Bill Russell has more rings than the Eastern Conference Playoff teams combined

[The-Legend-24]

Weren't there like 5 teams back then?

The fact that people compare this dude to real legends is criminal.

[RagaZ]

One of the most annoying poster in this forum. I respect the kobe stans more than this douchebag. At least they have a higher IQ than you.

What?

[KyrieTheFuture]

One of the most annoying poster in this forum. I respect the kobe stans more than this douchebag. At least they have a higher IQ than you.

[Mrofir]

Let me ask you a question...in 1976, there were 18 teams, while in 1967, there were 10. According to your formula, a ring in 1976 would be worth 18/30=.6 rings today, while one in 1967 would be worth .33. There's a HUGE overlap of players in the league in both seasons, and there were still very strong teams with an advantage over the pack. So tell me, how did a ring become twice as valuable, with the same players in the league, via the dilution of talent?

Russell isn't going away. Sorry bud.

I have no agenda to make Russell go away, at all -- rather, I'm looking for ways to bridge the gap between eras and make reasonable albeit hypothetical (of course) comparisons. By definition any of these comparisons will be rough in nature since we cant put these players on the court together. But as far as finding a logical tool for comparison, I like what math has to offer me. Saying a ring is twice as valuable in the 70s is a good way of finding the rough edges of this very simple and reasonable logic, and twisting the worst possible outcome out of it.

However as a Russell fan you must certainly be aware that his teams won 8 out of 10 possible championships in the 60s. In the 70s, a decade where as you mentioned there were more teams (dilution) and thus it was harder to repeat, 8 different franchises won the championship.

Russell's legacy is great and he deserves the recognition. Not only did he win the equivalent of very roughly 4 championships by today's standards, he basically won them in a row. I'll say his 11 is worth not just 3.66 championships, but a 3-peat by today's standards. That puts him in elite company.

[Mrofir]

So let's condense the current league down to ten teams. Is it easier or harder for Lebron (or Durant or Duncan - pick your superstar) to win championships?

To put it another way, how many of the 30 teams are legitimate contenders? Or how about this, how many teams in the East should Miami really be concerned about in a series?

As for Rusell and the Celtics, let's keep in my mind who they were denying championships - Wilt, West & Baylor, Oscar, Petit, Thurmond.

This is a very interesting point

What I would say however is that you aren't accounting for the factor that aside from $$$ and business, the league was expanding to make room for more talent. This was an age where the level of the average 7th man was skyrocketing, I don't think there is any question about that.

The idea that the current league is overly diluted is a somewhat separate issue. Also, and this is where my basketball knowledge wanes a bit, but from what I can tell, the Wilt 76ers and the Wilt Lakers were the most serious competition Russell's Celtics had. Those Celtics teams were very good and probably would have won a few without Russell and I don't say that to take anything away from him.

Mathematically speaking, if Russell was in a 10 team league and he had 2 serious contenders to deal with each year, that means roughly 20% of the league was a potential roadblock. Moreover, assuming no huge upsets, this gave Russell a 33% chance of winning the championship each year. As a Suns fan I'd take that.

To focus on MJ for a second, his Bulls had to contend with 2-3 western conference opponents each year, be it the Suns, Blazers, Lakers, Sonics, whatever, and 2-3 eastern conference opponents each year - Indiana, NY principle among those. If he had an average of 5 other contenders to deal with, that gives him a 1/6, or 16.66% chance of winning the championship, which is exactly half of Russell's.

The point is, and has been all along -- when you have more teams, even if there aren't many contenders, there are going to be more contenders. If there are more contenders, winning a championship is statistically more difficult for any given team. If we condensed the current league down to 10 teams you might well have 10 contenders, but that wasn't the reality in the 60s.

[Psileas]

There were 10 teams for much of his career.

1 championship in a 10 team league

roughly = .33 championships in a 30 team league

Bill Russell won 3.66 rings. Not bad!

1) NBA = 30 teams
NCAA = 300 teams

Winning 1 NCAA title = Winning 10 titles in a row in today's NBA.

2) Mikan's NBA = Almost twice as many teams as Russell's NBA. Therefore, Mikan almost = Russell

[Psileas]

Mathematically speaking, if Russell was in a 10 team league and he had 2 serious contenders to deal with each year, that means roughly 20% of the league was a potential roadblock. Moreover, assuming no huge upsets, this gave Russell a 33% chance of winning the championship each year. As a Suns fan I'd take that.

To focus on MJ for a second, his Bulls had to contend with 2-3 western conference opponents each year, be it the Suns, Blazers, Lakers, Sonics, whatever, and 2-3 eastern conference opponents each year - Indiana, NY principle among those. If he had an average of 5 other contenders to deal with, that gives him a 1/6, or 16.66% chance of winning the championship, which is exactly half of Russell's.

