Why is MJ considered better than Bill Russell?

[QUOTE=NoEasy9]
Bill Russell has 5 NBA MVPs and guess who else has just as much? Michael Jordan. He played against 8 nba teams at the time, which means that they were stacked and that there was at least a minimum of one HOFer on each team...
[/QUOTE]

No offense, but there is so much wrong with this way of thinking. The only way you can say 8 teams mean they were all stacked relative to today is if you think the popularity and the talent pool as a result was as large. There's no way it was. Had nothing changed since Russell's day, half the black players today probably aren't even playing, and barely any if any of the players from overseas are playing. Good chance guys like Hakeem, Ewing, Duncan, Dirk, and Kobe never even pick up a basketball.

I don't get it, do people think today's equivalent of the 8 team NBA in much of the 60s the same as if we just cut 300 out of the 400 players in the league? So someone like Luol Deng would be an 8th man in the league? Sorry, but thats ridiculous.

And as far as HOFers and MVPs go, as the NBA, the worldwide talent pool, and popularity have grown, there have always only been 5 HOFers per class and 1 MVP every year. These have not increased proportionately as the game has gotten bigger.

I don't think the older eras should really get penalized. They're obviously pioneers and they did what they did with what was in front of them. But there's a lot of holes in this common way of thinking.

[QUOTE=Mr. I'm So Rad]Well baseball is different in that baseball is an older sport that relishes in the past and sometimes can't seem to move on from it. And I'm not sayin MJ is considered GOAT [I]solely[/I] due to marketing but that is the main reason. Casual fans want to be entertained. They don't care that MJ was averaging 37ppg on 54% shooting along with 8 rebounds and 8 assists. They just wanted to see his highlights.

Baseball and Basketball are totally different[/QUOTE]

The 'main' reason?

And btw.... 'casual' fans aren't the only ones that think MJ is the GOAT you know.

Its actually insulting to assume that this is the case.

Also, without MJ's feats on the court there is no marketing machine. It wasn't like today where marketing comes before the game, MJ had to establish himself on the court and then maintain it. People tuned in to watch MJ in droves BECAUSE he performed and 'continued' to do so.

MJ is considered the GOAT because he could do it all, and he did it in spectacular fashion... he was the perfect storm.

MJ's game was just flat out BETTER in every aspect.

[QUOTE=guy]No offense, but there is so much wrong with this way of thinking. [/QUOTE]
You are allowed to have an opinion. Just understand it is dead wrong and you are an idiot. That is all.

[QUOTE=NoEasy9]You are allowed to have an opinion. Just understand it is dead wrong and you are an idiot. That is all.[/QUOTE]

LOL wow why doesn't your smart ass elaborate and tell me why I'm dead wrong then instead of being a dick?

[QUOTE=andgar923]The 'main' reason?

And btw.... 'casual' fans aren't the only ones that think MJ is the GOAT you know.

Its actually insulting to assume that this is the case.

Also, without MJ's feats on the court there is no marketing machine. It wasn't like today where marketing comes before the game, MJ had to establish himself on the court and then maintain it. People tuned in to watch MJ in droves BECAUSE he performed and 'continued' to do so.

MJ is considered the GOAT because he could do it all, and he did it in spectacular fashion... he was the perfect storm.

MJ's game was just flat out BETTER in every aspect.[/QUOTE]

Yes the main reason. I'm not saying casual fans are the only ones that think MJ is the GOAT, but there are more casual fans that watch basketball because it's basketball rather than the fans that dive very deep into it.
I would say its the former.

I'm not taking away his feats MJ's numbers were legendary and spectacular. What I'm saying is the NBA saw he was marketable. Wilt's stats are far more impressive than MJ's yet more people consider MJ the GOAT instead of Wilt. Is it because of titles? Well Russell has more titles than both of them combined but more people consider MJ the GOAT. I'm not saying that you are wrong in believing that MJ is the GOAT because I believe he is, but I'm saying just consider why.

Magic and Bird were winning titles and Bird's teams were sweeping MJ out of the playoffs yet MJ was still the bigger star even though Magic was a triple double machine and Bird was a trashtalkin, sharpshooting basketball genius. It's the same with LeBron James. He was a superstar before he even entered the NBA and was displayed as being the best guy in the league before he even won anything because the league promoted him so much. And even with his recent "villain turn" he is still the biggest star in the league.

