Michael Jordan would really struggle against today's athletes

[1987_Lakers]

MVP voting from '58-'69

'58 - Russell wins MVP
'59 - #2 in MVP voting behind Pettit
'60 - #2
'61 - MVP winner
'62 - MVP winner
'63 - MVP winner
'64 - #3
'65 - MVP winner
'66 - #4
'67 - #3
'68 - Nobody on the Celtics received MVP votes
'69 - #4 in MVP voting

Basically every season Russell played excluding his rookie year he finished ahead of his teammates in the MVP voting, but somehow we have people saying it's arguable he wasn't the best player on those teams for a handful of seasons.

[1987_Lakers]

Lets see how dominant the Celtics defense was relative to their league and compare that to other great defensive teams...

'57 Celtics DRTG - 84.0 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 88.9 (+4.9 net)
'58 Celtics DRTG - 83.6 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 88.8 (+5.2 net)
'59 Celtics DRTG - 84.5 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 90.2 (+5.7 net)
'60 Celtics DRTG - 84.9 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 91.1 (+6.2 net)
'61 Celtics DRTG - 84.5 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 92.1 (+7.6 net)
'62 Celtics DRTG - 85.1 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 93.6 (+8.5 net)
'63 Celtics DRTG - 87.4 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 95.9 (+8.5 net)
'64 Celtics DRTG - 83.8 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 94.6 (+10.8 net, NBA record)
'65 Celtics DRTG - 84.2 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 93.6 (+9.4 net)
'66 Celtics DRTG - 88.3 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 94.9 (+6.6 net)
'67 Celtics DRTG - 91.0 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 96.1 (+5.0 net)
'68 Celtics DRTG - 92.4 (#2 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 96.8 (+4.4 net)
'69 Celtics DRTG - 89.9 (#1 in the NBA) : League average DRTG: 95.5 (+5.6 net)

Celtics had a below average defense in '56 before Russell joined and a below average defense in 1970 when Russell retired.

In his 13 seasons with the Celtics, 12 times he led his team to the #1 defense. In a 4 season span from '62-'65, he led Boston's defense to at least +8.5 rating, for comparison sake the '08 Celtics had a +8.6 net in defense and that core never replicated that number again. The '04 Pistons defense which many consider the best defense of the modern era only had a +7.5 net in DRTG.

Even Duncan's Spurs who are often regarded as the best defensive team of the entire 00's only had one season where they had a defensive rating above +8.0(2004). Russell at his peak did it 4 straight years.

[And1AllDay]

MVP voting from '58-'69

'58 - Russell wins MVP
'59 - #2 in MVP voting behind Pettit
'60 - #2
'61 - MVP winner
'62 - MVP winner
'63 - MVP winner
'64 - #3
'65 - MVP winner
'66 - #4
'67 - #3
'68 - Nobody on the Celtics received MVP votes
'69 - #4 in MVP voting

Basically every season Russell played excluding his rookie year he finished ahead of his teammates in the MVP voting, but somehow we have people saying it's arguable he wasn't the best player on those teams for a handful of seasons.

i got these bois silent

[3ba11]

Great efficiency or team offense was impossible in 2-pointer basketball (zero spacing), so a defender like Russell can have impact but he isn't MVP-caliber in 3-pointer basketball - every MVP since the 3-point line began was a completely dominant offensive player - guys like Draymond or Gobert don't win MVP in 3-pointer basketball

[theman93]

Not only did you use PER which doesn't take into account defense

See:

And that's why I included WS/48 because it does take defense in to account.

, but according to WS/48, Rudy Gobert is a top 10 player of all time.

Not surprising. PER is extremely favorably towards big men and Gobert is still in his prime. Anyways, PER isn't the be all end all as I've already made clear.

[theman93]

Lets see how dominant the Celtics defense was relative to their league and compare that to other great defensive teams...

Sure, but your ignoring the improvement the team made defensively before Russell came back from the Olympics. In 1956 they gave up 105.3 points/g. They only gave up 100.6 points/g in the 24 games before Russell's return. That's in addition to more FGA's being attempted in 1956 compared to 1957. The Celtics also consistently had 3+ other players besides Russell finish in the top 10 of DWS. It wasn't just Russell -- they were loaded defensively.

[1987_Lakers]

Sure, but your ignoring the improvement the team made defensively before Russell came back from the Olympics. In 1956 they gave up 105.3 points/g. They only gave up 100.6 points/g in the 24 games before Russell's return. That's in addition to more FGA's being attempted in 1956 compared to 1957. The Celtics also consistently had 3+ other players besides Russell finish in the top 10 of DWS. It wasn't just Russell -- they were loaded defensively.

Loaded defensively? Bob Cousy and Sam Jones were never known as defenders, both were liabilities at times, Tom Heinsohn's defense was nothing to wave about either. Your stat also doesn't include opponents fg% with and without Russell, which is huge in seeing how good the defense was with and without him.

If you want to see how much defensive impact even a past prime Russell had, look at 1970. they went from 89.1 DRTG with Russell in '69 to a 98.9 DRTG without Russell in 1970, and that is with still having Havlicek who was a known good defender.

[1987_Lakers]

Funny enough, they became the GOAT defensive team the moment Cousy retired. Besides Russell... Havlicek, K.C., & Sanders were the known defenders on the team, but the funny thing is, Boston was still the best defensive team in the league before any of those three guys even joined the NBA and that was mostly because of Russell.

[theman93]

Loaded defensively? Bob Cousy and Sam Jones were never known as defenders, both were liabilities at times, Tom Heinsohn's defense was nothing to wave about either. Your stat also doesn't include opponents fg% with and without Russell, which is huge in seeing how good the defense was with and without him.

