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 ...
[QUOTE=hkfosho]there's your answer.
/thread[/QUOTE]
My point is, that Russell's competition had the same luxury, it's not like everyone got to play 32 teams except his team... and why does that only apply to MJ and Not Bird or Magic and others...
[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]Well, if he was the reason they won all those titles, than ...[/QUOTE]
No doubt he was their best player, but imo not all titles have equal weight. A player who has to do a lot of heavy lifting gets more credit for a title than one who had to do less heavy lifting due to having better teammates, even if both players are the best players on their teams. For example, Shaq's 2000 title is worth way more than KG's 2008 title imo.
[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]No doubt he was their best player, but imo not all titles have equal weight. A player who has to do a lot of heavy lifting gets more credit for a title than one who had to do less heavy lifting due to having better teammates, even if noth players are the best players on their teams. For example, Shaq's 2000 title is worth way more than KG's 2008 title imo.[/QUOTE]
Every team was stacked back than, not just the Celtics as everyone seems to believe.
[QUOTE=DeronMillsap]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]
[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]
[QUOTE=XxSMSxX]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[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=NoEasy9]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]
I agree with most points but why doesn't this same reasons apply to Magic or Bird? Double standards?
[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]Every team was stacked back than, not just the Celtics as everyone seems to believe.[/QUOTE]
Every team was MORE stacked than they are in the 2000's, for instance, but the Celts were clearly the most talented team throughout the decade. It wasn't like in the 80's where you had at least 3-4 teams roughly on a similar talent level with LA/Boston/Philly/Detroit, albeit during different parts of the decade.
[QUOTE=asdf1990]i bet u think kobe is goat. am i correct?[/QUOTE]
No, Kobe will never be better than MJ, fact.
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.
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.
[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]
Less teams= talent is less spread out. Adding too many expansion teams just waters the league down.
Also need to end this myth that Russell and Wilt played "nothing but short, un-athletic white guys"
Walt Bellamy: 6'11"
Dennis Awtrey: 6'11"
Tom Boerwinkle: 7'0"
Nate Bowmen: 6'11"
Mel Counts: 7'0"
Walter Dukes: 7'0"
Jim Eakins: 6'11"
Ray Felix: 6'11"
Hank Finkel: 7'0"
Artis Gilmore: 7'2"
Swede Halbrook: 7'3"
Reggie Harding: 7'0"
Bob Lanier: 6'11"
Jim McDaniels: 6'11"
Otto Moore: 6'11"
Dave Newmark: 7'0"
Rich Niemann: 7'0"
Billy Paultz: 6'11"
Craig Raymond: 6'11"
Elmore Smith: 7'0"
Chuck Share: 6'11"
Ronald Taylor: 7'1"
Nate Thurmond: 6'11"
Walt Wesley: 6'11"
The NBA had 1/3 of the players that they do now. That means Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain faced these 25 guys 3 times more often than they would in the modern NBA scheduling.
The truth is, height will never be more of a factor than skill. With several exceptions, players over 7' are typically not very successful. At a collegian level, only three 7 footers have made all-American first team in the last twenty years: Shaquille O'Neal, Andrew Bogut, and Chris Mihm. In last years all-star game, Dirk Nowitzki, Pau Gasol, and Chris Kaman were the only 3 of 30 players selected to be 7 feet, and all are known far more for their skill sets than dominating with size. If height was such a significant factor, then Manute Bol, Shawn Bradly, and Gheorghe Muresan would be hall of fame players, not just fan favorite scrubs.
So Russell is better only because he won more? Jordan is best to me because he played best, not because he won so much. Russell is tied with Wilt at a somewhat distant second to me, because he was such a great player, not because he won 11 titles.
[QUOTE=G-Funk]I agree with most points but why doesn't this same reasons apply to Magic or Bird? Double standards?[/QUOTE]
I think it's the way Jordan dominated on the offensive end. Bird and Magic didn't really have to that for their teams. All three of their teams were stacked but the only guy who stood out for Jordan was Pippen, while Bird and Magic had McHale, Parish, Kareem, Worthy on their respective teams. Bird and Magic had more HOF-caliber teammates.
Basically, his dominance within his team and as well as against his opponents. Took away titles from a lot of All-Time 50 players.