[QUOTE=Ne 1]Conclusion: The Reason for Russell's low PPG in the NBA was Russell was given very few opportunities to score (13 FGA)[/QUOTE]

Well, IMO, Russell just wasn't a scorer. He shot 44% from the field for his career and 56% from the line. Russell did a lot of things to help his teams win like defense whether it be helping out and blocking or altering shots, or guarding Wilt, starting fast breaks with outlet passes, rebounding, setting picks and providing leadership. But scoring just wasn't an area excelled in, IMO. Even if you watch the footage that's available, you'll rarely see him make a shot in the low post, most of his points were dunks or lay ups set ip by Cousy, or put backs. Not that there's anything wrong with that, or that it should exclude him from GOAT discussions, because I agree that there shouldn't be any set rules. These rankings are subjective.

Edit: Also on the subject of rebounds, I think minutes have to be taken into consideration when discussing the modern equivalent because stars played more minutes back then. Several were playing 44-45 mpg and a few played even more, this hasn't been the case in the past 20 years, so I think OldSchool's estimate for rebounding is pretty close.

[QUOTE]John Stockton only averaged 13 PPG is he worthy to be included in the top 15-20?[/QUOTE]

Well, personally, I don't think Stockton should be in the discussion for top 15-20, though my reasoning isn't based on his scoring numbers.


[QUOTE=NoEasy9]It was the defense that separated Jordan from Magic and Bird. Magic and Bird were good at playing the passing lanes, but that was it. Jordan could shut down players and was a tremendous help side defender. Offensively, Jordan isnt even that much better than Bird. He is better, but not as much as most people think.[/QUOTE]

I Disagree about Bird's defense. His team defense was very good overall. Very high IQ and good at helping out and double teaming and his rotations were excellent. He used his limited athletic ability as well as he could, he typically played hard at that end and could contest a shot and go straight up though he wasn't a shot blocker. His man defense really wasn't bad for the era either, though guarding players with good post games was considered his weakness. I think he was a superior defender to Magic, not as good defensively as Jordan of course, but he made 3 all-defensive teams for a reason.

What was the league average in FG% around that time Shaq?

Some troll job this has been.

I think greatest winner of all time is an appropriate title for Russell. There it is, Russel is Gwoat. He was not the Greatest of All Time which is an individual accolade which is more about the player than the outcome. Tom Brady won more than Peyton Manning yet you don't hear this GOAT thing on Brady. Derek Jeter won't get the GOAT argument over Pujols. Henri Richard who won 11 Cups with Montreal but he isn't in the league of Gretsky... But in basketball... .

I have him ranked high but I have trouble with making GWOAT = GOAT. In every other team sport, the greatest is very skilled with the instrument in use. Russell is far inferior with the rock than anybody in the consensus top ten (Wilt, Jordan, KAJ, Bird, Magic, Shaq, Kobe, Hakeem, Duncan). Amazingly a world class sprinter and high jumper with great reach has stunningly low FG% numbers while not pushing the issue. He was smart enough to play within his limitations but but he still shot below 37% in four playoff runs. He shot below 44% in like 8 of his seasons. And this with him being at point blank range. He surpassed 17ppg only twice in 13 years. Since I noticed that DRose doesn't get fouled enough Russell wasn't good at the line either. He is however, a very good passer but not at some astonishing level and he isn't used as prototype for being a great passing center either.

So he concedes offense to more than likely to anybody in the top 20 best players in the game. So his defense should be incomparable to anybody

No disrespect to Bill Russell, but honestly he probably isn't one of the top 10 offensive players in NBA history.

Great defensive player, solid on the offensive end (but not great), tremendous leader.

Jordan has all the individual dominance (scoring titles, MVPs, highest scoring average in NBA history, etc.) that people look at one top of a ton of championships/team success as well, and he dominated on both ends of the court.

There's just no holes in Jordan's resume.

[QUOTE=G-Funk]Doesn't Bill Russell deserve to be considered the GOAT since he does have 11 Championships and could have had 7 maybe more Finals MVP's. Isn't the ultimate goal is to win it all? A lot of ppl will point out Russell's era as if he had an advantage over his competition...[/QUOTE]


ESPN and he is a better individual player.. NOt sure about a better team player.. Probably not...

A few things that need some clarification or counter points...

1) The Celtics were not by far the most talented team of their era. From 60-63 maybe, but that's it. When they added Russell and Heinsohn they lost Ed Macauley and Cliff Hagan (Both HOFer's also)

2) Russell was not a weak offensive player: He is the greatest passing center of all-time statistically and in my opinion. He almost always shot above the league average in FG%. He had multiple 20+ per game averages for postseason games, multiple 30 point games closing out the NBA Finals and did all this without a single play being run in the half court for him in his 13 years. Russell didn't score because he didn't need to score for the Celtics to win most nights. When they needed him to score, he scored.

