Why is MJ considered better than Bill Russell?

[SinJackal]

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.

I disagree with the bolded. While I'm one of the people on here who actually thinks Bill Russell is underappreciated, I don't think his titles were equal to Jordan's.

Let's not forget the "playoffs" back then consisted of one series between whoever had the top seeds from the season. That, by default, makes his titles worth less than Jordan's, since he only had to win a single postseason series to win a title. Then there are the arguments about how there were only a small number of teams in the league, and the era and competition factors.

All that said, Russell is underappreciated in my opinion, and I have him as my #2 GOAT. But let's not act like each of his titles were the same as each of Jordan's. They weren't. Not every title since the NBA started was earned under the same degree of difficulty.

[G.O.A.T]

I don't think its that close. Jordan was a clear-cut best player on his team and in the league during hi time, and Russel was not.

Actually that's 100% incorrect. Not only did Russell win as many MVP's as Jordan and twice as many titles, he was also voted the greatest player of all-time in 1970 and 1980 by NBA experts. So you had that all wrong.

I am just not convinced that Russel was that much more valuable than someone like Cousy in the early years and Havlicek in the later years.

Cousy, Hondo, Auerbach and the rest of the league would disagree. You're not convinced because you don't want to be, not because you have an informed opinion.

As for Russel being a great rebounder - yes, he was but Chamberlain averaged slightly more. For those of you who are claiming that Russel could have been a great scorer if he wanted to, I am not convinced - compare his shooting percentage to Chamberlain's or even a guard like Oscar Robinson.

Look at his shooting percentages in playoff games when his team needed him to score to win.

Also his FG% was almost always above the league average. Had he played in the 80's instead of the 60's, people would never bring up his FG%, but because it looks low compared to what people shoot today, some folks actually think it's a valid point against Russell, which of course it's not.

Bottom line is that Russel is a great winner, but too limited of a player to be considered GOAT.

How was he limited? He had an unofficial quadruple double in game seven of the NBA Finals?

He's certainly capable of making as great or greater impact on the court than any other player in NBA history based on all accounts so I'm not sure what limitations you speak of.


These are the posts that bother me, uninformed and yet steadfast in an opinion that's baseless and ignorant.

[jlip]

I disagree with the bolded. While I'm one of the people on here who actually thinks Bill Russell is underappreciated, I don't think his titles were equal to Jordan's.

Let's not forget the "playoffs" back then consisted of one series between whoever had the top seeds from the season. That, by default, makes his titles worth less than Jordan's, since he only had to win a single postseason series to win a title. Then there are the arguments about how there were only a small number of teams in the league, and the era and competition factors.
All that said, Russell is underappreciated in my opinion, and I have him as my #2 GOAT. But let's not act like each of his titles were the same as each of Jordan's. They weren't. Not every title since the NBA started was earned under the same degree of difficulty.

I actually did research as to determine whether Russell's Celtics had an easier road to their titles in the playoffs than MJ's Bulls based upon the fact that there were fewer teams and a shorter post season and this is what I unconvered. Again, this is looking squarely at the championship seasons.

# of Championships
Russell's Celtics-11
Jordan's Bulls-6

Total Series Played
Russell's Celtics-25
Jordan's Bulls-24

Avg. series played per title
Russell's Celtics-2.3
Jordan's Bulls-4

Avg. games played per title
Russell's Celtics-13.4
Jordan's Bulls-19.3

If we were to stop right here it would appear that the Bulls definitely had a tougher road to the championship each year. They played nearly the same amount of series en route to 6 titles as the Celtics played en route to 11 titles. They also averaged more series and games played per title run. At this point the 6 titles do look to be at least as impressive as 11. But let’s dig deeper. Let’s see actually how challenging the series were.

In the 25 series that they played on their way to 11 titles, Russell’s Celtics were pushed to a game seven 10 times. They were also pushed to a game five in a best of five series once. This means that the Celtics were pushed to the brink of elimination in 44% of their playoff series. 5 of those game sevens were decided by 2 points or 1 point.