Yep. You're also forgetting KC Jones, John Havlicek, and Tom Sanders. Also, that stat has absolutely nothing to do with Russell. It's proving their defense was already taking great strides in the right direction before Russell joined the team.

If you want to see how much defensive impact even a past prime Russell had, look at 1970. they went from 89.1 DRTG with Russell in '69 to a 98.9 DRTG without Russell in 1970, and that is with still having Havlicek who was a known good defender.

No doubt. I've already responded to this earlier.

[theman93]

Funny enough, they became the GOAT defensive team the moment Cousy retired. Besides Russell... Havlicek, K.C., & Sanders were the known defenders on the team, but the funny thing is, Boston was still the best defensive team in the league before any of those three guys even joined the NBA and that was mostly because of Russell.

Not really surprising. KC Jones took on a larger role as the starter. Anyways, there's a reason their DRTg continued to ascend as they added those pieces. Yes they became the best defense in the league when Russell joined the team, but they elevated to an all-time level with those guys.

Anyways, it doesn't really make sense for you to be so impressed with those 60's Celtics due to the fact that you say the 90's were weak from expansion. There was greater expansion in the 60's.

[sdot_thadon]

My standard has been crystal clear -- I never said only winning is the be all end all. Or else Robert Horry would be in consideration. You have to be the clear cut best player on your championship team. That is the standard and that is how dominance is best exude. I'm very aware of Russell's greatness which is why I attribute him as the clear cut best player for half of those Celtics chips. But for the other half he wasn't and that's not a knock. There's a reason why so many of his teammates are right there in the HoF with him. Feel free to give an actual rebuttal besides "dig a lil deeper". That's not an argument.

Also the regular season has no bearing on FMVP. See 2015.

Well after this post plenty of replies did the deeper digging I was suggesting. And you should be clear on Russell being the best on more of those teams than you originally thought. It's really difficult to have a basketball conversation with anyone who can't see past scoring. Russell was to defense what Magic and Mj were to offense combined more or less. It's well documented that he could have put up better numbers but him and Red agreed they had enough guys who could score and his value would be greater doing everything else. It's telling that you feel he wasn't fmvp in a series he put up 24/24 (1966), and in game 7 led the team with 25/32 to win a close one in the clutch with a broken foot! He absolutely would have been fmvp. In 1964 they beat Wilts Warrirors when Wilt was unstoppable but Russell held him to 29.2 a game when in the previous series he put up 38.6 a game..Likely the difference in who raised the trophy because ppg, right? Not to mention Russell also leading Boston in both rebounds and assists but maybe you want to give it to Sam Jones because he scored more?

And if you're looking at the seasons as a whole, it's difficult to see anyone as the best player besides Russell except maybe in his twighlight seasons as player coach. During the time he played there was zero question of who the best player in Boston was, only now, 60 years later by people who are reading the games rather than watching them, funny how that works.

[theman93]

Well after this post plenty of replies did the deeper digging I was suggesting. And you should be clear on Russell being the best on more of those teams than you originally thought. It's really difficult to have a basketball conversation with anyone who can't see past scoring. Russell was to defense what Magic and Mj were to offense combined more or less. It's well documented that he could have put up better numbers but him and Red agreed they had enough guys who could score and his value would be greater doing everything else. It's telling that you feel he wasn't fmvp in a series he put up 24/24 (1966), and in game 7 led the team with 25/32 to win a close one in the clutch with a broken foot! He absolutely would have been fmvp. In 1964 they beat Wilts Warrirors when Wilt was unstoppable but Russell held him to 29.2 a game when in the previous series he put up 38.6 a game..Likely the difference in who raised the trophy because ppg, right? Not to mention Russell also leading Boston in both rebounds and assists but maybe you want to give it to Sam Jones because he scored more?

And if you're looking at the seasons as a whole, it's difficult to see anyone as the best player besides Russell except maybe in his twighlight seasons as player coach. During the time he played there was zero question of who the best player in Boston was, only now, 60 years later by people who are reading the games rather than watching them, funny how that works.

What are you even talking about lol. "Can't see past scoring"? I have literally never brought up scoring alone. I have brought up PER, WS/48, and TS%. Do you understand that that is much more than just scoring? You are creating a strawman.

By what standard are you concluding that Russell was to defense what MJ and Magic were to offense combined?

And sure, he could have put up better numbers if he shot more. Anybody could do that, that's not really saying much. The fact is that he was surrounded by great offensive weapons of that time who could take the defensive pressure off him and he was still mediocre from the field...as a big man. That's not very good.

Regarding 1966 - I never said he wouldn't have been FMVP.

Regarding 1964 - Russell didn't hold Wilt to anything he just didn't shoot as much. The regular season is a much better sample size than using one playoff series and Wilt averaged essentially the same FG% in the Finals as what he did in the regular season. Wilt also outrebounded Russell in that series. And by a healthy margin too. If anything it was Wilt that was dominating Russell lol. Russell averaged much less points on way worse shooting in the Finals than what he did in the regular season. Russell also didn't lead the Celtics in assists, KC Jones did lol. You are way overrating him. I would have no problem with Sam Jones getting that FMVP considering the fact that he was their offensive engine while Russell was outplayed by his primary assignment. But FMVP's don't tell the full story of who the better player was anyways. Unless you believe Iguodala was better than Steph in 2015.

[eliteballer]

[eliteballer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhwNmtxmTxc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD7o...UJODBzIGR1bmtz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWeD-1ZfpVM