3) I don't rank players based on who I think was better at skill A+ skill B, but that being said, Russell is not just a little better defensively than Jordan, he's way better. Russell is the Greatest defensive player ever and it's not debatable. He invented blocked shot intimidation and defensive scouting of player tendencies. The only thing that comes close to Russell's impact of defense is Wilt Chamberlain's impact on offense.

4) It was harder to win title's in the 1960's because of the 8-9 teams, not easier. As soon as the league expanded (and Russ retired) many more teams started winning titles.

5) When Russell entered the NBA in 1956 it was still 80% white, but that changed right away. By 1965 more than 2/3rds of the starters were black. Russell was basketball's Jackie Robinson, it's first black star and the one who changed the game for future generations.

There are a lot of good reasons to rank Jordan above Russell, there are even reasons to rank Kareem or Wilt above him if you don't think winning is the most important thing (you're wrong if you think that, but I understand some still do) My problem is and has always been that most people don't take the time to understand Russell's impact. I've never seen anyone (on ISH) who fully understands his game and doesn't say something that is a long ways from accurate when explaining their case against him. Hope this helps.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]A few things that need some clarification or counter points...

1) The Celtics were not by far the most talented team of their era. From 60-63 maybe, but that's it. When they added Russell and Heinsohn they lost Ed Macauley and Cliff Hagan (Both HOFer's also)

2) Russell was not a weak offensive player: He is the greatest passing center of all-time statistically and in my opinion. He almost always shot above the league average in FG%. He had multiple 20+ per game averages for postseason games, multiple 30 point games closing out the NBA Finals and did all this without a single play being run in the half court for him in his 13 years. Russell didn't score because he didn't need to score for the Celtics to win most nights. When they needed him to score, he scored.

3) I don't rank players based on who I think was better at skill A+ skill B, but that being said, Russell is not just a little better defensively than Jordan, he's way better. Russell is the Greatest defensive player ever and it's not debatable. He invented blocked shot intimidation and defensive scouting of player tendencies. The only thing that comes close to Russell's impact of defense is Wilt Chamberlain's impact on offense.

4) It was harder to win title's in the 1960's because of the 8-9 teams, not easier. As soon as the league expanded (and Russ retired) many more teams started winning titles.

5) When Russell entered the NBA in 1956 it was still 80% white, but that changed right away. By 1965 more than 2/3rds of the starters were black. Russell was basketball's Jackie Robinson, it's first black star and the one who changed the game for future generations.

There are a lot of good reasons to rank Jordan above Russell, there are even reasons to rank Kareem or Wilt above him if you don't think winning is the most important thing (you're wrong if you think that, but I understand some still do) My problem is and has always been that most people don't take the time to understand Russell's impact. I've never seen anyone (on ISH) who fully understands his game and doesn't say something that is a long ways from accurate when explaining their case against him. Hope this helps.[/QUOTE]

its hard for someone like me because the only thing i have to go off of is research and a combination of people's opinions (like yours).....because i never saw russell or wilt play live.

its easy for me to compare magic/jordan/bird/hakeem/shaq/duncan because i watched all of them play both in college and in the pros.

[QUOTE=2010splash]Celtics fans crack me up. Bill Russell's skillset resembled a Deke Mutombo at best. He played in a weak era and won a lot... who cares?[/QUOTE]

You do not seriously believe that his skillset resembles Dikembe Mutombo? That is beyond ridiculous.

Of course, like the majority of posters here, I have never seen Bill Russell play. But I can say that I watched alot of footage of him, and he was EASILY better than Mutombo. It's ridiculous to even make such a foolish statement.

From the footage I've observed, Not only was he obviously a dominant rebounder and shot-blocker.... Russell was also a good passer, particularly outlet passing. Also, Russell was a better transition defender than given credit for.... I've seen many videos of him sprinting full court, chasing down the defender and pinning the shot off the glass in the same manner that LeBron does, and people go ballistic over it.

And though Russell was not a dominant offensive player, he still provided quality buckets. Didn't he average something like 23.5 ppg on 45% shooting in the 1965 finals, I believe?

MJ was a better player imo :)

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]A few things that need some clarification or counter points...

1) The Celtics were not by far the most talented team of their era. From 60-63 maybe, but that's it. When they added Russell and Heinsohn they lost Ed Macauley and Cliff Hagan (Both HOFer's also)

2) Russell was not a weak offensive player: He is the greatest passing center of all-time statistically and in my opinion. He almost always shot above the league average in FG%. He had multiple 20+ per game averages for postseason games, multiple 30 point games closing out the NBA Finals and did all this without a single play being run in the half court for him in his 13 years. Russell didn't score because he didn't need to score for the Celtics to win most nights. When they needed him to score, he scored.

