one of the greatest prodigy's of alltime to one of the greatest and most productive veterans of all-time

Basketball is generational and positional their is no one GOAT their is no greatest time period...it's just opinions that people have. You can argue Bill as the Goat and that's just fine.

[SouBeachTalents]

I honestly find it strange Magic & Bird are the ones brought up in the GOAT discussion, but not Shaq or Duncan. Most people would agree at their peaks Shaq was better and more dominant than either of them, while Duncan’s resume is better than Bird’s and arguably better than Magic’s, and his ‘03 title run is arguably more impressive than either of theirs.

I get it, they have the “they saved basketball” narrative, but on a strictly performance and resume basis, Shaq & Duncan are right there with them, if not even better.

[John8204]

I honestly find it strange Magic & Bird are the ones brought up in the GOAT discussion, but not Shaq or Duncan. Most people would agree at their peaks Shaq was better and more dominant than either of them, while Duncan’s resume is better than Bird’s and arguably better than Magic’s, and his ‘03 title run is arguably more impressive than either of theirs.

I get it, they have the “they saved basketball” narrative, but on a strictly performance and resume basis, Shaq & Duncan are right there with them, if not even better.

If Shaq was truly a more dominant player he'd have more than 4 rings seeing as how he played half of his career with MVP's (Kobe, Wade, Nash, Lebron, KG) Bird and Magic were pretty much in the mix for titles every year for a decade Shaq had multiple seasons were he dissapeared or under-performed. Shaq left rings on the table, wasn't motivated to stay in shape and got serious referee help for two of those rings.

Tim Duncan is a fundamentally sound strong player who was good at everything but not great at anything. I have less problems with Duncan than I have with Shaq....the biggest knock I would have with Tim is he was always behind Lebron and Kobe and really on the same level as Dirk

[WhiteKyrie]

Weaker era, insanely stacked teams, wasn’t consistently the best player on both sides of the ball no matter what a Boston Celtic or Bill Russell fan wants to tell you. There was many seasons where he was like the third or fourth best and most meaningful offensive player.

[FilmyCogTurner]

I would love to put Bill Russell as the GOAT but a stacked squad in a 10 team league without the scoring stats is tough.

We would need more information to see how he was playing both sides of the floor.

[TheMan]

Definitely a more valid argument then l4bron

This

My GOAT is MJ but I have no problem with folks who put KAJ, Russell or Wilt at #1. I may disagree but I could see why they would, I just refuse to believe James should be put over those 4 players, I saw his whole career, he isn't the GOAT. Longevity? Okay but peak and dominance? :roll:

[ArbitraryWater]

because maybe it doesnt just do that?

crazy right

[FultzNationRISE]

You are a moron. I am going to strangle you, and make you suck my dick.


https://c.tenor.com/fin5npoPuJIAAAAC/cheers-happy.gif

[Akeem34TheDream]

because maybe it doesnt just do that?

crazy right

Bill Russel IS the goat

[FilmyCogTurner]

You are a moron. I am going to strangle you, and make you suck my dick.

Save that kind of talk for your boyfriend

[Gohan]

https://c.tenor.com/fin5npoPuJIAAAAC/cheers-happy.gif

Im consensus goat poster on this board(mainly by non kkk members). That white sheet clouding your judgement

[Axe]

You are a moron. I am going to strangle you, and make you suck my dick.
:milton

[RogueBorg]

Bill Russel IS the goat

To be the GOAT you have to have these;

1. Great offensively
2. Great defensively
3. Rings
4. Accolades

Russell has 2-4 but he doesn't have #1.

There's a reason why Lebron, despite having a losing record in the Finals is ahead of Russell on most meaningful GOAT lists, he has all 4.

[Johnny32]

cuz winning only counts in the years they say it counts. it's the only way for their precious to qualify as the goat.

[RogueBorg]

cuz winning only counts in the years they say it counts. it's the only way for their precious to qualify as the goat.

You can't be the GOAT averaging 15.0 ppg. Russell is the best player of his era though. He's over Wilt because Russell beats him defensively, has more rings, and has more accolades/accomplishments.

[TheGoatest]

cuz winning only counts in the years they say it counts. it's the only way for their precious to qualify as the goat.

Exactly. It's flat out hilarious to see him log in and out of his many alts to discredit Russell's absolute DESTRUCTION of jordon when it comes to winning, but use the rings argument at his leisure when it suits him. :oldlol:

[Axe]

To be the GOAT you have to have these;

1. Great offensively
2. Great defensively
3. Rings
4. Accolades

Russell has 2-4 but he doesn't have #1.

