Bill Russel is the Most Overrated Player in NBA History

[Axe]

Russell's stats look very damned compared to other atgs (esp. those that are offensive-related) but his on-court impact looked impeccable. That's what the other coaches bt praised him for, that he actually made those around him better. Yes, being a true force on offense or scoring could have garnered him a lot of fancy awards before but he just proved to the league that he didn't need to post a lot of stats in order to win.

[tpols]

I'm talking 2000/2001/2002. Zero championships won that year with Russell instead of Shaq.

You're an absolute idiot bro.

2001 Kobe was arguably his best postseason ever. He had better advanced metrics than prime Shaq.

To argue that Bill Russell and peak Kobe Bryant couldn't beat the spurs or joke Iverson sixers is beyond absurd.

Scratch that.... anybody hating on Bill Russell is a bona-fide faggot.

But that suits you.

[meat]

Stupidest ****in thread I've ever seen by far. or just trolling. either way you are either a moron or an asshole 8ball. i feel sorry for you.

[8Ball]

You're an absolute idiot bro.

2001 Kobe was arguably his best postseason ever. He had better advanced metrics than prime Shaq.

To argue that Bill Russell and peak Kobe Bryant couldn't beat the spurs or joke Iverson sixers is beyond absurd.

Scratch that.... anybody hating on Bill Russell is a bona-fide faggot.

But that suits you.

Wrong.

There is zero way those Lakers win any championships with Russell instead of Shaq.

[8Ball]

Stupidest ****in thread I've ever seen by far. or just trolling. either way you are either a moron or an asshole 8ball. i feel sorry for you.

Like I said, everyone loses their collective shit when Bill Russell gets challenged as a GOAT. I compare him to all the other top 10 guys and individually he just doesn't match up to them talent wise.

[8Ball]

Russell's stats look very damned compared to other atgs (esp. those that are offensive-related) but his on-court impact looked impeccable. That's what the other coaches bt praised him for, that he actually made those around him better. Yes, being a true force on offense or scoring could have garnered him a lot of fancy awards before but he just proved to the league that he didn't need to post a lot of stats in order to win.

He played at a time when not many other teams took NBA basketball seriously and there were way too many white players as the competition.

[coastalmarker99]

Russell had 11 PO games scoring 6 points or under.

He averaged 43.4 MP/G in those games.

In those 11 games:
4.7 P/G
FG: 20-89, .224 FG%
FT: 12-40, .300 FT%
Horrible!

If Mr. Winner was indispensable, you'd think Celtics went 0-11.

Wrong! 9-2! he was basically carried by his teammates on Offense.


Furthermore

Celtics played the first 24 games of 1956-57 w/o Russell who was at the Olympics.

In 24 first games w/o Russ, Celtics were

16-8, .66.7 % (pace of 55 W in 82 g)

Best record in NBA (Syracuse 2nd at .528)

105.2 P/G

100.6 P/G opponents

Thus, in 1956-57, the Celtics were by far the best team in NBA without Russell.

Also how about this?

In the 57-58 Finals, in which Russell was injured, ...the series was tied 1-1 when Russell injured his ankle in the third quarter of game three.

They lost that game by three points, but they actually outscored the Hawks in the 4th period, and without Russell, by five points.

Now, surely without Russell, Boston would have no chance, right?

Well, without Russell in game four, Boston won handily, 109-98. And, while they did lose game five without him, it was by two points.

Russell finally returned for game six, but could only play 20 minutes.

Boston would go on to lose that game by one point, but they outscored the Hawks in the second half, without Russell.

[coastalmarker99]

If you use your brain.

The simple fact is that Russell's rival in Chamberlain was better at every facet of basketball -- except free-throw shooting -- than Russell was.


When Chamberlain was afforded the opportunity to be more selective offensively, and concentrate on defense and rebounding -- as Russell did for his entire career --

Chamberlain's team dominated Russell's, and Chamberlain was measurably better in that role than Russell ever was.

There is absolutely no support for the idea that Chamberlain on the Celtics while being teamed with 8 or 10 Hall of Famers plus an elite coach and GM in Red is not the best team ever assembled in the history of the game, or sufficiently close as to be immaterial.

One can make a very good argument that a 35-year-old Chamberlain and two Hall of Famers were the best team ever assembled, in '72 -- so an additional five or so Hall of Famers clearly puts the issue to bed.


Even Russell himself made the comment that Wilt could do a better job in his [Russell's] role than Russell could do in Wilt's.

"Wilt is playing better than I used to -- passing off, coming out to set up screens, picking up guys outside, and sacrificing himself for team play."-- Bill Russell 1972 Great Moments in Pro Basketball, (by Sam Goldaper) p.24

[8Ball]

Coastalmarker99 has arrived to spit facts on this topic.