[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]Every team was stacked back than, not just the Celtics as everyone seems to believe.[/QUOTE]
Well, I wouldn't say EVERY team was stacked back then, but to a point you're right. The Celtics WERE a little more "stacked" than the rest of the teams (at least until the Sixers acquired Wilt), but the Celtics had a HUGE advantage over everyone else and that advantage was named Red Auerbach.
[QUOTE]the fact that he was only dominant on one side of the court. [/QUOTE]
Lets clear some things about Russell's lack of offensive skills.
Russell was an amazing rebounder averaging 22 rpg (16+ rpg when adjusted to today's pace and still higher than Rodman's average. He was a good ball handler for a big man, since he often runs the ball after rebounding to get a clear pass down court and start the fast break, and of course a great defender. He was also a great passer; he consistently ranked in the top 10 in assists and that is beyond what you would expect from a center. Not most guards could do that. His scoring was solid at 15ppg on 13 FGA's. Not exactly mind blowing numbers but then everyone on the 60's Celtics didn't have a mind blowing PPG.
Celtics had a structured offense where all 5 guys on the floor would have the opportunity to score. The leading scorer on the Celtics only averaged 22 points and there were 5-6 other guys scoring in double-digits. Bill or anyone else on the Celtics didn't need not to fully exert themselves on offense since the scoring was distributed. Russell had the same shooting percentage as the top two scorers (Jones and Havlicek) on the team. Understand that Red wanted Russell to stay focused more on his rebounding and outlet passing instead of his shooting.
Also back in college, when his coach wasn't pigeonholing him on a defensive and rebounding role, Bill was scoring 20ppg on 52 FG%.
Conclusion: The Reason for Russell's low PPG in the NBA was Russell was given very few opportunities to score (13 FGA)
IMO Kareem is the GOAT, but Russell also has a strong case. 11 rings and 5 MVPs speaks for its self.
Honestly assigning an arbitrary criteria that the top players must be an offensive threat is just naive. I guess this shows the prevailing stat hog mentality and double standards of today's fans. Magic averaged less than 20 PPG, is he worthy to be put in the top 10? John Stockton only averaged 13 PPG is he worthy to be included in the top 15-20?
People put way too much stock on an individuals scoring stats to determine their greatness, especially when such scoring stats (and stats in general) don't tell a complete picture of the player's contributions.
[QUOTE=DeronMillsap]I think it's the way Jordan dominated on the offensive end. Bird and Magic didn't really have to that for their teams. All three of their teams were stacked but the only guy who stood out for Jordan was Pippen, while Bird and Magic had McHale, Parish, Kareem, Worthy on their respective teams.
Basically, his dominance within his team and as well as against his opponents. Took away title from a lot of All-Time 50 players.[/QUOTE]
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=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]
Yeah, Jordan's defense was great too but even that was overshadowed by his offensive/scoring skills.
Good post, will rep when I get a chance.
[QUOTE]he had by far the most talented teams of that era[/QUOTE]
So your saying Russell only won because he had talented teammates?
- Boston had never even been to the Finals before Bill Russell. Despite having multiple HOF players and a HOF coach.
- During the 1962 season, Russell took himself out for 4 games and the Celtics lost 4 straight games even with Cousy, Sharman, Jones, Ramsey and other HoF's.
- In the 1969 season he took himself out for 5 games due to injury and Boston lost 5 straight games even with Hall of famers Jones, Hondo, Howell and Sanders
The occurrences that I mentioned are the worst losing streaks of the Russell-era Celtics. The latter is the worst losing streak of the Celtics since Red Auerbach took over the helm.
After he retired, Boston went from 48 wins to 34 and they didn't make the playoffs despite having several HOF players. An abysmal 14 game drop off. Compare that to Jordan who a lot of people consider the undisputed greatest and the most valuable player ever.
After Jordan retired in '93 the Bulls only had a 2 game drop off. (57 wins to 55). Hell, if it wasn't for one of the most controversial phantom foul calls ever, the Bulls would've been in the ECF with home court advantage against the Pacers who they swept in the regular season. It would've been a huge blow to Jordan's prestige and importance seeing the team that he left behind reach the conference finals and most likely make the Finals. And no, the post-98 Bulls doesn't count since it was a virtual restructuring of the Bulls with Jordan, Pippen, Rodman and Phil Jackson all going out.
