The case against Bill Russell as GOAT

[ThaRegul8r]

Scoring the basketball is still the most pertinent thing in basketball, the team with more points wins the games

The team that holds the opposing team to fewer points than them wins.

[ThaRegul8r]

There's like two guys on ISH who consider him in the GOAT discussion. Everyone else has him 5th at best...

Herd mentality. It's like people take comfort in however many people think like them, because the number of people who believe something obviously equates with correctness. Argumentum ad populum is one of the most common fallacies.

And like ISH—with the exception of an all-too-few—is some repository of basketball knowledge.

[SinJackal]

The team that holds the opposing team to fewer points than them wins.

He'd rather own or cheer for the Warriors than the Spurs.

If your team only scores 90 points a game, that's better than scoring 100 a game if you give up only 85 points as opposed to 105.

I guess he doesn't realize this.

[Papaya Petee]

He'd rather own or cheer for the Warriors than the Spurs.

If your team only scores 90 points a game, that's better than scoring 100 a game if you give up only 85 points as opposed to 105.

I guess he doesn't realize this.

Did anyone say defense is not important Holy shit.

The hardest thing to do in all of basketball is score. It's a proven fact. Players like Carmelo Anthony will always be better then players like Shane Battier.

Every aspect of basketball is important, just scoring is the most important. Russell had all the other things to become the GOAT, but he lacked scoring, which is extremely important, that's why players like Jordan, Wilt, or Kareem are considered better then him...

[iamgine]

[QUOTE=Pointguard]Bill Russell was a great winner but lets look a little deeper. Greatest of All time might be a too high of designation. I

[SinJackal]

Did anyone say defense is not important Holy shit.

The hardest thing to do in all of basketball is score. It's a proven fact. Players like Carmelo Anthony will always be better then players like Shane Battier.

Every aspect of basketball is important, just scoring is the most important. Russell had all the other things to become the GOAT, but he lacked scoring, which is extremely important, that's why players like Jordan, Wilt, or Kareem are considered better then him...

You imply it by saying scoring is the most important aspect of basketball.

Yes, Carmello is better than Battier, so? You're bringing up a superstar player vs a borderline roleplayer.

Compare a star scorer to a player who plays great D' and still scores pretty well, and it's a more accurate comparison. Don't compare a superstar scorer to a guy who doesn't score much but plays good D'.

For example, Manu Ginobili vs Joe Johnson. JJ scores better, but Ginobili plays good D', leading many fans to rate Ginobili over JJ. Or a more fitting comparison, Ginobili vs Crawford. Both score really well and about the same PPG, but Ginobili blows him out of the water defensively, making him a far greater asset to have on the floor than Crawford is.

[jlauber]

I can understand those that did not grow up in the Russell era minimizing his career based on his offensive stats. Up until a year ago I was ripping him, myself, and I grew up in that era (although I have always had him in MY top-5.)

And, I'll be honest, I have looked at the numbers, and read many books on the subject, and I couldn't see a case for DiMaggio over Williams, either. Yet, talk to the generation that saw the two play (if you can still find anyone who actually saw them play.) In my limited experience, such as my own father, and his friends...to a man, they would have taken DiMaggio. Maybe the fact that DiMaggio played on nine World Series winners is the reason...I don't know. Incidently, I read Halborstam's book, 'The Summer of '49' (a GREAT read BTW), and while he doesn't come right out with it...I got the impression that, he too, would have taken Joe.

Anyway...that is for a discussion on another forum. My only point being that, DiMaggio won an MVP in a season in which Williams hit .406. Why? What did those people who actually WITNESSED that season see, that we can't from the numbers?

What does that have to do with this topic? Well, Russell was almost universally accepted by his teammates, his coach, his opposing players and coaches...his peers...and the media alike, as the greatest player of his era. I didn't agree with it then, and I still have a difficult time believing it now...except that, in a TEAM game, no one played better. How do I know that? He won with GREAT teams (as many as SEVEN other HOF players.) He won with very good teams, (e.g., the '65-66 Celtics, who finished one game behind Philly, and then blew them out in the playoffs.) And he won with, arguably, only a "good" team (his last year, a team that finished 4th and with a 48-34 record.)