There's a reason why Lebron, despite having a losing record in the Finals is ahead of Russell on most meaningful GOAT lists, he has all 4.
If somebody else has KAJ as their goat, would you respect their opinion?

[RogueBorg]

If somebody else has KAJ as their goat, would you respect their opinion?

Absolutely, there's a case for him. Personally, I have KAJ over Russell by a wide margin. I think he's the greatest center of all-time. If anyone has a case over Jordan, it's Kareem.

[j3lademaster]

Rings are definitely important, but statistical and video evidence shows Wilt dominated him. How can you be goat if you weren’t even the undisputed best player of your own era? Wilt got 55 boards on this guy. What does that even look like? I seriously can’t even imagine it.

[Axe]

Rings are definitely important, but statistical and video evidence shows Wilt dominated him. How can you be goat if you weren’t even the undisputed best player of your own era? Wilt got 55 boards on this guy. What does that even look like? I seriously can’t even imagine it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kCKSvjBnCRQ

[Full Court]

Rings are definitely important, but statistical and video evidence shows Wilt dominated him. How can you be goat if you weren’t even the undisputed best player of your own era? Wilt got 55 boards on this guy. What does that even look like? I seriously can’t even imagine it.

1987_Lakers isn't going to like this post. :lol

[Johnny32]

Rings are definitely important, but statistical and video evidence shows Wilt dominated him. How can you be goat if you weren’t even the undisputed best player of your own era? Wilt got 55 boards on this guy. What does that even look like? I seriously can’t even imagine it.

not hard to imagine. teams were chucking all time high fga at all time low percentages. that's a lot of potential rebounds. wilt wasn't the only one grabbing 20 a game.

[1987_Lakers]

Rings are definitely important, but statistical and video evidence shows Wilt dominated him. How can you be goat if you weren’t even the undisputed best player of your own era? Wilt got 55 boards on this guy. What does that even look like? I seriously can’t even imagine it.

https://www.osdbsports.com/editorials/nbas-original-goat

In 1980, during NBA's 35th anniversary Russell was voted by basketball writers as the GOAT.

Did you not see Jerry West, Wilt's own teammate say he would rather have Russell on his team after the embarrassing 1969 choke :lol

[coastalmarker99]

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14660765]https://www.osdbsports.com/editorials/nbas-original-goat

In 1980, during NBA's 35th anniversary Russell was voted by basketball writers as the GOAT.

When Bill Russell was named as the NBA's best player ever in 1980.

Wilt scoffed ''if you want to go by individual records I own them all if you want to go by who's the most prominent I was there's no doubt about that''.



Also a fun fact is that both of Wilt's two title-winning teams were voted as the Goat teams in 1980.


Furthermore

Wilt NBA's records that he set against Russell)

Most rbs game(55)

Most rbs playoff game(41)

Most rbs 7 game series

Most rbs 5 game series

Highest rpg average for a series(32.0)

Highest APG average for a center in a CF (10.0)

Most points scored in an elimination game on the road (50)

Wilt had three 30 rpg series out of 8 played against Russell.

Wilt held Bill to less than 40% shooting in 5 out of 8 playoff series.

[coastalmarker99]

https://www.osdbsports.com/editorials/nbas-original-goat

In 1980, during NBA's 35th anniversary Russell was voted by basketball writers as the GOAT.

Did you not see Jerry West, Wilt's own teammate say he would rather have Russell on his team after the embarrassing 1969 choke :lol

Wilt was clearly the best player of the 1960s.

He was voted first team all NBA over Russell 7 times to 2 in the ten years they spent together in the NBA.

They both won four MVPs in the 1960s but Wilt was robbed of winning another in 1964 which would have given him 5 MVPs in that decade to Russell's four.

https://twitter.com/WiltStats/status/1531756890513735680


Wilt won 8 rebounding titles to Russell's two in the 1960's

He won 7 scoring titles to Russell's zero

He won 1 assist title to Russell's zero

He led the NBA in FG percentage 7 times during the 1960s to Russell's zero.

He led the NBA in WS 8 times to Russell''s zero.

He led the NBA in Per 8 times to russell's zero.




Also when Wilt and Russell played H2H in 8 PO series.

Who led in each category:

PTS: 8-0 Wilt

REB: 8-0 Wilt

AST: 6-2 Russell

TS%: 8-0 Wilt



As for their Teammates:

PTS: 8-0 Russell's teammates

REB: 7-1 Russell's

AST: 5-3 Russell's

TS%: 5-3 Russell's

Therefore we see with the data that Wilt bested Russ in 26 of 32 (81%) categories over 8 PO series.