3) I don't rank players based on who I think was better at skill A+ skill B, but that being said, Russell is not just a little better defensively than Jordan, he's way better. Russell is the Greatest defensive player ever and it's not debatable. He invented blocked shot intimidation and defensive scouting of player tendencies. The only thing that comes close to Russell's impact of defense is Wilt Chamberlain's impact on offense.

4) It was harder to win title's in the 1960's because of the 8-9 teams, not easier. As soon as the league expanded (and Russ retired) many more teams started winning titles.

5) When Russell entered the NBA in 1956 it was still 80% white, but that changed right away. By 1965 more than 2/3rds of the starters were black. Russell was basketball's Jackie Robinson, it's first black star and the one who changed the game for future generations.

There are a lot of good reasons to rank Jordan above Russell, there are even reasons to rank Kareem or Wilt above him if you don't think winning is the most important thing (you're wrong if you think that, but I understand some still do) My problem is and has always been that most people don't take the time to understand Russell's impact. I've never seen anyone (on ISH) who fully understands his game and doesn't say something that is a long ways from accurate when explaining their case against him. Hope this helps.[/QUOTE]


This. I feel Russell is underrated here and he is a top 3 player by far. I personally have him as #2 on my list. Thoughts on this post OldSchoolBBall???

[QUOTE=Pointguard]Tom Brady won more than Peyton Manning yet you don't hear this GOAT thing on Brady.

[/QUOTE]

Tom Brady is and has always been better than Peyton Manning. Up until a few years ago the majority of football writers agreed and if/or when the Patriots win the Super Bowl this year you will start to hear a lot of people calling Tom Brady the greatest QB of all-time.

[QUOTE=nycelt84]Tom Brady is and has always been better than Peyton Manning. Up until a few years ago the majority of football writers agreed and if/or when the Patriots win the Super Bowl this year you will start to hear a lot of people calling Tom Brady the greatest QB of all-time.[/QUOTE]

yea. if you did a poll in 5 years about the greatest qb's of all time. it would be brady/montana battling it out for the number 1 spot unless something seriously changes.

if the pats win it all this year.....the manning vs. brady discussion is pretty much dead. brady would have 4 superbowls and manning would be 9-10 in the playoffs.

really not much of a discussion mainly because brady's level of play has been much higher in the playoffs.

[QUOTE=ginobli2311]yea. if you did a poll in 5 years about the greatest qb's of all time. it would be brady/montana battling it out for the number 1 spot unless something seriously changes.

if the pats win it all this year.....the manning vs. brady discussion is pretty much dead. brady would have 4 superbowls and manning would be 9-10 in the playoffs.

really not much of a discussion mainly because brady's level of play has been much higher in the playoffs.[/QUOTE]

yup, factor in that manning is older and has no chance to catch up.

I don't think its that close. Jordan was a clear-cut best player on his team and in the league during hi time, and Russel was not. I am just not convinced that Russel was that much more valuable than someone like Cousy in the early years and Havlicek in the later years. As for Russel being a great rebounder - yes, he was but Chamberlain averaged slightly more. For those of you who are claiming that Russel could have been a great scorer if he wanted to, I am not convinced - compare his shooting percentage to Chamberlain's or even a guard like Oscar Robinson. Bottom line is that Russel is a great winner, but too limited of a player to be considered GOAT.

[QUOTE=NoEasy9]It is pretty hilarious how misunderstood Bill Russell's career is. I blame this on fantasy basketball and John Hollinger.

Bill Russell has 5 NBA MVPs and guess who else has just as much? Michael Jordan. He played against 8 nba teams at the time, which means that they were stacked and that there was at least a minimum of one HOFer on each team...

It goes both ways.

Michael Jordan did not accomplish anything Russell didnt in a team standpoint.

[B]I have no problem with calling MJ the greatest ever, because he probably was. But to say his championships has more weight than Russell is absolute horseshit[/B].[/QUOTE]

I disagree with the bolded. While I'm one of the people on here who actually thinks Bill Russell is underappreciated, I don't think his titles were equal to Jordan's.

Let's not forget the "playoffs" back then consisted of one series between whoever had the top seeds from the season. That, by default, makes his titles worth less than Jordan's, since he only had to win a single postseason series to win a title. Then there are the arguments about how there were only a small number of teams in the league, and the era and competition factors.

All that said, Russell is underappreciated in my opinion, and I have him as my #2 GOAT. But let's not act like each of his titles were the same as each of Jordan's. They weren't. Not every title since the NBA started was earned under the same degree of difficulty.

