Top 50 All-Time List - Shot Clock Era = #1

[QUOTE=SaintzFury13;14425312]Russell always had the greatest team surrounding him, even from the day he entered the league. I can't take any argument claiming he's the GOAT seriously.[/QUOTE]

People should remember that Auerbach was always adding great talent to Russell's teams. In Russell's rookie season, he not only joined with Cousy and Sharman, but he also had the ROY in Heinsohn.

The next year they added Sam Jones. By the '62-63 season, they were fielding nine HOFers, with Clyde Lovellette, who had averaged 20 ppg just the previous season, being their eighth-best player.

In the mid-60's they added bailey Howell, who was a 20+ ppg scorer before Russell, and a 20 ppg scorer with Russell.

And not only did they always have HOF-laden teams, but they were always the deepest teams in the league.


Furthermore, Russell played alongside those guys from between five to twelve seasons.

Even Russell, himself, admitted that Sam Jones saved the Celtic season six times with crucial game-winning shots. And Havlicek was a 20 ppg scorer, who exploded to a near 30 ppg scorer after Russell.

[QUOTE=SaintzFury13;14425312]Russell always had the greatest team surrounding him, even from the day he entered the league. I can't take any argument claiming he's the GOAT seriously.[/QUOTE]

People have to remember that back in the 50s, Cousy really was considered among the best to ever play by coaches and players--I think this is important to note because they were seeing Cousy's play more than anyone back then


I think it's also notable that the greatest coach and GM of all-time consistently praised Cousy while relying on him even past his prime.

He certainly wasn't the only one praising Cousy, and it seems as though it was more likely to hear Bob Cousy's name in the same breath as George Mikan, rather than Bob Davies.

[QUOTE=SaintzFury13;14425335]Because none of them had any realistic chance of beating the Celtics.

Edit: I actually take this statement back. Oscar's team didn't, but that 76ers team was legit and possibly could have dethroned the Celtics. But beating Boston at that time was very difficult, and being such a stacked team is one of the major reasons why.



Oh wow, so take away Russell and only THREE of those guys are for sure hall of famers. Wow, silly me. I guess Russell didn't have as stacked of a team as I thought. Only three legitimate hall of fame worthy teammates. I am clearly mistaken.

Buddy, think about the shit you are saying. This just further proves my point.



No one is dissing Russell. I sure as hell ain't. Me saying he has no argument for GOAT isn't dissing him. It's being realistic. You cannot go entirely off of rings. That's one of the worst possible arguments you can make because at the end of the day, rings are a team accomplishment. Russell was always, and I mean ALWAYS a key part of every single one of those rings. He's the greatest defensive player in the history of the sport.


But he wasn't even the best player in his own era (that would be Wilt). He wasn't even an elite offensive player. All said and done, the only thing I can say about Russell at that end was...yeah, he was good, maybe even great. But he was never good enough at that end to realistically deserve a spot in the GOAT conversation.


Sometimes I have a hard time justifying putting him in the top ten. Take away Michael Jordan's rings and what do you have? The most dominant two way player in the history of the game with 10 scoring titles, 9 all defensive team selections, including a defensive player of the year award and a multitude of other accolades that no other player to this day holds.




Take away Bill Russell's 11 championship rings and what do you have? You have arguably the greatest defensive player of all time but was constantly overshadowed by Wilt Chamberlin.

You see the difference here? You don't need to mention Jordan's 6 championship rings to argue that he's the GOAT. His play on the court and his accolades speak for themselves.

Russell's 11 championship rings are the only reason he's even in the top 10 conversation.

You don't want people dissing Russell? Then stop overrating him.[/QUOTE]




Russell was a system player--the ultimate system player to be sure, but I wonder if, as legendary, as he was, he would have been nearly as effective in another system and with worse teammates around him.





On the other hand, Wilt or Kareem or hell Lebron and Jordan with a team of pretty fair roleplayers--yet alone superior players like the ones that were the cogs in the well-oiled Celtic machine that supported Russell--is always going to make a team a serious contender.