I want to put this in perspective. The Celtics were a total of 10-12 points away from losing 5 of their titles. (Just FYI, another game 7 was decided by 5 points, another by 4 points, and another by 3 points.) So we have a dynastic team that is on the verge of being eliminated in almost half of its series. That level of competition and struggle can't be ignored or minimized.

In the 24 series that they played on their way to 6 titles, Jordan’s Bulls were pushed to a game seven (or elimination game) a grand total of 2 times. This means that the Bulls were pushed to the brink of elimination in only 8.3% of their series. One of those game sevens was a 110-81 or 29 pt. blowout. The other game seven was at least more competitive. It was an 88-83 win. Not much suspense here.

Let’s look at the other end of the spectrum. In those same 25 series Russell’s Celtics swept their opponents only twice. That is 8% of their series. On the other hand, Jordan’s Bulls swept their opponents 9 times, including every single first round. 37.5% of their series were against teams that were not competitive enough to even win one game. Adding those extra rounds and games sure doesn’t seem to add to the difficulty of the road to a title especially when those teams aren’t putting up that much resistance.

Next, as mentioned earlier, Russell’s Celtics averaged only 13.4 games per title run, while Jordan’s Bulls averaged 19.3 games per title run. The Celtics’ competition caused them to average 4.45 losses per title run. The Bull’s competition caused them to average 4.33 losses per title run. So despite playing nearly 6 games fewer, Russell’s Celtics still loss, on average, slightly more games showing their competition was at least as, if not, more challenging than the Bulls. They were not just breezing their way to titles at all. The fewest number of games the Celtics lost in any championship post season was 2. The fewest number of losses the Bulls had in any championship postseason was 2 despite playing more games. The most losses the Celtics had in any post season that they won the title were 7. The most losses the Bulls had in any post season that they won the title were 7 again, despite playing more games.

Russell’s Celtics won 5 of their 25 series on the road as underdogs in their title years. Jordan’s Bulls won 3 of their 24 series on the road as underdogs in their title years.

So let’s summarize this. Yes Russell’s Celtics played in a league with significantly fewer teams and a shorter post season than Jordan’s Bulls. But while the Bulls were so much better than their competition that they swept 37.5% of their opponents in what amounted to meaningless, noncompetitive series, the Celtics were being forced to an elimination game in 44% of their series. The Bulls did play more game sixes (7 to 5 in favor of the Bulls). Adding the game sixes to the equation tells us that 37.5% of the Bulls’ series en route to their titles were competitive enough to go at least 6 games. But again that pales in comparison to the competitive and challenging nature of the Celtics' playoff runs. 60% of all of the Celtics’ series went at least 6 games, and this doesn’t even include a 5 game best of five series.

In conclusion, I’m sorry. With these numbers no one can convince me that it was easier to win titles in Russell’s era than in the modern era. Try telling a team that is about 8 or 9 combined plays from losing 5 of their titles that their titles mean less than a team that was barely pushed to an elimination during their title runs. Those titles were hard earned. Their road to titles were not any easier than the Bulls, and the Bulls' titles are not worth any more IMO. Contrary to popularly regurgitated rhetoric, adding more teams does not make the path to a championship more difficult if you are so superior to those additional teams that they are getting swept. That's just padding the win column. I can't view playing 8 games against this season's Cavs as being more difficult than playing 5 games against this season's Heat just because it's more games. It's not the quantity of the competition. It’s the quality of the competition that makes the road difficult. 6 is neither greater than nor equal to 11.

[SinJackal]

[QUOTE=jlip]I actually did research as to determine whether Russell's Celtics had an easier road to their titles in the playoffs than MJ's Bulls based upon the fact that there were fewer teams and a shorter post season and this is what I unconvered. Again, this is looking squarely at the championship seasons.

