Might get flamed for this but Bill Russell is not top 5

[Kblaze8855]

Season before he got there they won .542 %. But were overdue Cliff Hagan.

Without Hagan and McCauley but with Heinsohn and no Russell, through 24 games they were 16-8 .666.
With Russell the rest of the way they were 28-20 or .5833

I know they won games before Russell. And nothing else. Its not by chance they won the season he showed up....lost the next season with him injured in the finals...then won 8 in a row with him.

They weren't heavy underdogs versus Philly minus Cunningham. I'm not convinced they were even underdogs given that injury.

Not being around I rely on what the people in question have said in interviews ive seen. Though there are always contrasting opinions I suspect google will provide you with shortly.

They were one of a number of good teams in '69 based on regular season SRS (A close 2nd to New York but other good teams such a Baltimore and 76ers reasonably close). Certainly going through Sixers and NY was impressive. Lakers were worse than their record, bad chemistry (in terms of complementing one another and locker room) and had a had a W-L record that was high from feasting on a weak conference and a bit of luck (even given the weaker schedule their margin of victory was that of a 52 not 55 win team).

The 69 team was by all accounts their worst and the Lakers themselves have spoken on how they were supposed to win. Its not exactly a fringe opinion.

Teams were deeper back then (at least in terms of players with accolades)

But how many teams had excluding their top star (this being Russell), an MVP (sometimes GOAT candidate though history had revised its opinion on that), a top 20 GOAT guy (Havlicek), 2 50 at 50 guys (Sharman, Sam Jones) plus the rest. In any given year they had unmatched depth.

Cousy winning the MVP as his teams second best player means little to me.

Plenty of teams had 2-3 all time greats in addition to their star. Where they rank is largely a matter of career accolades. I suspect that if guys like Dick Barnett spent years next to Russell his resume looks a bit better than it does now. Being on that team inflated a lot of guys accolades and name beyond players likely just as good as them. And russell is the biggest reason why.

Listing all stars at a time when
Quote:Originally Posted by http://www.allstarnba.es/ballot/1966.htm
"Until 1973, each NBA team had to be represented with at least 1 players, and a maximum of 3 players."

doesn't really mean very much.

Not like the guys I mentioned were like...shady borderline stars.

We are talking guys who led title teams and retired as top 2-3 all time scorers. 6-7 time all stars with multiple high scoring seasons. Hall of fame players.

Not like all the people Russell gets discredited for actually have sparkling careers or skillsets aside from being celtics. KC Jones might be the least accomplished player in the HOF(which he is in....as a player...not coach). Hes pretty much in for playing with Russell in college and the NBA and being a top notch on the ball defender.

Guy Rodgers was not Cousy and you present a very partial impression of him. He was a career .378 % shooter (and despite some overlap played in league with a significantly higher average fg% than Cousy's time in the league). He shot 72% from the line poor for a guard, below the league average, Cousy was over 80%. Cousy got 18.4 points a game, Rodgers 11.4.

I didnt say he was cousy. I said ive read people from the time say he was as good or better. Who am I to call out Oscar Robertson, Sonny Hill, and Wilt about 60s pointguards? Oscar said he was the greatest ball handler and passer ever. Seems the general opinion was that he was pretty great. As for his shooting numbers...Cousy is not the one to prop up when the issue is shooting. not liek I actually said he was better than Cousy anyway.

Gola was a HOFer based on his college career. As I have illustrated All-Star appearances from that era are very soft. He peaked at 15ppg and was on the downswing almost as soon as Wilt arrived.

Im not sure how the 1 per team rule would even get him in.

He was playing with Wilt and Paul and then on Knicks teams with multiple all stars as well. You listed the rule as if it got him in when he otherwise wouldnt be.

Bill Russell is an exceptional player is typically seen as a lock for top 10 GOAT often top 5, occasionally argued as the greatest.

But he usually had the best team by a substantial distance. Only for his last 3 or 4 years is it even remotely arguable that he didn't have the best supporting cast. Even in these cases I don't think there's a team 2-11 I'd rather have than Boston's with the possible exception of Philly's '67 title winning supporting cast.

Id say he had the team that played the best by a substantial distance. Not the same as the most talent or some crazy stacked team when other teams have 7 stars or 4-5 hall of famers.

You look at the difference in defense the moment he arrived its clear what was going on. The best defense by an insane margin, with the best chemistry, the most effort, and players who get used to theirs roles over year and year and years? They were sitting around in practices being coached by 4-5 different players with Red himself listening just so everyone grew to respect eachother.......

That team wasnt winning off talent. They were the best team. If other teams had what they had their talent likely would have been enough. But the Celtics were built to win, had the greatest winner ever, and chemistry that is hard to overstate. Odd situation really....

[PHILA]

Bill Russell is not top 5

Indeed, he is top 2 alongside Jordan.

[Round Mound]

I would rank around Top 20-25...He was a Great Rebounder and Shot Blocker but he DID NOT RUN ANY OFFENSE...that was Desgined by His Teamates

He wasn`t known for an Offensive Player even before he came to the NBA. Red himself mentioned this. They needed a Defensive Anchor for Blocks and Rebounds and thats what he did.