I am not sure you can say that of Russell.

People in the last couple of years seem to want to downplay the other 1960's Celtics players to boost up Russell.

Just going off of awards the Celtics were overwhelmingly more talented than the other teams of the 1960's

1959 3 1st team All NBA players Russell, Cousy, and Sharman...when else has that ever happened?

1960 Cousy 1st team All NBA, Russell, Sharman 2nd team

1961 Cousy 1st team All NBA, Russell, Heinsohn 2nd team

1962 Cousy, Russell, Heinsohn 2nd team All NBA...4 Celtics made the All Star Team Cousy, Russell, Heinsohn, and Jones

1963 Russell 1st team All NBA, Cousy, Heinsohn 2nd team...Havlicek Rookie team

1964 Havlicek, Russell, Heinsohn All NBA 2nd team.... Sam Jones also made the All Star team

1965 Russell 1st team, Sam Jones 2nd team

1966 Russell, Jones, Havlicek All NBA 2nd team

1967 Russell, Jones All NBA 2nd team

1968 Russell, Havlicek All NBA 2nd team

1969 Havlicek All NBA 2nd team


That is an amazing run of ALL NBA team honours that I don't see being matched ever again. Russell was the constant but in that 10 year period he had 5 other players join him on the All NBA teams. Not one player in NBA history can say that.


And you can't underestimate the fact that Russell played with those guys for years:

Heinsohn for 7 years

Cousy 5 years

Sam Jones 11 years

KC Jones 9 years

Frank Ramsey 6 years

Tom Sanders 9 years

Havlicek 7 years

Then having Red Auerbach as his coach for 8 years.


Yes it is a fact that Wilt did have teammates as talented as the Boston group on some occasions. Not many--definitely 1967 through 1969.


That's 3 or 4 out of 10 seasons they played concurrently...a significant minority if not a majority.



We also have to keep in mind that Mendy Rudolph, phantom fouls, incredibly lucky bounces...things went Boston's way during that era that were unbelievable.


In any case, I don't believe anyone in their right mind would have favoured Russell's teams over Wilt's had they swapped rosters in their first seven seasons



As my God Russell's 1963 and 1964 teams had eight and even nine HOFers to Wilt's three and it should be noted that HOFer Nate Thurmond was a rookie when he played alongside Wilt in 1964.

So in other words, through the onslaught of posts by Coastal...basically Russell has no real argument of being the GOAT. His greatest achievement is due entirely to the fact that he always had a stacked team supporting him. I will personally be ashamed of this list that we are making if he makes the top 5. He doesn't belong there.

[QUOTE=SaintzFury13;14425351]So in other words, through the onslaught of posts by Coastal...basically Russell has no real argument of being the GOAT. His greatest achievement is due entirely to the fact that he always had a stacked team supporting him. I will personally be ashamed of this list that we are making if he makes the top 5. He doesn't belong there.[/QUOTE]

Russell fans claim that Celtics 7-1 PO record shows Russ dominated and is better than Wilt as a player all time.

Wilt fans say he dominated Russ individually but that Russell's teammates outplayed Wilt’s.

This comment looks at the actual record, series by series and game by game and decides which side is right or not in their arguments.

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


Also, finally, we know that Wilt and Russell played H2H in 8 PO series.

But who led in each category:

PTS: 8-0 Wilt

REB: 8-0 Wilt

AST: 6-2 Russell

TS%: 8-0 Wilt


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

While many younger fans currently believe the myth that Bill Simmons created in his book of basketball that Wilt had equal teammates or rosters to Russell's throughout his career.

It seems that the data about each other's teammates in the playoffs disputes this narrative entirely

And I have read those that use the argument that Boston flopped the year after Russell retired.


The reality was, the Celtics had no idea that Russell was going to retire, and they didn't draft a center.




Furthermore, the 68-69 Celtics were on their last legs. Sam Jones retired right after the final game, too, which no one seems to remember.