And that Russ's 11 teammates bested Wilt's 11 teammates in 25 of 32 (78%)categories over 8 PO series


It's a credit to Wilt that four of the playoff series they played in were decided in game seven's by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points.


Despite Russell's teammates just destroying Wilt's outside of 1967 and 1969.




Again...swap the rosters between the two and it would have been Wilt holding all those rings as the great John Wooden said.

[1987_Lakers]

Wilt averaged 50 in 1962. Russell held him to 34 ppg on 47 fg% in the playoffs that year, impressive stats for Wilt, but that is a HUGE drop off from his regular season play.

Wilt averaged 37 ppg in 1964, Russell held him to 29 ppg in the Finals that year.

Russell for the most part always held Wilt under his averages, this is something Ben Taylor covered as well. Wilt's numbers also always seemed to have a considerable drop once the playoffs came around.

The reason why I don't value Wilt's stats like others do is because it usually didn't lead to wins. It's fine to bring up the point he didn't have good teammates early in his career, but what happened in 1969 & 1970 is pretty embarrassing on his part.

Seriously, in 1963 Wilt averaged 45 PPG, but his team went 31-49, that is flat out horrific, even with a bad cast I expect Wilt with those numbers to at least lead his team to a .500 record or close to it.

When I first became interested in NBA history, I was enamored with Wilt, I saw his scoring seasons and rebounding numbers and just couldn't believe a player could be that dominant, he was one of my favorite past players when I was like 14 or so. But as I have gotten older and became more informed... I have become less and less impressed with him, but still see him as a top 10 player ever.

[coastalmarker99]

Wilt averaged 50 in 1962. Russell held him to 34 ppg on 47 fg% in the playoffs that year, impressive stats for Wilt, but that is a HUGE drop off from his regular season play.

Wilt averaged 37 ppg in 1964, Russell held him to 29 ppg in the Finals that year.

Russell for the most part always held Wilt under his averages, this is something Ben Taylor covered as well. Wilt's numbers also always seemed to have a considerable drop once the playoffs came around.

The reason why I don't value Wilt's stats like others do is because it usually didn't lead to wins. It's fine to bring up the point he didn't have good teammates early in his career, but what happened in 1969 & 1970 is pretty embarrassing on his part.

Seriously, in 1963 Wilt averaged 45 PPG, but his team went 31-49, that is flat out horrific, even with a bad cast I expect Wilt with those numbers to at least lead his team to a .500 record or close to it.

When I first became interested in NBA history, I was enamored with Wilt, I saw his scoring seasons and rebounding numbers and just couldn't believe a player could be that dominant, he was one of my favorite past players when I was like 14 or so. But as I have gotten older and became more informed... I have become less and less impressed with him, but still see him as a top 10 player ever.

Wilt's teams over his career played 1045 season games + 160 playoff games.

They won 672 season + 88 playoff games.

Season win%: 64.3

Playoff win%: 55

Total games win%: 63.1

Plus, the only team to win more titles than his team's during his time, or have higher win%s during his time was the Celtics who were the dominant dynasty from the late 50s through the entire 60s.

This so called narrative that Wilt's stat-padding formula didn't win games is just flat-out untrue

76er's record when Wilt has 7+ assists:

1965: 2-0

1966: 19-3 Total: 21-3

1967: 46-2 Total: 67-5

1968: 40-11 Total: 107-16

Playoffs: 15-5


furthermore, The early 1960s warriors were one of the worst offensive supporting casts in NBA history.

They were shooting 35% outside of Wilt and that’s with them getting relatively easy shots thanks to Wilts gravity.


The warriors stayed ≈ League average offensively despite having no business being that good and the warriors' ORTG got better the higher Wilt's PPG was from 60-63.


Which is Something Ben Taylor does not bring up in his video

[coastalmarker99]

Wilt averaged 50 in 1962. Russell held him to 34 ppg on 47 fg% in the playoffs that year, impressive stats for Wilt, but that is a HUGE drop off from his regular season play.

Wilt averaged 37 ppg in 1964, Russell held him to 29 ppg in the Finals that year.

Russell for the most part always held Wilt under his averages, this is something Ben Taylor covered as well. Wilt's numbers also always seemed to have a considerable drop once the playoffs came around.

The reason why I don't value Wilt's stats like others do is because it usually didn't lead to wins. It's fine to bring up the point he didn't have good teammates early in his career, but what happened in 1969 & 1970 is pretty embarrassing on his part.

Seriously, in 1963 Wilt averaged 45 PPG, but his team went 31-49, that is flat out horrific, even with a bad cast I expect Wilt with those numbers to at least lead his team to a .500 record or close to it.