Many Teamates of Him for More than Half of his Titles had a Higher PER.

He wasn`t the Best Player...He was Lucky to Have a Great Cast...Its Not Like he was Magic or Bird WHO MADE OTHERS BETTER THROUGH THEIR OFFENSIVE.

He was an Defensive Anchor and THATS IT.

OFFENSIVE CENTERS are WAY HARDER TO FIND.

[jlip]

Let's be real. The argument against Russell stems almost exclusively from two numbers...15.1ppg and 44fg%. Most people, especially ESPN generation of fans, equate greatness with scoring dominance, and 15ppg on 44fg% (especially for a center) do not fit their criteria for greatness.

I won't even take the time to discuss why those numbers aren't bad considering Russell's Celtics' offensive system and Russell's role, neither the fact that Russell showed on multiple times an ability to score when it mattered most, especially the Finals.

But it's so important to understand that while dominant scoring has always been valued, it was not viewed as the primary criterion for greatness until MJ's era. That's the reason why players were voting Russell MVP, time and time again, with him never reaching 19ppg even once, while Wilt was avg. 40 and 50ppg, and the likes of Pettit, West, Baylor, and Big O were avg. over 30ppg. That's why Wilt was considered a better player when he avg. 24ppg than he was when he avg. 50ppg. That's why prime Bill Walton was in the discussion as the league's best player during the mid-late 70's despite never reaching 19ppg or finishing even close to top 10 in scoring.

Greatness was often attributed to how a player contributed to his team winning, not just how many points he scored. According to that standard Russell was as good as anyone. Cousy said it best in 1961: "We can win without me, we can win without Heinsohn, we can win without Sharman, but without Big Bill, we don't win."

[NumberSix]

How come nobody brings up the typical arguments used against Wilt? (weak era, short white guys, weak competition, etc...) It's the same era.

Bill Russell was pretty much Tyson Chandler with worse offense. He's definitely one of the best defensive players of all time, but this dude isn't even a top 5 center. Replace Bill on those Celtic teams with Kareem or Hakeem and they probably win like 16 chips.

[Punpun]

@Number, don't forget he played with 11 HOF. I.e like all the HOF in the league.

[jbryan1984]

Weak era or not, imo he gets a pass to at least the top 10 for his finger jewelry.

[Kblaze8855]

How come nobody brings up the typical arguments used against Wilt? (weak era, short white guys, weak competition, etc...) It's the same era.

Because the people hating on Wilt with those arguments dont know anything about the era either. Short white guys and all....

He plays a team with 7'1'' and change 265-290 pound Wilt who also has Nate thurmond who was built like Zo plus 2-3 inches with a 6'9'' forward in addition a 6'4'' 2 guard and a 6 foot point....where do we get short white guys from? Or 6'10'' 240-250 Willis reed, 7 foot Walt Bellamy around 240, 2 other 6'10'' centers, a 6'5'' 2 guard in Bill bradley and a 6'4'' point in Walt frazier with 6'5'' swingman Cazzie Russell and 6'8'' 220-230 Phil Jackson among the bench guys. And all those players are listed in barefoot measurements not modified like we all know the heights are today with guys in shoes. The Knicks team the Celtics beat would probably have guys listed at 6'5'', 6'6'', 6'7'', 7', and 6'11'' in the starting lineup today. Where are the short white guys? You could look through and find some small teams in any era. We have had teams with 6'4'' small forwards playing this week. But for the most part the only short guys are tiny points and a 2 guard sized 3 now and then just like we have now.

All made to seem smaller than they are by the rookie heights/weights they are forever listed under which would have people listing Kobe at 6'5'' or 6 and 195 pounds now. Guys on average went up an inch from 1967 to 2004 and thats not even accounting for the in shoes measurement change.

People got heavier with weight training. They were not just tiny people though. But no matter how many times its said it never sinks in because people are looking to hate not learn the truth.

Bill Russell was pretty much Tyson Chandler with worse offense. He's definitely one of the best defensive players of all time, but this dude isn't even a top 5 center. Replace Bill on those Celtic teams with Kareem or Hakeem and they probably win like 16 chips.

Chandler with worse offense....yea...not even going into that...

And really...what is Hakeem or anyone gonna do that wilt wasnt? Drop 130 instead of 100? have 58 rebounds instead of 55?

Everything a center could do Wilt did it and no matter if you feel players are better than him or not there is little anyone could do to put points on the board at a rate he didnt...or block more shots...or get more rebounds.

If it didnt make him automatically dominate Russells teams and players of the time valued Russell more than Wilt(as evidenced in MVP voting they did themselves) what makes you so sure that others would do different?

If the Celtics believed wilt would make them worse why would someone who can not be expected to do more than wilt...make them better?

[jlip]

Bill Russell was pretty much Tyson Chandler with worse offense.

This is wrong in so many different ways. It's as wrong as saying that water is dry.

[Thorpesaurous]

I'd write more but I'm at work so ...

[LJJ]

Not going to lie, I'm not 70 years old so I wasn't around for Russell.


