Printable View
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...
espn
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=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? [B]A lot of ppl will point out Russell's era as if he had an advantage over his competition...[/B][/QUOTE]
there's your answer.
/thread
Because most people alive today haven't seen Russell play and box scores were wonky as **** back then so you can't really just go straight off stats
How many team are there at Bill's time and how many fans are watching?
[QUOTE=SyRyanYang]How many team are there at Bill's time and how many fans are watching?[/QUOTE]
like 6-8, and no one because they didn't really have a cable deal yet.
Because MJ [I]was[/I] better.
i bet u think kobe is goat. am i correct?
Because he was more recent than Russell. If Jordan had played in the 60s and Russell played in the 90s more people would consider Russell the greater player. It is just the way it works in the nba and in sports in general...
[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]
His era, the fact that he had by far the most talented teams of that era, and the fact that he was only dominant on one side of the court. His stats would translate to about 14-16 pts/14 reb/4-5 ast/46-48% FG today - would today's fans be willing to declare such a player, playing on easily the most talented team in the league, the GOAT just because he won every year? I'm not sure.
That said, he can't be lower than top 6 imo, and I have no problem with him anywhere in the top 6, though I do disagree that he's GOAT - MJ and KAJ (at the very least) pretty clearly have better cases.
its a good question. but not very many people, and even less people online, can say they legitimately saw both of their careers play out and make their own unbiased opinion.
Because MJ is an icon. He changed basketball in the business sense and made it marketable and made everyone interested in it again.
Bill Russell didn't have his own huge nike shoe deal
It has nothing to do with stats, rings, etc. Those are all secondary. It's because we were exposed to MJ more than guys like Russell, Chamberlain, etc. It's that simple.
League was still in its infancy when Russell won his titles. Jordan won his during the peak years, and he was also great when it was on the rise in the 80's.
[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]His era, the fact that he had by far the most talented teams of that era, and the fact that he was only dominant on one side of the court. His stats would translate to about 14/14/4/48% today - would today's fans be willing to declare such a player, playing on easily the most talented team in the league, the GOAT just because he won every year? I'm not sure.
That said, he can't be lower than top 6 imo, and I have no problem with him anywhere in the top 6, though I do disagree that he's GOAT - MJ and KAJ (at the very least) pretty clearly have better cases.[/QUOTE]
Well, if he was the reason they won all those titles, than ...