Is it possible for someone to pass up Bill Russell's 11 rings?

[EnoughSaid]

If a player like we've never seen before steps on the court and dominates the game like no one else, who says he can't win 11? What about a duo of two amazing players? Anything can happen.

[Owl]

Maybe not, but let me offer you another alternative universe: Russell doesn't get injured in 1958 and Red Auerbach doesn't retire in 1966.

13 for 13.

Bill would be unanimous GOAT forever, man.

Because?

How much better do you think Auerbach makes Boston. Philly won 8 more games that year (then bested Boston 4-1 in the playoffs, losing by 4, winning by 5, 11, 14 and 24). Boston were better than the year before because of adding Howell. But Philly would surely remain favourites.

Are you kidding me ?

Russell already has more than enough done in his resume to be considered the GOAT, now add a 13 peat and the majority of those title years as the best player ?

How can he not be considered unanimous GOAT ? Russell made that team click for those titles.

Read the fricking post. I questioned why Auerbach coaching automatically automatically gives Boston the ring in '67 and instead of an explanation you come out arguing how great Russell is. That wasn't what I was talking about.

That said, I wouldn't say "If Russell had .... extra rings" makes him GOAT (or any other player with any other stipulation of rings) because it makes no statement as to the players impact on achieving those titles. Elgin Baylor got a ring in '72. But implicit in your suggestion that adding titles necessarily, arbitrarily and without context does mean a players career is better than it was in than in an alternate version of history in which a different outcome occurred, is the suggestion that individual performance doesn't matter at all.

From what I heard Russell played well versus the 76ers in '67. Yet by any "more titles always equals better player" reckoning, if Russell played worse but happened to win, he would be better.

To the main topic, its tough to say never because basketball could be going on for thousands of years. But in the concievable future, I can't see anyone doing 11 titles.

[Legends66NBA7]

Read the fricking post. I questioned why Auerbach coaching automatically automatically gives Boston the ring in '67 and instead of an explanation you come out arguing how great Russell is. That wasn't what I was talking about.

I'll admit, that was a jackass response. My bad, I should have read your post more properly.

Why would it not give them the ring, in your opinion ?

I'm going off facts that they won 8 years in a row and 9 in 10 years... Red stays, I don't see why they don't win another one, unless the Sixers were just THAT much on a mission that year.

With Red going and Russell having to coach, that probably wasn't in their comfort zone for him coaching and playing... until a year later. (I'm just going of psychology here...)

That said, I wouldn't say "If Russell had .... extra rings" makes him GOAT (or any other player with any other stipulation of rings) because it makes no statement as to the players impact on achieving those titles. Elgin Baylor got a ring in '72. But implicit in your suggestion that adding titles necessarily, arbitrarily and without context does mean a players career is better than it was in than in an alternate version of history in which a different outcome occurred, is the suggestion that individual performance doesn't matter at all.

From what I heard Russell played well versus the 76ers in '67. Yet by any "more titles always equals better player" reckoning, if Russell played worse but happened to win, he would be better.

I wouldn't say Rings make you the GOAT automatically... but in that type of dominance ? A 13 peat ? And you are clearly the main reason for that type of dominance, getting to the finals, being the best player on that, being the most clutch, etc... He would have had the perfect basketball resume and embodies everything of the team concept of basketball: playing un selfish, putting team views ahead of individual goals, remarkable consistency.

I would also not just arbitrary rings, but even the awards didn't exist back then like Defensive Player of the Year and Finals MVP... how much more better does Russell's resume look for a unanimous GOAT candidate ? I'd say that's pretty strong. All hypothetical.

[Owl]

I'll admit, that was a jackass response. My bad, I should have read your post more properly.

Why would it not give them the ring, in your opinion ?

I'm going off facts that they won 8 years in a row and 9 in 10 years... Red stays, I don't see why they don't win another one, unless the Sixers were just THAT much on a mission that year.

With Red going and Russell having to coach, that probably wasn't in their comfort zone for him coaching and playing... until a year later. (I'm just going of psychology here...)



I wouldn't say Rings make you the GOAT automatically... but in that type of dominance ? A 13 peat ? And you are clearly the main reason for that type of dominance, getting to the finals, being the best player on that, being the most clutch, etc... He would have had the perfect basketball resume and embodies everything of the team concept of basketball: playing un selfish, putting team views ahead of individual goals, remarkable consistency.

I would also not just arbitrary rings, but even the awards didn't exist back then like Defensive Player of the Year and Finals MVP... how much more better does Russell's resume look for a unanimous GOAT candidate ? I'd say that's pretty strong. All hypothetical.

Sixers weren't "that much on a mission". There were that much better than they ever were or would be again.

Substantially better coach (Hannum replaces Schayes)
Substantially better Cunningham (Cunningham improves significantly in his 2nd year then is injured in the first round in '68 and misses the Boston series)
Wilt settled in with team (1 1/2 full years prior to '67 season) and living in Philly rather than communting from NYC. Wilt finds his role and is now arguably at his apex.
I could probably go further but '67 Sixers were a beast of team. I don't see that Auerbach tilts the balance of power that much (especially since he's already established his coaching systems, his arduous pre-season fitness regimes and still has significant influence over the players anyway). Could the Celtics have won a series versus those Sixers, sure, it's possible. But then I think it's also more than possible that the Sixers repeat with a healthy Cunningham (especially without a bunch of other nagging injuries).

Don't have a problem with your opinions now they are expressed in a nauanced way.