This was a Celtic team that had slowly declined from its peak in the mid-'60s.

And yes, they fell to 34-48 (down from 48-34 in '69) in '70.

But here again, Henry Finkel was their center. They drafted Cowens in '71, and he immediately led them to a 44-38 record. In '72 Boston surged to 56-26.

In 1973 they set a new team record, which still stands, of 68-14 and if not for John's injury in the ECF against New York the Celtics very well could have won the title that year.



In '74 they won an NBA title. And they would go on to win one more in '76.

So the loss of Russell was really only felt for one season.


And had Boston been better prepared, who knows. In any case, they became an elite team within two years, a record-breaking team in three, and a two time champion in four.

[QUOTE=coastalmarker99;14425344]Russell was a system player--the ultimate system player to be sure, but I wonder if, as legendary, as he was, he would have been nearly as effective in another system and with worse teammates around him.
[/QUOTE]
What does that even mean? He had a really stacked team with scorers, so the Celtics were always the best offense and that's how they won?

[QUOTE=SaintzFury13;14425351]So in other words, through the onslaught of posts by Coastal...basically Russell has no real argument of being the GOAT. His greatest achievement is due entirely to the fact that he always had a stacked team supporting him. I will personally be ashamed of this list that we are making if he makes the top 5. He doesn't belong there.[/QUOTE]


To Russell's credit, he was a legendary winner even in his college days, running off 56 straight wins at a relatively small school (USF) and winning two national championships.




His only real quality teammate in those years was K.C. Jones, and he didn't even have Jones during his second tournament run.

There is some problems with saying "Russell had a stacked team." and just ending it at that.

First of all, let's assume for a second that the premise is perfectly true. His teams were stacked... but he still led Boston to 11 titles in 13 seasons. One of the two seasons they lost, it was with Russell injured in the finals. So basically this Russell guy won 11 titles in 12 years... That's insanely impressive. Magic and Kareem had a stacked Lakers team in the 80's. Compared to their Western Conference opposition (excludes Sixers and Celtics) they were just obscenely stacked and yet they only made 8 finals in 10 seasons. They got upset twice. Russell never got upset with his only (healthy) loss being against a juggernaut Sixers team. HIS ONLY LOSS...

Second of all, for the last four years of Russell's career, his teams weren't the most talented in the league. In 1966, 1967 and 1968 it was actually Wilt's Sixers that were the most talented and in 1969 it was the juggernaut Lakers with a Big 3 of Wilt, West and Baylor. All four of those years, the Celtics were actually underdogs and didn't have homecourt and Russell still managed to win 3 out of those 4 titles although I will concede that injuries played a major role in 1968.

And the third point is that despite such great teammates, the Celtics were terrible when Russell sat out games and before/after he left the team. coastalmarker99 already mentioned his rookie year but that was an aberration. For the entire rest of his career from 1958-1969, the Celtics played at a 35 win -1.9 SRS pace in games Russell didn't play and played at a 59-win +6.4 SRS pace in games Russell did play. And when Russell retired in 1969, the Celtics missed the playoffs the following season with 34 wins and -1.6 SRS with most of their core intact. When guys like Cousy, Heinsohn, and Sam Jones missed games and Russell played, the Celtics didn't miss a beat. The Celtics defense with Russell on the floor was historically great (4 out of 5 greatest defenses ever in rDRtg) but the offense was anywhere between league average and the very bottom. Ben Taylor is my [URL="https://backpicks.com/2018/04/02/backpicks-goat-3-bill-russell/"]source[/URL].

Clearly Russell must be a lot better than you guys give him credit for.

[QUOTE=dankok8;14425437]There is some problems with saying "Russell had a stacked team." and just ending it at that.