For the longest time I was on the Bill Russell >>>>> Wilt bandwagon but over time my views have changed and flipped on this matter the more I investigate.

[8Ball]

If you use your brain.

The simple fact is that Russell's rival in Chamberlain was better at every facet of basketball -- except free-throw shooting -- than Russell was.


When Chamberlain was afforded the opportunity to be more selective offensively, and concentrate on defense and rebounding -- as Russell did for his entire career --

Chamberlain's team dominated Russell's, and Chamberlain was measurably better in that role than Russell ever was.

There is absolutely no support for the idea that Chamberlain on the Celtics while being teamed with 8 or 10 Hall of Famers plus an elite coach and GM in Red is not the best team ever assembled in the history of the game, or sufficiently close as to be immaterial.

One can make a very good argument that a 35-year-old Chamberlain and two Hall of Famers were the best team ever assembled, in '72 -- so an additional five or so Hall of Famers clearly puts the issue to bed.


Even Russell himself made the comment that Wilt could do a better job in his [Russell's] role than Russell could do in Wilt's.

"Wilt is playing better than I used to -- passing off, coming out to set up screens, picking up guys outside, and sacrificing himself for team play."-- Bill Russell 1972 Great Moments in Pro Basketball, (by Sam Goldaper) p.24

If I am general manager of NBA team and I had the 1st overall pick going back the last 60 years, and every year I could pick between 21 year old Wilt or 21 year old Bill Russell....

I am picking Wilt for nearly the entirety of the NBA's history.

Wilt has 7 all-nba 1st teams to Russell's 3 during their 1960s years together. The media members that watched the games at the time thought Wilt > Russell performance wise individually.

[coastalmarker99]

Thank God you have arrived Coastalmarker99 to spit facts on this topic.


For the longest time I was on the Bill Russell >>>>> Wilt bandwagon but over time my views have changed and flipped on this matter the more I investigate.

Russell is a legend but the truth is he had a ridiculous margin for error in the playoffs compared to Wilt.


The talent disparity between their two teams made it to where Wilt had to thoroughly outplay Russell to even have a 50/50 shot at winning.

It seemed as though when Wilt thoroughly outplayed Russell was when Wilt's team won but not all the time and usually it was a close margin.

When Russell played even with Wilt or outplayed Wilt, the Celtics would blow them out.

One such example out of many is in Game 4 of the '64 Finals.

Wilt beat Russell all the way across the board with 27 points, 38 rebounds, and shot .52.2 from the floor.

While Russell had 8 points, 19 rebounds, and shot .33.3 from the floor.

Yet, the Celtics still won.


Furthermore

Look at game 2 of the 1962 Ecf for example.


As Wilt dropped 42 and 37 compared to Russell’s 9 and 20 while holding him to 4 out of 14 from the floor.

And yet the Warriors only win by seven points and had to come back from down 10 points in the fourth to win that game at home.

There's no way in hell in any game throughout the decade that Wilt would've been able to get away with it if those kinds of numbers were flipped in Russell's favor

[coastalmarker99]

If I am general manager of NBA team and I had the 1st overall pick going back the last 60 years, and every year I could pick between 21 year old Wilt or 21 year old Bill Russell....

I am picking Wilt for nearly the entirety of the NBA's history.

Wilt has 7 all-nba 1st teams to Russell's 3 during their 1960s years together. The media members that watched the games at the time thought Wilt > Russell performance wise.

Wilt truthfully should have 6 MVP's to Russell's four as he was utterly robbed of the MVP in 1962 and 1964 due to other players disliking him.

A reporter in 1962 asked a player on the Knicks why no one has Wilt Chamberlain in their MVP voting.

His response: “Don’t like the guy, personally. I wouldn’t vote for him for anything.”


That’s how absurd the MVP voting used to be back in the day lol.

As the media voted Wilt's first team over Russell but he didn’t win the MVP due to players voting.


Furthermore, the only years that Russell was voted first team over Wilt in 63 and 65

Was because Wilt had a heart attack in the 1964 offseason which bothered him greatly in the 1964-1965 season


And secondly, his team was relocated to the bay area in 1963 and he lost his coach and his second-best player as a result of them being moved from Philadelphia.

[coastalmarker99]

The fact is that had any other Goat player besides Russell.

Had close to his rings regardless of the era they played in

the Goat debate would be dead and buried.

As imagine trying to argue with a straight face against Wilt or Kareem with 8 to 9 rings or Lebron with 7 rings.


As here are the major polls taken in 1999.


Associated Press Sports 100( top 100 athletes in all sports for century)

I'm only listing basketball players in the Top 50.