And when I say that HE won, obviously it was his TEAM that won. BUT, what was interesting about all of those rings, was the fact, that, again, to a man, his teammates credited HIM for those titles. Don't get me wrong...without Sam Jones, they probably don't win at least two titles (two miraculous shots.) Without Hondo, they might not have won in '65 ("Havlicek stole the ball!)" And, of course, most ALL of his teammates contributed heavily. In fact, I have been on record as saying that S. Jones and Havlicek probably would have been among the league's best scorers had they played on other teams. However, neither would have the ten and eight rings that they have now.

I, and other's, have pointed out just how "clutch" Russell was. In his ten game seven's, he averaged 18 ppg and 29 rpg. He had a game seven in which he put up a 30-40 game. He had a clinching game six win in which he put up a 30-38 game. He had a Finals in which he averaged 18 ppg, 29 rpg, and shot a staggering .702 from the floor (yes, the same Russell that could not shoot.) He also had a Finals, in which he LED his team in scoring, at 23.6 ppg. Regul8r has posted many other GREAT games, and SERIES, as well, so hopefully he will throw them in here, as well.

However, Russell's true IMPACT was at the defensive end. And, unfortunately, we have no real way of measuring his overall impact. I can show you examples of him limiting Chamberlain's numbers. In Wilt's historic 61-62 season, he averaged 50.4 ppg on .506 shooting. In the regular season, and against Russell, he averaged 38 ppg on .471 shooting. But, even more importantly, in the playoffs, he held Wilt to 33 ppg. In Wilt's monumental '67 season, Chamberlain averaged 24.1 ppg on .683 shooting. In the regular season, he averaged 20.3 ppg on .549 shooting against Russell. In the post-season, in which Wilt played brilliantly, his numbers were still less... 21.6 ppg on .556 shooting. In Russell's last season, he held Wilt to 10.7 ppg in the Finals, in a year in which Chamberlain averaged 20.5.

And those are against arguably the greatest offensive player of all-time. On top of that, those are INDIVIDUAL defensive statistics. How about his effect on opposing TEAM's? His shot-blocking was only a small part of the story. It was his ability to get to mseemingly impossible shot attempts that INTIMIDATED opponents. Watch YouTube footage...players would hestitate, or not shoot at all, waiting for Russell to spring. He also "cheated" to the side of his teammates who were at an individual disadvantage, and covered for their weaknesses.

How about his relentless rebounding? How many times did his efforts limit opposing team's to ONE shot? And conversely, how many times did he tip the ball to a teammate at the offensive end, which gave them another opportunity? And how many points came from his quick outlet passes? And think about this...how many times were his teammates able to gamble more on defense, or take off earlier on the break, just knowing that Russell was back there? None of that shows up in the stats.

In 1980 the Professional Basketball Writers Association voted him as "The Greatest Player in the History of the NBA."

Why? What did Russell's peers and the media at the time see that, we can't some 30-40-50 years later?

BTW, the NBA Finals MVP Award is named in his honor.

[SinJackal]

I can understand those that did not grow up in the Russell era minimizing his career based on his offensive stats. Up until a year ago I was ripping him, myself, and I grew up in that era (although I have always had him in MY top-5.)

And, I'll be honest, I have looked at the numbers, and read many books on the subject, and I couldn't see a case for DiMaggio over Williams, either. Yet, talk to the generation that saw the two play (if you can still find anyone who actually saw them play.) In my limited experience, such as my own father, and his friends...to a man, they would have taken DiMaggio. Maybe the fact that DiMaggio played on nine World Series winners is the reason...I don't know. Incidently, I read Halborstam's book, 'The Summer of '49' (a GREAT read BTW), and while he doesn't come right out with it...I got the impression that, he too, would have taken Joe.

Anyway...that is for a discussion on another forum. My only point being that, DiMaggio won an MVP in a season in which Williams hit .406. Why? What did those people who actually WITNESSED that season see, that we can't from the numbers?

