Bill Russell is the true 2nd GOAT behind Kareem. not MJ

[ShawkFactory]

There are 3 people who you can make an argument for over MJ (Wilt, Russell, Kareem).

Doesn

[StrongLurk]

MJ, Kareem, Lebron.

Sorry folks, it is what it is.

[Ben Simmons 25]

Frankly if you're including high school and college career and not just the GOAT of the NBA, the conversation starts and ends with Kareem.

Oh really?

I could have sworn Russell won two state championships in high school... two NCAA championships... and 11 out of 13 in the NBA...

You're a clown.

Bill Russell is the epitome of winning. He did it in a team based sport the likes of which we've never seen and will likely not see again in our lifetimes.

Bill Russell is the GOAT.

The only real reason that Kareem actually gets to enter the conversation is because of the fact that he played like 20 years or whatever.

How many NBA titles did he get prior to getting Magic Johnson? 1 out of like 12 years or something? LMAOOOO. No.

Bill Russell understood the game at a level of depth that nobody else ever has, at least, in the sense that they were able to physically act out said understanding.

Bill Russell, as he said to Kareem's face, would kick his ass.

[StrongLurk]

Oh really?

I could have sworn Russell won two state championships in high school... two NCAA championships... and 11 out of 13 in the NBA...

You're a clown.

Bill Russell is the epitome of winning. He did it in a team based sport the likes of which we've never seen and will likely not see again in our lifetimes.

Bill Russell is the GOAT.

The only real reason that Kareem actually gets to enter the conversation is because of the fact that he played like 20 years or whatever.

How many NBA titles did he get prior to getting Magic Johnson? 1 out of like 12 years or something? LMAOOOO. No.

Bill Russell understood the game at a level of depth that nobody else ever has, at least, in the sense that they were able to physically act out said understanding.

Bill Russell, as he said to Kareem's face, would kick his ass.

[Ben Simmons 25]

It's funny when people talk about players that they've never seen play as if they know everything about them.

Total posers.

Weren't you less than 10 years old when Jordan started winning titles, yet you talk about him being the GOAT...

In before your famous "I have a higher basketball IQ than most so I understood everything I was watching when I was 8!" line...

[Phoenix]

Oh really?

I could have sworn Russell won two state championships in high school... two NCAA championships... and 11 out of 13 in the NBA...

You're a clown.

Bill Russell is the epitome of winning. He did it in a team based sport the likes of which we've never seen and will likely not see again in our lifetimes.

Bill Russell is the GOAT.

The only real reason that Kareem actually gets to enter the conversation is because of the fact that he played like 20 years or whatever.

How many NBA titles did he get prior to getting Magic Johnson? 1 out of like 12 years or something? LMAOOOO. No.

Bill Russell understood the game at a level of depth that nobody else ever has, at least, in the sense that they were able to physically act out said understanding.

Bill Russell, as he said to Kareem's face, would kick his ass.

First, fukk off with that shit. I'm not one of these trolling assholes with 20 accounts saying batshit insane crap and being general nuisances. So if you want to have a decent discussion, that aint good form. Because now you see my reply, so the conversation is already shit from the get-go. And if you are old enough to have actually seen Russell play where you can speak with a measure of authority or 'having been there', then I'd expect you're able to articulate your views better than the 'you're a clown' bullshit I expect from the younger crowd.

Kareem won 3 high school championships( to Russell's 2) and 3 college( to Russell's two). So at two of the three levels, Kareem won more, if that's the criteria you're going off. At the NBA level Russell was a more prolific winner, in a league with far less teams, first round byes, alot of concentrated talent on those Celtics squads relative to other teams( yes, those Showtime squads were loaded, so were other teams in the 80s). And these things are absolutely factored into why the majority of people now don't start the conversation with Russell as GOAT if context is applied. Is Russell the foundation and reason why those teams won, or why half the team are in the HOF? Sure, but let's not act like you couldn't drop peak Kareem onto those squads and they aren't running away with championships year after year. Or that the likes of Cousy, Hondo, Sam Jones etc don't end up in the HOF if they played with Kareem and not Russell. No-one has scored more points. No one has more MVPs. Those reasons aren't any less valid to give Kareem an overall GOAT case beyond counting rings/winning at the various levels which as I said before, Kareem won more in high school and college which flies right in the face of you bringing up that point to begin with.