[QUOTE=kizut1659]I don't think its that close. Jordan was a clear-cut best player on his team and in the league during hi time, and Russel was not.[/QUOTE]

Actually that's 100% incorrect. Not only did Russell win as many MVP's as Jordan and twice as many titles, he was also voted the greatest player of all-time in 1970 and 1980 by NBA experts. So you had that all wrong.


[QUOTE=kizut1659]I am just not convinced that Russel was that much more valuable than someone like Cousy in the early years and Havlicek in the later years. [/QUOTE]

Cousy, Hondo, Auerbach and the rest of the league would disagree. You're not convinced because you don't want to be, not because you have an informed opinion.


[QUOTE=kizut1659]As for Russel being a great rebounder - yes, he was but Chamberlain averaged slightly more. For those of you who are claiming that Russel could have been a great scorer if he wanted to, I am not convinced - compare his shooting percentage to Chamberlain's or even a guard like Oscar Robinson. [/QUOTE]

Look at his shooting percentages in playoff games when his team needed him to score to win.

Also his FG% was almost always above the league average. Had he played in the 80's instead of the 60's, people would never bring up his FG%, but because it looks low compared to what people shoot today, some folks actually think it's a valid point against Russell, which of course it's not.

[QUOTE=kizut1659]Bottom line is that Russel is a great winner, but too limited of a player to be considered GOAT.[/QUOTE]

How was he limited? He had an unofficial quadruple double in game seven of the NBA Finals?

He's certainly capable of making as great or greater impact on the court than any other player in NBA history based on all accounts so I'm not sure what limitations you speak of.


These are the posts that bother me, uninformed and yet steadfast in an opinion that's baseless and ignorant.

[QUOTE=SinJackal]I disagree with the bolded. While I'm one of the people on here who actually thinks Bill Russell is underappreciated, I don't think his titles were equal to Jordan's.

[B]Let's not forget the "playoffs" back then consisted of one series between whoever had the top seeds from the season. [U]That, by default, makes his titles worth less than Jordan's, since he only had to win a single postseason series to win a title.[/U] Then there are the arguments about how there were only a small number of teams in the league, and the era and competition factors.[/B]
All that said, Russell is underappreciated in my opinion, and I have him as my #2 GOAT. But let's not act like each of his titles were the same as each of Jordan's. They weren't. Not every title since the NBA started was earned under the same degree of difficulty.[/QUOTE]

I actually did research as to determine whether Russell's Celtics had an easier road to their titles in the playoffs than MJ's Bulls based upon the fact that there were fewer teams and a shorter post season and this is what I unconvered. [B]Again, this is looking squarely at the championship seasons[/B].

# of Championships
Russell's Celtics-11
Jordan's Bulls-6

Total Series Played
Russell's Celtics-25
Jordan's Bulls-24

Avg. series played per title
Russell's Celtics-2.3
Jordan's Bulls-4

Avg. games played per title
Russell's Celtics-13.4
Jordan's Bulls-19.3

If we were to stop right here it would appear that the Bulls definitely had a tougher road to the championship each year. [B]They played nearly the same amount of series en route to 6 titles as the Celtics played en route to 11 titles.[/B] They also averaged more series and games played per title run. At this point the 6 titles do look to be at least as impressive as 11. But let’s dig deeper. Let’s see actually how challenging the series were.

In the 25 series that they played on their way to 11 titles, Russell’s Celtics were pushed to a game seven 10 times. They were also pushed to a game five in a best of five series once. This means that the Celtics were pushed to the brink of elimination in [B]44%[/B] of their playoff series. 5 of those game sevens were decided by 2 points or 1 point.

I want to put this in perspective. The Celtics were a total of 10-12 points away from losing 5 of their titles. (Just FYI, another game 7 was decided by 5 points, another by 4 points, and another by 3 points.) So we have a dynastic team that is on the verge of being eliminated in almost half of its series. That level of competition and struggle can't be ignored or minimized.

In the 24 series that they played on their way to 6 titles, Jordan’s Bulls were pushed to a game seven (or elimination game) a grand total of 2 times. This means that the Bulls were pushed to the brink of elimination in only[B] 8.3%[/B] of their series. One of those game sevens was a 110-81 or 29 pt. blowout. The other game seven was at least more competitive. It was an 88-83 win. Not much suspense here.

Let’s look at the other end of the spectrum. In those same 25 series Russell’s Celtics swept their opponents only twice. That is 8% of their series. On the other hand, Jordan’s Bulls swept their opponents 9 times, including every single first round. 37.5% of their series were against teams that were not competitive enough to even win one game. Adding those extra rounds and games sure doesn’t seem to add to the difficulty of the road to a title especially when those teams aren’t putting up that much resistance.