What does that have to do with this topic? Well, Russell was almost universally accepted by his teammates, his coach, his opposing players and coaches...his peers...and the media alike, as the greatest player of his era. I didn't agree with it then, and I still have a difficult time believing it now...except that, in a TEAM game, no one played better. How do I know that? He won with GREAT teams (as many as SEVEN other HOF players.) He won with very good teams, (e.g., the '65-66 Celtics, who finished one game behind Philly, and then blew them out in the playoffs.) And he won with, arguably, only a "good" team (his last year, a team that finished 4th and with a 48-34 record.)

And when I say that HE won, obviously it was his TEAM that won. BUT, what was interesting about all of those rings, was the fact, that, again, to a man, his teammates credited HIM for those titles. Don't get me wrong...without Sam Jones, they probably don't win at least two titles (two miraculous shots.) Without Hondo, they might not have won in '65 ("Havlicek stole the ball!)" And, of course, most ALL of his teammates contributed heavily. In fact, I have been on record as saying that S. Jones and Havlicek probably would have been among the league's best scorers had they played on other teams. However, neither would have the ten and eight rings that they have now.

I, and other's, have pointed out just how "clutch" Russell was. In his ten game seven's, he averaged 18 ppg and 29 rpg. He had a game seven in which he put up a 30-40 game. He had a clinching game six win in which he put up a 30-38 game. He had a Finals in which he averaged 18 ppg, 29 rpg, and shot a staggering .702 from the floor (yes, the same Russell that could not shoot.) He also had a Finals, in which he LED his team in scoring, at 23.6 ppg. Regul8r has posted many other GREAT games, and SERIES, as well, so hopefully he will throw them in here, as well.

However, Russell's true IMPACT was at the defensive end. And, unfortunately, we have no real way of measuring his overall impact. I can show you examples of him limiting Chamberlain's numbers. In Wilt's historic 61-62 season, he averaged 50.4 ppg on .506 shooting. In the regular season, and against Russell, he averaged 38 ppg on .471 shooting. But, even more importantly, in the playoffs, he held Wilt to 33 ppg. In Wilt's monumental '67 season, Chamberlain averaged 24.1 ppg on .683 shooting. In the regular season, he averaged 20.3 ppg on .549 shooting against Russell. In the post-season, in which Wilt played brilliantly, his numbers were still less... 21.6 ppg on .556 shooting. In Russell's last season, he held Wilt to 10.7 ppg in the Finals, in a year in which Chamberlain averaged 20.5.

And those are against arguably the greatest offensive player of all-time. On top of that, those are INDIVIDUAL defensive statistics. How about his effect on opposing TEAM's? His shot-blocking was only a small part of the story. It was his ability to get to mseemingly impossible shot attempts that INTIMIDATED opponents. Watch YouTube footage...players would hestitate, or not shoot at all, waiting for Russell to spring. He also "cheated" to the side of his teammates who were at an individual disadvantage, and covered for their weaknesses.

How about his relentless rebounding? How many times did his efforts limit opposing team's to ONE shot? And conversely, how many times did he tip the ball to a teammate at the offensive end, which gave them another opportunity? And how many points came from his quick outlet passes? And think about this...how many times were his teammates able to gamble more on defense, or take off earlier on the break, just knowing that Russell was back there? None of that shows up in the stats.

In 1980 the Professional Basketball Writers Association voted him as "The Greatest Player in the History of the NBA."

Why? What did Russell's peers and the media at the time see that, we can't some 30-40-50 years later?

BTW, the NBA Finals MVP Award is named in his honor.

Great post. I'm actually repping jlauber for the first time for that.

[97 bulls]

Did anyone say defense is not important Holy shit.

The hardest thing to do in all of basketball is score. It's a proven fact. Players like Carmelo Anthony will always be better then players like Shane Battier.

Every aspect of basketball is important, just scoring is the most important. Russell had all the other things to become the GOAT, but he lacked scoring, which is extremely important, that's why players like Jordan, Wilt, or Kareem are considered better then him...

Actually, the hardest thing to do in basketball is play man defense. And your example of battier and anthony is a terrible one. Battiere is good at one thing and that's man defense. Anthony is a versitle offensive player. A guy that's comparable offensively to battier would be a guy that is a good shooter. Not scorer but a good shooter. Or a guy that can drive to the basket only. In essence, a one dimentioal player.