As it is, I've already said Russell, Kareem, and MJ are your GOATs if we are judging them as players, as winners, and in terms of individual accolades( MVP). Don't act like I dissed Russell or that any of this shit is absolute. It's all arguable.

[egokiller]

As players and winners/achievements, Kareem, Russell and MJ are your holy trinity. I don't think you're wrong calling any of them the GOAT based on whatever you're arguing along those lines. Frankly if you're including high school and college career and not just the GOAT of the NBA, the conversation starts and ends with Kareem.

No one has a problem with this and is trolling when they say MJ is the undisputed GOAT. Why? To get a rise out of those who only got to watch lesser men play the sport.

['Toine=MVP]

No one has a problem with this and is trolling when they say MJ is the undisputed GOAT. Why? To get a rise out of those who only got to watch lesser men play the sport.

The problem is more that people use different criteria to judge. A lot of people would think it is kind of crazy to put Kareem or Russell ahead of Wilt for example. Because they are valuing things other than ring count (from a top player - not talking about Horry types). For others, it is pure ring count (from a top player).

The reason MJ gets the undisputed GOAT title is not because he's the clear cut greatest winner, clear cut best talent, clear cut 1st pick in a draft of players in their primes, clear cut biggest impact on the sport, etc. He might rank #1 in each on many lists, but it isn't so clear cut in any particular category. But the rest of the GOAT "candidates" all fall way short in some and don't have a strong case over Jordan in others.

[Phoenix]

No one has a problem with this and is trolling when they say MJ is the undisputed GOAT. Why? To get a rise out of those who only got to watch lesser men play the sport.

Thing is, you'll never once hear me make a claim that MJ is the GOAT. Not once. The eras are too different. Competition changes. Rules shift. Everyone is judging on different criteria. To act like its an absolute thing is crazy. Now even me saying that I said about Kareem above, maybe that sounds like an absolute position. But I don't feel that way about him either. You could make a case he did the bulk of his winning with the Lakers( like Ben Simmons), but it's not as if he couldn't win UNTIL he played with Magic. Magic wasn't even considered the best player on the Lakers until Kareem got old. So how are we dividing up the credit to that end? I just don't think in terms of absolutes on the issue, because nobody is arguing on a straight line and they'll use their own criteria as the 'correct' one in order to ensure the argument stays within the framework of what they want to argue on. I know how this works.

[kennethgriffen]

It's funny when people talk about players that they've never seen play as if they know everything about them.

Total posers.

i've seen a ton of kareem/russell/wilt footage. probly seen them play more than doncic and i can give an honest assessment on him with just the dozen or so games i've tuned into so far


heres a full game from russells prime

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

[hiphopanonymous]

First, fukk off with that shit. I'm not one of these trolling assholes with 20 accounts saying batshit insane crap and being general nuisances. So if you want to have a decent discussion, that aint good form. Because now you see my reply, so the conversation is already shit from the get-go. And if you are old enough to have actually seen Russell play where you can speak with a measure of authority or 'having been there', then I'd expect you're able to articulate your views better than the 'you're a clown' bullshit I expect from the younger crowd.