And yet, realistically speaking, none of Jordan's 6 championship teams, not even his first and most inexperienced one, was only given 1/6 chances of winning the title. Lol, when the 1996 regular season was coming to a close, I had read a poll about the predictions for the champion team and like 80-90% of the votes went to the Bulls.

The point is, and has been all along -- when you have more teams, even if there aren't many contenders, there are going to be more contenders. If there are more contenders, winning a championship is statistically more difficult for any given team. If we condensed the current league down to 10 teams you might well have 10 contenders, but that wasn't the reality in the 60s.

Who told you this would be the case nowadays, especially if we used 60's rules? There is no guarantee that all those 10 teams would make equally wise choices given the available talent, which means that there would probably still be formed title and lottary contenders.
BTW, the 60's were the least "extreme team winning and losing records" friendly era, a good indicator that talent actually was pretty condensed, unlike the late 40's or early 50's. Very rarely would a team win 65 times (actually only once), very rarely would a team lose 60-65 games, as well. As for the playoffs, just look at how many times the Celtics were led in a Game 7.
BTW, what's their "adjusted in today's era" undefeated record in Games 7?

[L.Kizzle]

When he played, there were only like 12 teams in the entire league though. Easy to win rings when there are fewer competition.

Actually, it's the complete opposite. Less teams means the talent is not spread out over 30 like today.

1964 NBA season, 5 of the 9 teams over .500.

Celts had the best record, but the Royals were only 4 games in back of them, in the same division.

Lakers, Hawks and Warriors over .500 in the West. The Baltimore Bullets had 2 future Hall of Famers and also 2 other All-Stars yet there record was 31-49.

[Mrofir]

And yet, realistically speaking, none of Jordan's 6 championship teams, not even his first and most inexperienced one, was only given 1/6 chances of winning the title. Lol, when the 1996 regular season was coming to a close, I had read a poll about the predictions for the champion team and like 80-90% of the votes went to the Bulls.



Who told you this would be the case nowadays, especially if we used 60's rules? There is no guarantee that all those 10 teams would make equally wise choices given the available talent, which means that there would probably still be formed title and lottary contenders.
BTW, the 60's were the least "extreme team winning and losing records" friendly era, a good indicator that talent actually was pretty condensed, unlike the late 40's or early 50's. Very rarely would a team win 65 times (actually only once), very rarely would a team lose 60-65 games, as well. As for the playoffs, just look at how many times the Celtics were led in a Game 7.
BTW, what's their "adjusted in today's era" undefeated record in Games 7?

You can pick and poke at my logic all you want -- the bottom line is, Russell is not going to be able to win 11 out of 13 championships in the modern era. He's not going to be able to pull down 22 rebounds a game because the game and the league are fundamentally different.

It would be nice if there was a way to compare across these eras, and I'm simply trying to deduce a reasonable way of doing that without completely destroying his legacy and contributions to the sport. If I'm building a dream team, Russell simply won't be my pick at the center position. And he won't be my 2nd pick period. That's the "slot" he occupies in many people's minds and I just do not believe he is the 2nd best basketball player in the history of the game.

The argument about the NCAA is absurd to the point that I'm not sure why I'm acknowledging it. I guess I should have qualified that the more teams there are in a league ***given a reasonable parity in talent level*** the more difficult it is to win a championship. Here are some scores from last year's NCAA tournament: Akron 42, VCU 88. Syracuse 81, Montana 34.

[LAZERUSS]

Actually, it's the complete opposite. Less teams means the talent is not spread out over 30 like today.

1964 NBA season, 5 of the 9 teams over .500.

Celts had the best record, but the Royals were only 4 games in back of them, in the same division.

Lakers, Hawks and Warriors over .500 in the West. The Baltimore Bullets had 2 future Hall of Famers and also 2 other All-Stars yet there record was 31-49.

I actually like to use the '67 season, and a year in which Boston did not win a title. And, hell, there were only three teams, out of ten, that had winning records, too.

BUT, take a look at some of the teams that did not have a winning record. How about the Royals, who went 39-42? A young Happy Hairston, who put up a 15-9 season, and would go on to be one of the top rebounders in the 70's. Journeyman Connie Dierking, who had long and decent career, and would be among the average centers in today's NBA. Two of the best shooters f that era in Flynn Robinson (who would have a 20 ppg season a couple of years later), and Jon McGlocklin (who was a solid contributer on the Bucks '71 title team.) Odie Smith, who averaged 17 ppg in '67, and was coming off of an All-star selection just the year before. Rookie Bob Love, who would go on to be one of the top scorers in the league within a few seasons. A prime Jerry Lucas, who put up an 18-19 season, and was Kevin Love long before Love was. Oh, and a prime Oscar, and his 31-6-11 season.