# of Championships
Russell's Celtics-11
Jordan's Bulls-6

Total Series Played
Russell's Celtics-25
Jordan's Bulls-24

Avg. series played per title
Russell's Celtics-2.3
Jordan's Bulls-4

Avg. games played per title
Russell's Celtics-13.4
Jordan's Bulls-19.3

If we were to stop right here it would appear that the Bulls definitely had a tougher road to the championship each year. They played nearly the same amount of series en route to 6 titles as the Celtics played en route to 11 titles. They also averaged more series and games played per title run. At this point the 6 titles do look to be at least as impressive as 11. But let

[jlip]

Good post.

I disagree with your assessment though. I think the fact that Jordan ensured that so few series ever got to seven games, is a testament to his dominance, more than it is a lack of competition as you're claiming. Barkley's Suns were NOT a weak team. Neither were Payton's Sonics, or the Stockton/Malone Jazz teams, the last Showtime Lakers squad (which he completely manhandled with insane finals stats after losing Game 1). Those Pacer teams were not slouches either. Nor were the Ewing Knicks, or the Bad Boys Pistons teams MJ battled prior to winning his titles. MJ also started his career during the dynasty Celtics era with nearly no help on his team, and yet he dropped 63 on the Celtics shortly after coming off of what was supposed to be a season-ending injury (he came back early from it to help the team get to the playoffs and possibly advance).

You're looking solely at his championship seasons. . .once MJ "figured it out", he just started rolling. But let's not act like him dominating teams shows weakness in the NBA. He had to go through a lot of very tough teams. MJ personally cock-blocked the whole league from titles. Russell did something similar as well. Russell going to 7 games more doesn't mean the league was tougher, maybe it's because Russell and his team couldn't take out teams as early as MJ and his Bulls could?

It goes both ways, you know?

Good playoff run comparisons though with the numbers. Helps put things into perspective. Russell is still my #2 GOAT though. I think MJ's road to titles was more difficult, and he was imo more dominant in games than Russell since he could impact the game heavily on both ends. Not as much as Russell did defensively, but I think MJ's offense had a bigger impact than Russell's defense, and MJ's defense had at least as much impact as Russell's offense.

That's my opinion though. But I am not one of those people who think Russell is not deserving of being rated way up there. He is easily deserving of a very high GOAT ranking.

Cool. Good post likewise.
Also I wasn't implying that MJ's era was weak. The language in my post may have given that impression, but that was not my intention. I respect your perspective and just feel we will have to cordially agree to disagree.

As it pertains to my GOAT rankings I actually have two different categories because I feel that there are two general ways to play the game. One is to play in such a way whereas the player is individually dominant, and this is so often seen by his stats. In that category I have Wilt, Kareem, and MJ (in no particular order.) The other is to play the game in such a manner whereas your primary objective is to improve your teammates' quality of play. In that category I have Russell and Magic. Bird and Oscar Robertson IMO seem to somewhat combine those two styles of play.

I do have a question that I have often asked people though, and I'm not trying to be funny or anything, but if one is of the opinion that the Russell era Celtics' titles do not carry as much weight as titles won in the modern era, what does he consider their 11 titles to equate to today?

[SpecialQue]

Wilt and Russell don't count because they played before the advent of ESPN.

Muhammad Ali Was a Rebel. Michael Jordan Is a Brand Name.

In celebrating Jordan as a hero, are we merely worshipping capitalism?

By Michael Crowley

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/report...rand-Name.aspx

Good lord was that an astonishingly retarded article. So Jordan's overrated as a player because he wasn't political and didn't have a fiery personality like Muhammad Ali? There's jack $hit in this article that says why Jordan as a player wasn't the GOAT. Ridiculous.

I'm not placing myself in Jordan's camp, but the posters here have come up with better arguments against Jordan than the chump who wrote this garbage.

Also, does anyone know where we can actually SEE Russell play? I'd give my left nut to see some full games from the 60s, especially those Celtics games.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Also his FG% was almost always above the league average. Had he played in the 80's instead of the 60's, people would never bring up his FG%, but because it looks low compared to what people shoot today, some folks actually think it's a valid point against Russell, which of course it's not.