Kareem won 3 high school championships( to Russell's 2) and 3 college( to Russell's two). So at two of the three levels, Kareem won more, if that's the criteria you're going off. At the NBA level Russell was a more prolific winner, in a league with far less teams, first round byes, alot of concentrated talent on those Celtics squads relative to other teams( yes, those Showtime squads were loaded, so were other teams in the 80s). And these things are absolutely factored into why the majority of people now don't start the conversation with Russell as GOAT if context is applied. Is Russell the foundation and reason why those teams won, or why half the team are in the HOF? Sure, but let's not act like you couldn't drop peak Kareem onto those squads and they aren't running away with championships year after year. No-one has scored more points. No one has more MVPs. Those reasons aren't any less valid reasons to give Kareem an overall GOAT case beyond counting rings/winning at the various levels which as I said before, Kareem won more in high school and college which flies right in the face of you bringing up that point to begin with.

As it is, I've already said Russell, Kareem, and MJ are your GOATs if we are judging them as players, as winners, and in terms of individual accolades( MVP). Don't act like I dissed Russell or that any of this shit is absolute. It's all arguable.

As someone who studies closely the dynamic of the Celtics and the Bucks era Jabbar and all the 60's teams as much as possible if I might offer some input

First - of course you're free to your opinion and I'm not doubting you've looked into this or put thought into it of a reasonable extent.

But - I really don't think inserting a Jabbar, or a Wilt/Shaq/Hakeem etc for that matter - onto specifically the 1960's Celtics, = "just as many" championships.

Knowing each teammates role on the team and how old they were at what stages of their career etc - Bill Russell was the PERFECT tool for the job on that team to make it a team as good or greater than the sum of its parts. The team as Bill Russell was coming in needed assertiveness/talent as a rebounding outlet passer and rim protector and just passive play after that. That he was mobile and able to post up and run Boston sets as a facilitator and part-time scorer was an added value but the fact is he didn't demand touches on that end to be effective on the other and that is not true for guys like Jabbar at least young Jabbar because that just wasn't his game and that's not a knock on him.

A player like Jabbar (and I'd rope Chamberlain and most other ATG centers in there too) is a player that runs half-court set offense with the ball run through the middle as a hub. It's not how 60's Boston played and that would be a big adjustment for at least a young Jabbar and Chamberlain. Both Jabbar and Chamberlain as old veterans eventually became comfortable being part-time offensive pieces that were happy to outlet but this is after they had feasted for over a decade as "the man" in the middle on the offensive end. Which makes sense, you get a piece like Jabbar you SHOULD logically be retooling your entire team to fit them and not the other way around because their talent is so outstanding on the offensive end.

The problem is, I don't buy that that would be the best thing for the Boston teams Russell played on. They were a great fastbreaking team and Russell didn't distort what they already had and the recipe was winning in unparalleled fashion. I tend to think if you add some dominant scoring big in there in place of Russell you risk ruining their chances of success more than you do duplicating it.

Just my personal opinion from what I've learned of the way that team ran, the personnel on it, - how Jabbar's playstyle differs, etc.

Also in case you are curious I think Jabbar/Wilt/Russ are all GOAT candidates, as is MJ. Just depends on criteria as they all have different stand out things they accomplished and abilities they had. So I'm not being partial to Russell over Jabbar in the big picture - just for this particular subject.

[egokiller]

Thing is, you'll never once hear me make a claim that MJ is the GOAT. Not once. The eras are too different. Competition changes. Rules shift. Everyone is judging on different criteria. To act like its an absolute thing is crazy. Now even me saying that I said about Kareem above, maybe that sounds like an absolute position. But I don't feel that way about him either. You could make a case he did the bulk of his winning with the Lakers( like Ben Simmons), but it's not as if he couldn't win UNTIL he played with Magic. Magic wasn't even considered the best player on the Lakers until Kareem got old. So how are we dividing up the credit to that end? I just don't think in terms of absolutes on the issue, because nobody is arguing on a straight line and they'll use their own criteria as the 'correct' one in order to ensure the argument stays within the framework of what they want to argue on. I know how this works.

It all comes down to the value of an opinion. When you listen to someone who

[Phoenix]

As someone who studies closely the dynamic of the Celtics and the Bucks era Jabbar and all the 60's teams as much as possible if I might offer some input

First - of course you're free to your opinion and I'm not doubting you've looked into this or put thought into it of a reasonable extent.