[Yung D-Will]

In before Julbar and G.O.A.T rape this thread

[97 bulls]

You imply it by saying scoring is the most important aspect of basketball.

Yes, Carmello is better than Battier, so? You're bringing up a superstar player vs a borderline roleplayer.

Compare a star scorer to a player who plays great D' and still scores pretty well, and it's a more accurate comparison. Don't compare a superstar scorer to a guy who doesn't score much but plays good D'.

For example, Manu Ginobili vs Joe Johnson. JJ scores better, but Ginobili plays good D', leading many fans to rate Ginobili over JJ. Or a more fitting comparison, Ginobili vs Crawford. Both score really well and about the same PPG, but Ginobili blows him out of the water defensively, making him a far greater asset to have on the floor than Crawford is.

I would say you can compare a versitle defender to a great scorer. Like dikimbe mutombo. Id say he's the defensive equal to carmellos scoring ability.

[97 bulls]

I also often wonder why magic doesn't get knocked foe being a relatively terrible defender. Bill russel and magic johnson are the one the same level in my oipion. Its just that one plays offense great and the other plays defense great. Both won a hell of a lot.

[jlauber]

I also often wonder why magic doesn't get knocked foe being a relatively terrible defender. Bill russel and magic johnson are the one the same level in my oipion. Its just that one plays offense great and the other plays defense great. Both won a hell of a lot.

Because Magic was NOT a bad defender. Maybe not a great one, but the man was 6-8. He even led the NBA in steals a couple of years, too. And he was one of the best rebounding PG's in NBA history. And, when he got a defensive rebound, he was likely going coast-to-coast. Finally, he made his teammates much better, as well.

[Desperado]

What players in the top 50 would not win consistently with 3 or 4 HOFers

So your saying Russell only won because he had talented teammates?

- Boston had never even been to the Finals before Bill Russell. Despite having multiple HOF players and a HOF coach.

- During the 1962 season, Russell took himself out for 4 games and the Celtics lost 4 straight games even with Cousy, Sharman, Jones, Ramsey and other HoF's.

- In the 1969 season he took himself out for 5 games due to injury and Boston lost 5 straight games even with Hall of famers Jones, Hondo, Howell and Sanders

The occurrences that I mentioned are the worst losing streaks of the Russell-era Celtics. The latter is the worst losing streak of the Celtics since Red Auerbach took over the helm.

After he retired, Boston went from 48 wins to 34 and they didn't make the playoffs despite having several HOF players. An abysmal 14 game drop off. Compare that to Jordan who a lot of people consider the undisputed greatest and the most valuable player ever.

After Jordan retired in '93 the Bulls only had a 2 game drop off. (57 wins to 55). Hell, if it wasn't for one of the most controversial phantom foul calls ever, the Bulls would've been in the ECF. It would've been a huge blow to Jordan's prestige and importance seeing the team that he left behind reach the conference finals. And no the post-98 Bulls doesn't count since it was a virtual restructuring of the Bulls with Jordan, Pippen, Rodman and Phil Jackson all going out.

And the modest 48 wins that the Celtics garnered during the '69 season is the lowest number of wins that the Celtics have during the Russell -era and occurred only because Russell spent a lot of time on the injured list and/or recovering.

Boston with an "All-Star" cast like that should be able to shake off his departure and continue the dynasty, but they couldn't.

He has 5 rings without Cousy and 5 without Hondo and 2 without coach Auerbach. 3 without KC and Heinsohn, 2 of which came as a player/coach.


Bill made HOF players out of his teammates. He had a good cast because he was the one making them look good. He was the one constant in Boston's dynasty.

[jlauber]

Incidently, I happen to respect Pointguard's opinions. In this case, I just happen to disagree. The same applies to ShaqAttack, as well. I may not always agree with him, or other's on this forum, but I will always respect him.

In fact, I have found myself agreeing and disagreeing with the opinions of many here. I think that is a good thing. Hopefully we are all learning something from these discussions. I know that I have. Otherwise, it would really be a big waste of time.