First of all, let's assume for a second that the premise is perfectly true. His teams were stacked... but he still led Boston to 11 titles in 13 seasons. One of the two seasons they lost, it was with Russell injured in the finals. So basically this Russell guy won 11 titles in 12 years... That's insanely impressive. Magic and Kareem had a stacked Lakers team in the 80's. Compared to their Western Conference opposition (excludes Sixers and Celtics) they were just obscenely stacked and yet they only made 8 finals in 10 seasons. They got upset twice. Russell never got upset with his only (healthy) loss being against a juggernaut Sixers team. HIS ONLY LOSS...

Second of all, for the last four years of Russell's career, his teams weren't the most talented in the league. In 1966, 1967 and 1968 it was actually Wilt's Sixers that were the most talented and in 1969 it was the juggernaut Lakers with a Big 3 of Wilt, West and Baylor. All four of those years, the Celtics were actually underdogs and didn't have homecourt and Russell still managed to win 3 out of those 4 titles although I will concede that injuries played a major role in 1968.

And the third point is that despite such great teammates, the Celtics were terrible when Russell sat out games and before/after he left the team. coastalmarker99 already mentioned his rookie year but that was an aberration. For the entire rest of his career from 1958-1969, the Celtics played at a 35 win -1.9 SRS pace in games Russell didn't play and played at a 59-win +6.4 SRS pace in games Russell did play. And when Russell retired in 1969, the Celtics missed the playoffs the following season with 34 wins and -1.6 SRS with most of their core intact. When guys like Cousy, Heinsohn, and Sam Jones missed games and Russell played, the Celtics didn't miss a beat. The Celtics defense with Russell on the floor was historically great (4 out of 5 greatest defenses ever in rDRtg) but the offense was anywhere between league average and the very bottom. Ben Taylor is my [URL="https://backpicks.com/2018/04/02/backpicks-goat-3-bill-russell/"]source[/URL].

Clearly Russell must be a lot better than you guys give him credit for.[/QUOTE]


The 1966 Sixers were not better than the Celtics.

They won 1 game more, but the Celtics had played some games without Russell, so, their 54-26 record isn't telling the whole truth.

They were coached by someone who, when he left the Sixers in that season, was never trusted again by any NBA team for the next 5 seasons




You'd expect from someone who won 55 games to have had a lot more demand in the market) and when he was, it was from the worst team in the league, for only a single season. Also Billy C was a rookie, played like absolute shit in the playoffs and even missed a game.


Not to mention the obvious vast difference in playoff experience.


1967 76ers Healthy team elite coach, destroyed the league and were far better than the Celtics who had won 8 straight titles up to that point.




The 1968 team was not the same as the 67 team

Here is the list of injuries the Sixers had that were recorded in an article by the Philly AP before Game 4 of that series:

-Wilt Chamberlain (partial tear of the calf muscle in his right leg, a strain in his right thigh and an injured right toe)

-Wally Jones (injured knee cartilage)

-Luke Jackson (pulled hamstring muscle)

-Hal Greer (bursitus in his right knee)

-Billy Cunningham (broken right wrist)

Cunningham didn't play at all. Philly was also missing Reid and Costello because of injuries.


The team managed one more win, but the rest of the team's injuries worsened as the series went on and Boston wore them out.

The Sixers were also only playing an 8-man rotation compared to Boston's 12.

Chamberlain was limping in every game and his leg had gotten so bad to the point that in Game 6 he could only shoot 6 for 21 from the field.

In-Game 7 coach Alex Hannum didn't make any offensive plays for Chamberlain and his teammates didn't pass to him while they themselves shot poorly.





1969 was a complete choke job and that is by far the biggest black mark on Wilt's career as had he shown up as he should have in games 4 or 6 the Lakers win the title in 5 or 6 games.

If someone has Russell over Chamberlain because of Championships, they should really ask themselves "if the supporting casts were reversed, would it still be 11-2 in favour of Russell?" Most reasonable people who are honest with themselves would say no.

I'm no Russell basher. As a longtime Lakers fan, the players I feared and respected the most were Bird and Russell. And when the Jordanites go on about 6-0, I'm the first to remind everyone that Russell has almost twice as many, also as the best player of his team. That's why they call it the Bill Russell award.