But - I really don't think inserting a Jabbar, or a Wilt/Shaq/Hakeem etc for that matter - onto specifically the 1960's Celtics, = "just as many" championships.

Knowing each teammates role on the team and how old they were at what stages of their career etc - Bill Russell was the PERFECT tool for the job on that team to make it a team as good or greater than the sum of its parts. The team as Bill Russell was coming in need a rebounding outlet passer and a rim protector and nothing more. That he was mobile and able to post up and run Boston sets as a facilitator and part-time scorer was an added value.

A player like Jabbar (and I'd rope Chamberlain in there too) is a player that runs half-court set offense with the ball run through the middle as a hub. That is NOT how Boston played and that would be a big adjustment for at least a young Jabbar and Chamberlain. Both Jabbar and Chamberlain as old veterans eventually became comfortable being part-time offensive pieces that were happy to outlet but this is after they had feasted for over a decade as "the man" in the middle on the offensive end. Which makes sense, you get a piece like Jabbar you SHOULD logically be retooling your entire team to fit them and not the other way around because their talent is so outstanding on the offensive end.

The problem is, I don't buy that that would be the best thing for the Boston teams Russell played on. They were a great fastbreaking team and Russell didn't distort what they already had and the recipe was winning in unparalleled fashion. I tend to think if you add some dominant scoring big in there in place of Russell you risk ruining their chances of success more than you do duplicating it.

Just my personal opinion from what I've learned of the way that team ran, the personnel on it, - how Jabbar's playstyle differs, etc.

Also in case you are curious I think Jabbar/Wilt/Russ are all GOAT candidates, as is MJ. Just depends on criteria as they all have different stand out things they accomplished and abilities they had. So I'm not being partial to Russell over Jabbar here.

This is a more than reasonable take.

To be clear, I'm not saying that inserting Kareem results in the same amount of titles. I only said 'numerous'. But I have little doubt they win several, albeit differently. Bear in mind that Kareem(or Alcindor as it were), coming into the league in 1960 is going to be as much of, or close to, an alien offensive force like what you saw with Wilt, only he'd be working with better teammates than what Wilt was working with. Obviously the dynamics of how the Celtics were built worked with Russell's skillset and aptitude. It's not a simple plug and play with Russell or Kareem, or any other GOAT candidate.

By the same reckoning, does Russell on those 80's Lakers result in the same number of titles? More? Less? The Lakers may have needed the offense Kareem provided in that era moreso than the defense Russell supplied in his. In either event, this is the other thing we need to move beyond( not saying you, just in general): player A winning more or less titles in place of player B doesn't necessarily mean player A is any worse or better a player. Kareem winning less titles than Russell if he were on the Celtics doesn't mean he's a worse player. Especially when we're talking about players at *this* level. Russell may only win 3 on the 80's Lakers....who knows. Doesn't mean he was any worse than Kareem. Different talents and skillsets and you seem to acknowledge that as well.

[Manny98]

[QUOTE=egokiller]It all comes down to the value of an opinion. When you listen to someone who

[Marchesk]

The problem is, I don't buy that that would be the best thing for the Boston teams Russell played on. They were a great fastbreaking team and Russell didn't distort what they already had and the recipe was winning in unparalleled fashion. I tend to think if you add some dominant scoring big in there in place of Russell you risk ruining their chances of success more than you do duplicating it.

That's interesting, and maybe you're right. But what if Wilt gets drafted to a team that has the pieces that the 76ers had when he went to them? So instead of being surrounded by talent in the middle of his career, he starts out with it at the beginning?

Because Russell had the good fortune of being drafted to an organization that was able to stockpile talent, and already had some good pieces in players like Cousy.

I'm guessing Cousy and Wilt would have worked great as well. Also, I think Auerbach was smart enough to construct his team accordingly. He gets Wilt instead of Russell, and imagine he makes some roster and game plan adjustments to suit maximizing Wilt's abilities.