Re: Better Case For GOAT? Wilt Chamberlain or KAJ
And to expand on that... I also value players' skills than I do anything else. Jordan and Kareem dominated on both ends, while Russell, who wasn't exactly bad on offense, isn't really considered ELITE on that end either (nowhere close to Kareem/Wilt/Jordan).
Re: Better Case For GOAT? Wilt Chamberlain or KAJ
[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Russell has the best case if you value championships (he isn't Robert Horry so don't get it twisted). If you value everything, his resume does NOT stack up to Kareem or Jordan's, who again, have the best combo of stats, dominance, accolades and honors.[/QUOTE]
Russell has every non scoring statistical box checked: GOAT level rebounding, GOAT level shot blocking, great passing and stealing. And the sole reason he doesn't have as many accolades is because they just didn't exist as many as in Jordan's time - and even without them, he still ranks very high accolade-wise. No reason not to believe that, given these criteria, he doesn't possibly have the best "combination" of achievements.
Re: Better Case For GOAT? Wilt Chamberlain or KAJ
Context is also important here.
Russell won 11 rings in 13 seasons. Unheard of winning. And no team has won more than 3 in a row since then. Why? I would say level of comp and more parity in the league. No matter how great a team is (80's Lakers, 80's Celtics, 90's Bulls, 00's Lakers), you can't stay on top forever. You peak and then start to decline while other upstarts eventually catch up to you.
That's why i am actually more impressed with MJ's 6 rings than Russell's 11. MJ won 6 rings in his last 6 full seasons as a Bull. That is AMAZING dominance in this day and age. Russell got most of his rings when there were only 8 teams in the league and his teams had a monopoly of talent over the rest of the league.
So i do get a little offended when people just compare rings at face value. Not all rings are the same, at least to me. You have to look at the context.
Re: Better Case For GOAT? Wilt Chamberlain or KAJ
If you were to allow me to pick any center in history to start a team, i would take several guys over Russell and feel confident about it. KAJ, Wilt and Olajuwon. I might even take Shaq over Russell. The guys i mentioned could dominate you on both ends while Russell couldn't. If my best big can't dominate the game offensively, how valueable can he be?
I know i'll catch serious slack from some of you Boston/Russell fans, but to me Russell is a glorified version of Rodman. Their fortay was D and rebounding. They did both about as well as anyone. Sure, you gotta give Russell extra points for his superior height/length along with his leadership/clutch qualities, but when you break down his game, it compares favorably to a guy like Rodman. D and rebounding being their bread and butter.