This is something I don't understand, if we view his FG% differently because of the league average, then shouldn't we also view a 30 point game different because of the extra 30-35 possessions per game? And I'd think a great scorer holding back his offense for the team would have a high FG% like Wilt in the late 60's/early 70's. It didn't prevent his teams from winning obviously, but scoring simply doesn't seem like it was one of Russell's strengths.

[HB40TheNextStar]

MJ v. KAJ would make a better thread.

[chips93]

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...

11 championships says more about the teams he was on than it says about russell himself

[B]

Quick Quiz: what was Bill Russell's record in game 7's? All playoffs not just finals

[COLOR="White"]21-0[/COLOR]

[kizut1659]

Actually that's 100% incorrect. Not only did Russell win as many MVP's as Jordan and twice as many titles, he was also voted the greatest player of all-time in 1970 and 1980 by NBA experts. So you had that all wrong. .

Russel should not have gotten the MVP at least in 1962. Jordan should have gotten the MVP in 1997. I think MVP votes often get it wrong and I do not put all that much credence in this award. Also, if you want to go by accolodates, Bill Russel only made 1st team nba 3(!!!) times. Are you saying that we should just look at the MVP awards and ignore all nba-selections?

Look at his shooting percentages in playoff games when his team needed him to score to win. Also his FG% was almost always above the league average. Had he played in the 80's instead of the 60's, people would never bring up his FG%, but because it looks low compared to what people shoot today, some folks actually think it's a valid point against Russell, which of course it's not.

What was the league shooting percentage at that time? Russel's was only 44%. Was it that much lower than the league average, especially if one also takes in Russel's poor ft shooting? Even if the league average was low, why are you comparing theshooting percentage of the supposed GOAT to the league average rather than his peers during this period? Are you saying Russel shooting worse FG% not only than Chamberlain but Robertson, West, etc is not at all relevant in evaluating whether Russel was a great offensive player?

As for playoffs, sometimes Russel played well offensively and sometimes he didn't - its not like his offensive game and shooting percentage tended to improve during the playoffs. For example, he shot .356% during 1964 playoffs and Boston still wo relatively easily. I am not going to take away the fact that Russel had great finals games (such as game 7 in 1962 finals) but he had a lot of mediocre/poor offensive games as well (such game 7 1969 finals).

How was he limited? He had an unofficial quadruple double in game seven of the NBA Finals?

Again, he was a decent but not a great offensive player. I do not see how a GOAT in the game of basketball can have that limitation.

[Pointguard]

11 championships says more about the teams he was on than it says about russell himself

Yes, it could be that and that is why I don't go for the win argument. Its like saying that Ben Wallace was better than Shaq to some degree. You have to isolate winning once a player establishes he can do that.

[kizut1659]

This is something I don't understand, if we view his FG% differently because of the league average, then shouldn't we also view a 30 point game different because of the extra 30-35 possessions per game? And I'd think a great scorer holding back his offense for the team would have a high FG% like Wilt in the late 60's/early 70's. It didn't prevent his teams from winning obviously, but scoring simply doesn't seem like it was one of Russell's strengths.

I know, I am not sure why Russel fans cannot simply acknowledge it. Why can't one say Russel for who he was -a great player and a great winner -without trying to give him an attribute/skill that he simply did not have?

[L.Kizzle]

[QUOTE=B

[jlip]

Russel should not have gotten the MVP at least in 1962. Jordan should have gotten the MVP in 1997. I think MVP votes often get it wrong and I do not put all that much credence in this award. Also, if you want to go by accolodates, Bill Russel only made 1st team nba 3(!!!) times. Are you saying that we should just look at the MVP awards and ignore all nba-selections?

@ the bolded part...
The players who actually faced Russell anywhere from 10-13 times each that season voted him MVP in a landslide. Not only that, the media who watched him play did an unofficial vote that season and again voted him the league's MVP in a landslide.

In that very year, 1962, Syracuse Nationals head coach, Alex Hannum, had the following to say about Russell, [I]