Next, as mentioned earlier, Russell’s Celtics averaged only 13.4 games per title run, while Jordan’s Bulls averaged 19.3 games per title run. The Celtics’ competition caused them to average 4.45 losses per title run. The Bull’s competition caused them to average 4.33 losses per title run. So despite playing nearly 6 games fewer, Russell’s Celtics still loss, on average, slightly more games showing their competition was at least as, if not, more challenging than the Bulls. They were not just breezing their way to titles at all. The fewest number of games the Celtics lost in any championship post season was 2. The fewest number of losses the Bulls had in any championship postseason was 2 despite playing more games. The most losses the Celtics had in any post season that they won the title were 7. The most losses the Bulls had in any post season that they won the title were 7 again, despite playing more games.

Russell’s Celtics won 5 of their 25 series on the road as underdogs in their title years. Jordan’s Bulls won 3 of their 24 series on the road as underdogs in their title years.

So let’s summarize this. Yes Russell’s Celtics played in a league with significantly fewer teams and a shorter post season than Jordan’s Bulls. But while the Bulls were so much better than their competition that they swept 37.5% of their opponents in what amounted to meaningless, noncompetitive series, the Celtics were being forced to an elimination game in 44% of their series. The Bulls did play more game sixes (7 to 5 in favor of the Bulls). Adding the game sixes to the equation tells us that [B]37.5% of the Bulls’ series en route to their titles were competitive enough to go at least 6 games[/B]. But again that pales in comparison to the competitive and challenging nature of the Celtics' playoff runs. [B]60% of all of the Celtics’ series went at least 6 games, and this doesn’t even include a 5 game best of five series.[/B]

In conclusion, I’m sorry. With these numbers no one can convince me that it was easier to win titles in Russell’s era than in the modern era. Try telling a team that is about 8 or 9 combined plays from losing 5 of their titles that their titles mean less than a team that was barely pushed to an elimination during their title runs. Those titles were hard earned. Their road to titles were not any easier than the Bulls, and the Bulls' titles are not worth any more IMO. Contrary to popularly regurgitated rhetoric, adding more teams does not make the path to a championship more difficult if you are so superior to those additional teams that they are getting swept. That's just padding the win column. I can't view playing 8 games against this season's Cavs as being more difficult than playing 5 games against this season's Heat just because it's more games. It's not the quantity of the competition. It’s the quality of the competition that makes the road difficult. 6 is neither greater than nor equal to 11.

[QUOTE=jlip]I actually did research as to determine whether Russell's Celtics had an easier road to their titles in the playoffs than MJ's Bulls based upon the fact that there were fewer teams and a shorter post season and this is what I unconvered. [B]Again, this is looking squarely at the championship seasons[/B].

# of Championships
Russell's Celtics-11
Jordan's Bulls-6

Total Series Played
Russell's Celtics-25
Jordan's Bulls-24

Avg. series played per title
Russell's Celtics-2.3
Jordan's Bulls-4

Avg. games played per title
Russell's Celtics-13.4
Jordan's Bulls-19.3

If we were to stop right here it would appear that the Bulls definitely had a tougher road to the championship each year. [B]They played nearly the same amount of series en route to 6 titles as the Celtics played en route to 11 titles.[/B] They also averaged more series and games played per title run. At this point the 6 titles do look to be at least as impressive as 11. But let

[QUOTE=SinJackal]Good post.

I disagree with your assessment though. I think the fact that Jordan ensured that so few series ever got to seven games, is a testament to his dominance, more than it is a lack of competition as you're claiming. Barkley's Suns were NOT a weak team. Neither were Payton's Sonics, or the Stockton/Malone Jazz teams, the last Showtime Lakers squad (which he completely manhandled with insane finals stats after losing Game 1). Those Pacer teams were not slouches either. Nor were the Ewing Knicks, or the Bad Boys Pistons teams MJ battled prior to winning his titles. MJ also started his career during the dynasty Celtics era with nearly no help on his team, and yet he dropped 63 on the Celtics shortly after coming off of what was supposed to be a season-ending injury (he came back early from it to help the team get to the playoffs and possibly advance).

You're looking solely at his championship seasons. . .once MJ "figured it out", he just started rolling. But let's not act like him dominating teams shows weakness in the NBA. He had to go through a lot of very tough teams. MJ personally co[I]c[/I]k-blocked the whole league from titles. Russell did something similar as well. Russell going to 7 games more doesn't mean the league was tougher, maybe it's because Russell and his team couldn't take out teams as early as MJ and his Bulls could?

It goes both ways, you know?

Good playoff run comparisons though with the numbers. Helps put things into perspective. Russell is still my #2 GOAT though. I think MJ's road to titles was more difficult, and he was imo more dominant in games than Russell since he could impact the game heavily on both ends. Not as much as Russell did defensively, but I think MJ's offense had a bigger impact than Russell's defense, and MJ's defense had at least as much impact as Russell's offense.