And the modest 48 wins that the Celtics garnered during the '69 season is the lowest number of wins that the Celtics have during the Russell -era and occurred only because Russell spent a lot of time on the injured list and/or recovering.
Boston with an "All-Star" cast like that should be able to shake off his departure and continue the dynasty, but they couldn't.
He has 5 rings without Cousy and 5 without Hondo and 2 without coach Auerbach. 3 without KC and Heinsohn, 2 of which came as a player/coach.
Bill made HOF players out of his teammates. He had a good cast because he was the one making them look good. He was the one constant in Boston's dynasty.
[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]
This is the reason. MJ was basketball's cash cow. He was the 80s and 90s pre-decision LeBron James as far as his star power and sheer impact on the business side of the NBA. No other athlete was promoted like MJ. Hell even Wilt's 100 Point game wasn't even televised. That's why. People only cite stats and rings to further justify their stance on the subject but MJ was a huge star and was selling out arenas even before he was winning titles because he was such a huge attraction and was promoted so heavily.
Russel has a case, just like Kareem, Jordan and Wilt. It all depends on what you value more. Stats, Team success or individual accolades? That's a lot harder to decide than you might think, especially with players you never saw. Also it is the GREATEST of all time, not the BEST of all time. Some of you might even consider the hardships a player went through to get to the top (For example the racism especially players from the early years had to deal with).
Truth be told, I prefer to rank player in tiers and Russell, Wilt, Jordan and Kareem are the ones in the GOAT-Candidate tier.
[QUOTE=Mr. I'm So Rad]This is the reason. MJ was basketball's cash cow. He was the 80s and 90s pre-decision LeBron James as far as his star power and sheer impact on the business side of the NBA. No other athlete was promoted like MJ. [B]Hell even Wilt's 100 Point game wasn't even televised. That's why.[/B] People only cite stats and rings to further justify their stance on the subject but MJ was a huge star and was selling out arenas even before he was winning titles because he was such a huge attraction and was promoted so heavily.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the NBA had major network contracts back in 1962. One of those 4 networks should have given a new league money.
:rolleyes:
Definitely a legitimate question. Personally, I believe that Jordan is the greatest player ever but that's just my opinion. Bill Russell definitely has a case for GOAT and only idiots would say otherwise. The way I see it, Jordan, Kareem, and Russell are the 3 players who can be in the discussion for GOAT. Maybe Wilt to a lesser extent.
[QUOTE=DeronMillsap]Yeah, the NBA had major network contracts back in 1962. One of those 4 networks should have given a new league money.
:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
My point exactly. The NBA wasn't the media giant it is now so no one really got to see Wilt, Russell and others unless it was in person. MJ came in and electrified people with his crazy athleticism and showmanship. He made the NBA marketable, very marketable. He made the NBA what it is today. It wasn't his crazy stats or his rings but his promotion that made him a star. More people grew up watching Michael Jordan winning dunk contests and hitting game winners more than Bill Russell grabbing a bunch of rebounds and winning championships. MJ is more recent and is the biggest NBA star ever and one of the most if not the most famous American athlete ever.
[QUOTE=Mr. I'm So Rad]My point exactly. The NBA wasn't the media giant it is now so no one really got to see Wilt, Russell and others unless it was in person. MJ came in and electrified people with his crazy athleticism and showmanship. He made the NBA marketable, very marketable. He made the NBA what it is today. It wasn't his crazy stats or his rings but his promotion that made him a star. More people grew up watching Michael Jordan winning dunk contests and hitting game winners more than Bill Russell grabbing a bunch of rebounds and winning championships. MJ is more recent and is the biggest NBA star ever and one of the most if not the most famous American athlete ever.[/QUOTE]
So it was all about marketing, and that's why Jordan is considered the GOAT?
[QUOTE=DeronMillsap]So it was all about marketing, and that's why Jordan is considered the GOAT?[/QUOTE]
That's at least why he's considered the clear cut GOAT by many. No one is gonna argue that you can consider Jordan the GOAT, but he isn't worlds ahead of the others. And from my experience I have to say, the less people know about basketball the clearer the cut between Jordan and the others becomes.
For those of you that are saying MJ is considered better due to marketing here are 2 words:
Babe Ruth
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=andgar923]For those of you that are saying MJ is considered better due to marketing here are 2 words:
Babe Ruth[/QUOTE]
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