[QUOTE=Thenameless;14425480]If someone has Russell over Chamberlain because of Championships, they should really ask themselves "if the supporting casts were reversed, would it still be 11-2 in favour of Russell?" Most reasonable people who are honest with themselves would say no.

I'm no Russell basher. As a longtime Lakers fan, the players I feared and respected the most were Bird and Russell. And when the Jordanites go on about 6-0, I'm the first to remind everyone that Russell has almost twice as many, also as the best player of his team. That's why they call it the Bill Russell award.[/QUOTE]



I actually do think Wilt would have an incredibly lopsided championship count over Russell if their supporting casts were reversed.

It would most likely be 10 to 3 in Wilt's favour.






While It's true that Wilt didn't have the consistent fire in the belly that Russell had--if he had Jordan (and to be fair, no one else either) would even be in the conversation as to who's the GOAT.


But I also don't think there would be a lot of competition in the 1960s if Wilt is on the Celtics in place of Russell.



Russell on the Warriors really doesn't scare me as a huge title threat.


I also doubt Russell is traded to make room for Thurmond since Russell is now in the Bay area where he went to college and won two national titles.


Thurmond if he gets traded to the 76ers doesn't strike me as a huge threat either.


That leaves Oscar and the Royals who are mismanaged and undersized.



Or the Lakers who are in worse shape having to guard Wilt with La Russo 6'7" instead of guarding Russell.


As If Russell could have a great series scoring-wise vs the Lakers in the finals imagine what Wilt would do.

[QUOTE=Thenameless;14425480]If someone has Russell over Chamberlain because of Championships, they should really ask themselves "if the supporting casts were reversed, would it still be 11-2 in favour of Russell?" Most reasonable people who are honest with themselves would say no.

I'm no Russell basher. As a longtime Lakers fan, the players I feared and respected the most were Bird and Russell. And when the Jordanites go on about 6-0, I'm the first to remind everyone that Russell has almost twice as many, also as the best player of his team. That's why they call it the Bill Russell award.[/QUOTE]


The main question IMHO about swapping Russell and Wilt's supporting casts in a hypothetical scenario.


Is not if Wilt is good enough to take Russell's job but who is going to take Wilts job as the #1 enemy of the Celtics???


Who is good enough to single handily bring his team to a close 7th game vs the Celtics??

I think what we have to consider is the serious decline in Celtic competition.

With the moving of Wilt to Boston in place of Russell not only are you still keeping the Celtics dominant but you're hurting the Warriors, 76ers Lakers to the point that these teams simply can't compete with the Celtics.




I doubt Russell who is a Bay legend from his college days at (USF) would be traded to the 76ers so that team instead of having Wilt now has Luke Jackson at C.



That's a serious downgrade from having Wilt or Russell and that basically means the Celtics with Wilt have a much easier time in the playoffs.




Where Thurmond would play if Russell stays in the Bay area. I'm not sure but he's not going to lead an inferior starting cast to victory over Wilt and the Celtics.

W/O Wilt or Russell on the Lakers that team will always struggle to build a championship team around Baylor and West.


You see the fact that the Celtics with Russell beat Wilt who is the most talented player of all time is what's so impressive about their dynasty.



Taking Wilt away from the other teams and giving him to the Celtics would make them basically unbeatable up till 1970.

10 - 3 in Wilt's favour sounds about right to me.

In hockey, Wayne Gretzky is more or less the undisputed greatest. There are proponents of Howe, Orr, and Lemieux, but Gretzky gets the overwhelming amount of number 1 votes. No one penalizes him for only having won four Stanley Cups, while Henri Richard has eleven and Jean Beliveau has ten.

He's number 1 because he owns the record book. Wilt is the same but different. He doesn't have some of the career records that Gretzky has, but he proves to be more dominant in his peak seasons, and unlike Gretzky, he was also a monster on the defensive end (being best or second best all time).