When I first became interested in NBA history, I was enamored with Wilt, I saw his scoring seasons and rebounding numbers and just couldn't believe a player could be that dominant, he was one of my favorite past players when I was like 14 or so. But as I have gotten older and became more informed... I have become less and less impressed with him, but still see him as a top 10 player ever.

Wilt's regular season (RS) vs playoff (PO) scoring season by season vs Russell.

1960:
vs Celtics-- RS: 39.9, PO: 30.5 (adv. RS)

1962:
vs Celtics-- RS: 41.7 (incl. games that Russell missed), PO: 33.6 (adv. RS)

1964:
vs Celtics-- RS: 29.1, PO: 29.2 (adv. PO)

1965 (playing for Sixers):
vs Celtics-- RS: 25.0, PO: 30.1 (adv. PO)

1966:
vs Celtics-- RS: 28.3, PO: 28 (adv. RS)

1967:
vs Celtics-- RS: 20.3, PO: 21.6 (adv. PO)


1968:
vs Celtics-- RS: 17.1, PO: 22.1 (adv. PO)

1969:
vs Celtics-- RS: 16.3, PO: 11.7 (adv. RS)



What is also rarely brought up is that Wilt usually raised his RPG averages vs Russell in the playoffs.


Take for example

In their in 9 regular season H2H in 1966-1967.

Wilt averaged 26.7 RPG than in the playoffs vs Russell he averaged 32.0 rpg

[coastalmarker99]

Wilt averaged 50 in 1962. Russell held him to 34 ppg on 47 fg% in the playoffs that year, impressive stats for Wilt, but that is a HUGE drop off from his regular season play.

Wilt averaged 37 ppg in 1964, Russell held him to 29 ppg in the Finals that year.

Russell for the most part always held Wilt under his averages, this is something Ben Taylor covered as well. Wilt's numbers also always seemed to have a considerable drop once the playoffs came around.

The reason why I don't value Wilt's stats like others do is because it usually didn't lead to wins. It's fine to bring up the point he didn't have good teammates early in his career, but what happened in 1969 & 1970 is pretty embarrassing on his part.

Seriously, in 1963 Wilt averaged 45 PPG, but his team went 31-49, that is flat out horrific, even with a bad cast I expect Wilt with those numbers to at least lead his team to a .500 record or close to it.

When I first became interested in NBA history, I was enamored with Wilt, I saw his scoring seasons and rebounding numbers and just couldn't believe a player could be that dominant, he was one of my favorite past players when I was like 14 or so. But as I have gotten older and became more informed... I have become less and less impressed with him, but still see him as a top 10 player ever.


In 1962 Ben Taylor decides to ignore the fact that Wilt took 26.85 FGA vs Russell in the playoffs compared to the 39.5 he averaged in the regular season.


Of course, his scoring is going to come down when he is taking fewer FGA and the pace of the game is slower.




Furthermore

Here are his differences from the regular season to the playoffs while he was still scoring the ball.


You'll realize he almost always took way fewer shots and free throws.


Had he had the same amount of attempts, he would have upped his scoring averages in the playoffs despite going up against the best defensive teams and arguably the best defender ever in Russell in 8 of his playoff series.

'59-'60: -4 PPG on 4 less FGA and 2 less FTA, +3 FG%, -1 RPG (Lost to Boston in 6)

'60'-'61: -1 PPG, -3 FG%, -4 RPG (Lost to Syracuse in 3 by a total of 12 points)

'61-'62: -15 PPG on 10 less FGA/G and 5 less FTA/G, -3 FG%, +1 RPG (Lost to Boston in G7 by 2)

'63-'64: -2 PPG on 2 less FGA/G and 1 less FTA/G, +2 FG%, +3 RPG (Lost to Boston in 5)

'64-'65: -5 PPG on 7 less FGA/G, +2 FG%, +5 RPG (Lost to Boston in G7 by 1)

'65-'66: -5 PPG on 3 less FGA/G, -3 FG%, +6 RPG (Lost to Boston in 5)

[jlip]

Haven't read the thread, but the primary reason most people under the age of 50 don't consider him at least in the GOAT conversation is because they came of age in an era where shot jacking... I mean individual scoring is marketed as the only way to contribute to winning.

This is my favorite quote from Russell:

"I used to break it down. There are 48 minutes in a game. It takes a second -- a second-and-a-half, maybe two seconds -- for a three point shot. And if you add up all the shots taken in a game -- free throws don't count because the clock stops -- but if you take all the seconds added up shooting and rebounding it comes to about three minutes. Now out of a 48-minute game three minutes are concerned with shooting and rebounding. What is going on the other 45 minutes?"