Jordan(2)
Wilt(10)
Russell(16)
Bird(24)
Oscar(26)
Kareem(31)
Magic(32)

Here's ESPN's Sports Century picks for the Top 100 athletes from all sports.

These are just the basketball players in the Top 50.

Jordan(1)
Wilt(13)
Magic(17)
Russell(18)
Kareem(26)
Bird(30)
Oscar(36)
DR J((43)


SI's 25 GREATEST ATHLETES of the 20th CENTURY(bbok)

jordan(2)
Wilt(4)
Russell(11)
Bird(15)
Magic(19)




Someone such as Wilt with 8 rings would be considered the undisputed Goat nowadays regardless of the fact that he played in the 1960s.


So using that excuse on why people don't rank Russell as the Goat is a cop-out.


As Wilt was ranked above him in virtually every single all-time list before his death in 1999.

[8Ball]

Russell is a legend but the truth is he had a ridiculous margin for error in the playoffs compared to Wilt.


The talent disparity between their two teams made it to where Wilt had to thoroughly outplay Russell to even have a 50/50 shot at winning.

It seemed as though when Wilt thoroughly outplayed Russell was when Wilt's team won but not all the time and usually it was a close margin.

When Russell played even with Wilt or outplayed Wilt, the Celtics would blow them out.

One such example out of many is in Game 4 of the '64 Finals.

Wilt beat Russell all the way across the board with 27 points, 38 rebounds, and shot .52.2 from the floor.

While Russell had 8 points, 19 rebounds, and shot .33.3 from the floor.

Yet, the Celtics still won.


Furthermore

Look at game 2 of the 1962 Ecf for example.


As Wilt dropped 42 and 37 compared to Russell’s 9 and 20 while holding him to 4 out of 14 from the floor.

And yet the Warriors only win by seven points and had to come back from down 10 points in the fourth to win that game at home.

There's no way in hell in any game throughout the decade that Wilt would've been able to get away with it if those kinds of numbers were flipped in Russell's favor

Correct.


The counter argument that seems more and more bullshit to me as the years go by was:

"Bill Russell was such a great teammate he enabled his teammates to dominate and win every time"


It's the same as the "Jordan made Pippen" narrative.

[coastalmarker99]

Correct.


The counter argument that seems more and more bullshit to me as the years go by was:

"Bill Russell was such a great teammate he enabled his teammates to dominate and win every time"


It's the same as the "Jordan made Pippen" narrative.

Russell had a massive ego and was a utter prick to his teammates.

Don't let the revisionist history about his career that Boston writers did 20 to 30 years later fool you.

One incident that particularly bothered Russell occurred in 1955 when Kenny Sears of Santa Clara was picked as Player of the Year in their conference. Russell thought he should have gotten the honor and blamed Woolpert's failure to praise him in the press.

https://vault.si.com/vault/1968/04/2...h-in-obscurity



It's quite clear who was the adult in the room, at San Francisco, and it sure was not Russell...

"O.K.," said Woolpert, "my judgments are as imperfect as anyone's, but as a coach I have to make them. In those days I wasn't about to help give Bill an inflated sense of his own importance. As a sophomore he was a lazy player; I kicked him out of the gym many, many times for loafing during drills. When he was a junior there were a few problems; when he was a senior, none that I recall. He was furious about the Sears thing, and he told me he wouldn't show up for the presentation banquet. I said, 'Bill, that'll demean you as a man; it's beneath you.' He refused to go until the day of the dinner, then he was called on to make a speech.




The only reason that San Francisco's program fell apart two years after Russell's departure was precisely because that coach lost his desire to to coach -- not to mention practically being struck by lightning -- which you can read about in the self-same article above.


Russell had a more cordial relationship with many of his teammates with the notable exception of Heinsohn, his old rival and fellow rookie. Heinsohn felt that Russell resented him because the former was named the 1957 NBA Rookie of the Year.

Many people thought that Russell was more important even though he had only played half the season.

Russell also ignored Heinsohn's request for an autograph on behalf of his cousin and openly said to Heinsohn that he deserved half of his $300 Rookie of the Year check.


Despite Heninsohn's famous game seven performance in the 1957 finals in which he scored 37 points and grabbed 23 rebounds plus had 2 assists.


This incredible performance by Heninsohn would have made him besides Magic in NBA history to be the only player to win both the Rookie of the Year and finals MVP in the same season.


As a result of Russell's actions and words the relationship between the two was tenuous at best.


Heninsohn even refused to coach Russell after Red retired in 1966 despite Red asking him to do so.


Instead, he would wait for Russell to retire before finally coaching Boston in the 1970's.


In which he would lead Boston to two titles and a franchise win record of 68 and 14.