But when I think of Russell, I like to bring it to the modern league and compare him to Ben Wallace. Not in the way you think though, I'd like to imagine how Ben Wallace would be if he were more like Bill Russell. Ben Wallace, a player the majority of us have seen in his prime. Now imagine a better Ben Wallace, a player built like him but even more stops defensively and with a high IQ on offense. Imagine Ben Wallace's teams dominating the league, winning the championship nearly every season. And Ben Wallace clearly being the best player on those teams, from his rookie season to his retirement season. In a league which at times includes Michael Jordan, includes Shaquille O'neal, includes Tim Duncan, all playing on very good teams as well.

At that point, who cares how good his teammates are? How can you NOT call that player possibly the greatest of all time? And that is essentially what Russell did in his day.

[Psileas]

How come nobody brings up the typical arguments used against Wilt? (weak era, short white guys, weak competition, etc...) It's the same era.

1) Because Russell is discussed less than Wilt.
2) Because Russell dominated in a different way than Wilt, which only gives room for the "less teams" arguments, which, depending on the way they are used, may be comparably flawed. Funnily enough, Russell's different way of dominance, which included posting inferior individual stats to other all-time greats, shows how moot the whole "weak, short opponents" argument is. Russell was as athletically gifted as almost any big man ever was, yet he wasn't doing the crap today's mediocre centers would supposedly do if they played back then, which means that either he was greater than what his stats show (especially offensively, since his defensive value is somewhat well known) or that today's expectations from today's big men to completely dominate Russell's era are false/exaggerated, probably both.

Bill Russell was pretty much Tyson Chandler with worse offense.

With the exception of FG% and FT% (and he's not exactly great in that second field, either), there's not a single field where "Mr. 1.0 APG At His Best" Chandler is better than Russell (in most fields it's not even close).

He's definitely one of the best defensive players of all time, but this dude isn't even a top 5 center. Replace Bill on those Celtic teams with Kareem or Hakeem and they probably win like 16 chips.

The same Kareem that started his career and won just 1 title in the early 70's, playing against more or less the same opponents with old Russell, in a league with the same number of teams and for a team that, one season before him, won just 7 games more than the Celtics one season after Russell?
That's not to say that young Kareem wouldn't win more than 1 title with the Boston Celtics. But, don't forget, that's Kareem at or near his prime against Russell past his own, the same Kareem who has to hear and bear the criticism of his '73 underperformance and loss to the Warriors, something that probably wouldn't happen to Russell.
Doesn't seem like a cakewalk for Kareem to match Russell's team success really. Especially if you matched a 35 year old Kareem against 1969 (same age) Russell, playing for the same 1969 Celtics.

[PTB Fan]

I'd argue Bill as the greatest of all time.

He's definitely up there.

[Thorpesaurous]

Let's be real. The argument against Russell stems almost exclusively from two numbers...15.1ppg and 44fg%. Most people, especially ESPN generation of fans, equate greatness with scoring dominance, and 15ppg on 44fg% (especially for a center) do not fit their criteria for greatness.

I won't even take the time to discuss why those numbers aren't bad considering Russell's Celtics' offensive system and Russell's role, neither the fact that Russell showed on multiple times an ability to score when it mattered most, especially the Finals.

But it's so important to understand that while dominant scoring has always been valued, it was not viewed as the primary criterion for greatness until MJ's era. That's the reason why players were voting Russell MVP, time and time again, with him never reaching 19ppg even once, while Wilt was avg. 40 and 50ppg, and the likes of Pettit, West, Baylor, and Big O were avg. over 30ppg. That's why Wilt was considered a better player when he avg. 24ppg than he was when he avg. 50ppg. That's why prime Bill Walton was in the discussion as the league's best player during the mid-late 70's despite never reaching 19ppg or finishing even close to top 10 in scoring.

Greatness was often attributed to how a player contributed to his team winning, not just how many points he scored. According to that standard Russell was as good as anyone. Cousy said it best in 1961: "We can win without me, we can win without Heinsohn, we can win without Sharman, but without Big Bill, we don't win."

This is really the point. You can't go back and attribute current values to past eras and then hold those things against those people. There was a similar argument in baseball when Babe Ruth came along and changed the nature of game, fences were moved in, and the home run became a legitimate metric for success. But when the baseball HOF was established it was Ty Cobb who was the first inductee, and people at the time didn't get it, because they were comparing Ruth's game with the way Cobb played.
The name of the game is molding yourself in the best way possible to win. And what wins at one time may not win at another. No one "figured it out" better than Russell ever. Not even Jordan. Now that's not the only way to measure greatness, but it's silly to just throw it out.

There are an extremely limited number of players with multiple titles and multiple MVPs, and they generally lay out the greatest list of players ever. Russell, Kareem, Wilt, Magic, Bird, Jordan, Duncan, and Mikan.

[CavaliersFTW]

i dont have him in my top five, but i give him the benefit of the doubt and keep him in the top ten

modern day ben wallace, but maybe a little better on offense.

Shaq is a modern day Bynum but maybe a little better on offense... Olajuwon is a modern day Howard but maybe a little better in the post... Robinson is a modern day McGee but maybe a little better on defense.