That's my opinion though. But I am not one of those people who think Russell is not deserving of being rated way up there. He is easily deserving of a very high GOAT ranking.[/QUOTE]

Cool. Good post likewise.
Also I wasn't implying that MJ's era was weak. The language in my post may have given that impression, but that was not my intention. I respect your perspective and just feel we will have to cordially agree to disagree.

As it pertains to my GOAT rankings I actually have two different categories because I feel that there are two general ways to play the game. One is to play in such a way whereas the player is individually dominant, and this is so often seen by his stats. In that category I have Wilt, Kareem, and MJ (in no particular order.) The other is to play the game in such a manner whereas your primary objective is to improve your teammates' quality of play. In that category I have Russell and Magic. Bird and Oscar Robertson IMO seem to somewhat combine those two styles of play.

I do have a question that I have often asked people though, and I'm not trying to be funny or anything, but if one is of the opinion that the Russell era Celtics' titles do not carry as much weight as titles won in the modern era, what does he consider their 11 titles to equate to today?

[QUOTE=zizozain]Wilt and Russell don't count because they played before the advent of ESPN.

[B]Muhammad Ali Was a Rebel. Michael Jordan Is a Brand Name.[/B]

[I]In celebrating Jordan as a hero, are we merely worshipping capitalism?[/I]

[B]By Michael Crowley[/B]

[url]http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/102181/Muhammad-Ali-Was-a-Rebel-Michael-Jordan-Is-a-Brand-Name.aspx[/url][/QUOTE]

Good lord was that an astonishingly retarded article. So Jordan's overrated as a player because he wasn't political and didn't have a fiery personality like Muhammad Ali? There's jack $hit in this article that says why Jordan as a player wasn't the GOAT. Ridiculous.

I'm not placing myself in Jordan's camp, but the posters here have come up with better arguments against Jordan than the chump who wrote this garbage.

Also, does anyone know where we can actually SEE Russell play? I'd give my left nut to see some full games from the 60s, especially those Celtics games.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]
Also his FG% was almost always above the league average. Had he played in the 80's instead of the 60's, people would never bring up his FG%, but because it looks low compared to what people shoot today, some folks actually think it's a valid point against Russell, which of course it's not. [/QUOTE]

This is something I don't understand, if we view his FG% differently because of the league average, then shouldn't we also view a 30 point game different because of the extra 30-35 possessions per game? And I'd think a great scorer holding back his offense for the team would have a high FG% like Wilt in the late 60's/early 70's. It didn't prevent his teams from winning obviously, but scoring simply doesn't seem like it was one of Russell's strengths.

MJ v. KAJ would make a better thread.

[QUOTE=G-Funk]Doesn't Bill Russell deserve to be considered the GOAT since he does have 11 Championships and could have had 7 maybe more Finals MVP's. Isn't the ultimate goal is to win it all? A lot of ppl will point out Russell's era as if he had an advantage over his competition...[/QUOTE]


11 championships says more about the teams he was on than it says about russell himself

Quick Quiz: what was Bill Russell's record in game 7's? All playoffs not just finals

[COLOR="White"]21-0[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Actually that's 100% incorrect. Not only did Russell win as many MVP's as Jordan and twice as many titles, he was also voted the greatest player of all-time in 1970 and 1980 by NBA experts. So you had that all wrong. .[/QUOTE]

Russel should not have gotten the MVP at least in 1962. Jordan should have gotten the MVP in 1997. I think MVP votes often get it wrong and I do not put all that much credence in this award. Also, if you want to go by accolodates, Bill Russel only made 1st team nba 3(!!!) times. Are you saying that we should just look at the MVP awards and ignore all nba-selections?

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T] Look at his shooting percentages in playoff games when his team needed him to score to win. Also his FG% was almost always above the league average. Had he played in the 80's instead of the 60's, people would never bring up his FG%, but because it looks low compared to what people shoot today, some folks actually think it's a valid point against Russell, which of course it's not. [/QUOTE]

What was the league shooting percentage at that time? Russel's was only 44%. Was it that much lower than the league average, especially if one also takes in Russel's poor ft shooting? Even if the league average was low, why are you comparing theshooting percentage of the supposed GOAT to the league average rather than his peers during this period? Are you saying Russel shooting worse FG% not only than Chamberlain but Robertson, West, etc is not at all relevant in evaluating whether Russel was a great offensive player?

As for playoffs, sometimes Russel played well offensively and sometimes he didn't - its not like his offensive game and shooting percentage tended to improve during the playoffs. For example, he shot .356% during 1964 playoffs and Boston still wo relatively easily. I am not going to take away the fact that Russel had great finals games (such as game 7 in 1962 finals) but he had a lot of mediocre/poor offensive games as well (such game 7 1969 finals).

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T] How was he limited? He had an unofficial quadruple double in game seven of the NBA Finals? [/QUOTE]

Again, he was a decent but not a great offensive player. I do not see how a GOAT in the game of basketball can have that limitation.

[QUOTE=chips93]11 championships says more about the teams he was on than it says about russell himself[/QUOTE]

Yes, it could be that and that is why I don't go for the win argument. Its like saying that Ben Wallace was better than Shaq to some degree. You have to isolate winning once a player establishes he can do that.

[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]This is something I don't understand, if we view his FG% differently because of the league average, then shouldn't we also view a 30 point game different because of the extra 30-35 possessions per game? And I'd think a great scorer holding back his offense for the team would have a high FG% like Wilt in the late 60's/early 70's. It didn't prevent his teams from winning obviously, but scoring simply doesn't seem like it was one of Russell's strengths.[/QUOTE]

I know, I am not sure why Russel fans cannot simply acknowledge it. Why can't one say Russel for who he was -a great player and a great winner -without trying to give him an attribute/skill that he simply did not have?

[QUOTE=B

[QUOTE=kizut1659][B]Russel should not have gotten the MVP at least in 1962.[/B] Jordan should have gotten the MVP in 1997. I think MVP votes often get it wrong and I do not put all that much credence in this award. Also, if you want to go by accolodates, Bill Russel only made 1st team nba 3(!!!) times. Are you saying that we should just look at the MVP awards and ignore all nba-selections?
[/QUOTE]

@ the bolded part...
The players who actually faced Russell anywhere from 10-13 times each that season voted him MVP in a landslide. Not only that, the media who watched him play did an unofficial vote that season and again voted him the league's MVP in a landslide.

In that very year, 1962, Syracuse Nationals head coach, Alex Hannum, had the following to say about Russell, [I]

[QUOTE=jlip]I actually did research as to determine whether Russell's Celtics had an easier road to their titles in the playoffs than MJ's Bulls based upon the fact that there were fewer teams and a shorter post season and this is what I unconvered. [B]Again, this is looking squarely at the championship seasons[/B].

# of Championships
Russell's Celtics-11
Jordan's Bulls-6

Total Series Played
Russell's Celtics-25
Jordan's Bulls-24

Avg. series played per title
Russell's Celtics-2.3
Jordan's Bulls-4

Avg. games played per title
Russell's Celtics-13.4
Jordan's Bulls-19.3

If we were to stop right here it would appear that the Bulls definitely had a tougher road to the championship each year. [B]They played nearly the same amount of series en route to 6 titles as the Celtics played en route to 11 titles.[/B] They also averaged more series and games played per title run. At this point the 6 titles do look to be at least as impressive as 11. But let

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]I know he only lost one game seven in the Finals, that was in his second season to the Hawks. The Celtics lost the division Finals to the Sixers in 5 games in 1967 I believe.[/QUOTE]

Russell is 10-0 in game sevens. He never lost one. The loss to the Hawks in 1958 was game 6 of the Finals and Russell was injured barely playing 20 minutes. He suffered a chip fracture in his ankle during the 3rd quarter of game 3 and had actually missed games 4 and 5 because of the injury. He was not expected to return for game 6 and really shouldn't have.

[QUOTE=kizut1659]Russel should not have gotten the MVP at least in 1962.
[/quote]
He should not have gotten it in 1963 either. There was definitely politics involved. The players in the league didn't value defense and weren't into it. But miracoulosuly they unamiously honor the guy that was into it when Wilt had an offensive year that had a real dream state feel to it and 63 was just as impressive as 62 for Wilt. I don't see why professionals would honor defense and not find it worthy enough to incorporate it into their game.

[QUOTE=Rose]Way less teams, so it was easier to get 5 all stars on one team, way less big men that could guard him. Really only Thurmond and Wilt could. Everyone else was a slow white guy.[/QUOTE]

Plus Russell played with multiple hall of famers. Jordan only played with one along with a few borderline all-stars like Kukoc, Grant, and Rodman. Russell was great, but he didn't win like MJ. He also wasn't as good a player, no matter how you look at it.

[QUOTE=GiveItToBurrito]Plus Russell played with multiple hall of famers. Jordan only played with one along with a few borderline all-stars like Kukoc, Grant, and Rodman. Russell was great, [B]but he didn't win like MJ[/B]. He also wasn't as good a player, no matter how you look at it.[/QUOTE]
For real??