Then there was the 39-42 Hawks. A long list of talented players, many of whom were just coming into their primes. Zelmo Beaty (a perennial 20+ ppg scorer in his NBA career), and his 18-11 season. Bill Bridges, one of the best rebounders of his era, and his 17-15 season. HOFer Lenny Wilkins and his 17 ppg, 6 apg season. HOFer Richie Guerin (admittedly nearing the end of his career) and his 14 ppg season. Paul Silas, who would be one of the best rebounders of the 70's, and his 7-9 season. Joe Caldwell, and 14 ppg season. And "Sweet Lou" Hudson, a multiple 20+ ppg scorer (RIP BTW) in his career, and his 18 pppg season.

The 36-45 Knicks? Dick Van Arsdale (who would have multiple 20+ seasons within a couple of years) and his 15 ppg. Cazzie Russell, who was among the best 6th men of his era, and as a starter a few years later, would put up a 20 ppg season. Dick Barnett, (who averaged 23 ppg just the year before, and would be an All-star a year later), and his 17 ppg. Journeyman Butch Komives and his 16 ppg. HOFer Walt Bellamy and his 19-14 season. And HOFer Willis Reed (who would be league MVP in three years) and his 21-15 season.

The 36-45 Lakers? Surely this team had no talent, right? Rookie Gail Goodrich, who would go on to have a HOF career, and his 12 ppg. Second year player Mahdi Abdul-Rahman (Walt Hazzard...and who would average 24 ppg the very next season), and his 9 ppg. Archie Clark, (who would be a 20 ppg scorer and an all-star the very next season), and his 11 ppg. Journeyman center Darrall Imhoff and his 11-13 season. Rudy Larusso (who would average 21 ppg the very next season) and his 13 ppg. TWO seven-footers in Henry Finkel and Mel Counts. Oh, and a near prime Elgin Baylor and his 27-13 season, along with a prime Jerry West and his 29-6-7 season (both of whom played nearly full seasons.)

The 44-37 Warriors? Clyde Lee (who would be one of the best rebounding PFs of the 70's), and his 7-7 season. Fred Hetzel (who would average 20 ppg the very next year), and his 12 ppg. Jeff Mullins (who would have multiple 20+ seasons in his career) and his 13 ppg. Journeyman Tom Meschery (a former all-star), and his 11 ppg. Hard-nosed Al Attles. Oh, and HOF center Nate Thurmond, at his PEAK, and his 19-21 season, as well as HOFer Rick Barry, and at his PEAK, with a 36 ppg season.


The 60-21 Celtics and the 68-13 Sixers were just LOADED with talent, as well, but CLEARLY, ALL of those teams had the pure talent to win a title.

My god, that Laker team would be similar to today's Heat for cryingoutloud. A prime West (a near prime Wade); a near prime Baylor (a prime Lebron); and equal supporting casts. Can you imagine the 2014 Heat going 36-45?

[secund2nun]

There were 10 teams for much of his career.

1 championship in a 10 team league

roughly = .33 championships in a 30 team league

Bill Russell won 3.66 rings. Not bad!

Add in the penalty for playing in a league full of unathletic white scrubs with no salary cap and you get 0 rings.

[CavaliersFTW]

There were 10 teams for much of his career.

1 championship in a 10 team league

roughly = .33 championships in a 30 team league

Bill Russell won 3.66 rings. Not bad!

^ when attempted logic fails

[Psileas]

You can pick and poke at my logic all you want -- the bottom line is, Russell is not going to be able to win 11 out of 13 championships in the modern era. He's not going to be able to pull down 22 rebounds a game because the game and the league are fundamentally different.

It would be nice if there was a way to compare across these eras, and I'm simply trying to deduce a reasonable way of doing that without completely destroying his legacy and contributions to the sport. If I'm building a dream team, Russell simply won't be my pick at the center position. And he won't be my 2nd pick period. That's the "slot" he occupies in many people's minds and I just do not believe he is the 2nd best basketball player in the history of the game.

The argument about the NCAA is absurd to the point that I'm not sure why I'm acknowledging it. I guess I should have qualified that the more teams there are in a league ***given a reasonable parity in talent level*** the more difficult it is to win a championship. Here are some scores from last year's NCAA tournament: Akron 42, VCU 88. Syracuse 81, Montana 34.

1) There's no similarity between Russell's 11 titles and Russell's 22 rpg. You can't discredit one because you found a reason to discredit the other.
2) I mentioned the NCAA example just to make fun of the "number of teams" argument. Then again, there is still more contention for the title at its highest levels than in the NBA, especially given the knockout nature of the tournament.
3) Russell very early acknowledged that lots of people during his own era wouldn't "pick him for their Dream Team" and decided he won't care. Which helped him become the GOAT winner. You may adjust for number of teams/contenders as much as you want, but in the end, Russell was feeling as much satisfaction and joy for every single title he won as a Kobe or a Jordan, not 1/3rd or 8/27ths of it.

[LAZERUSS]

1) There's no similarity between Russell's 11 titles and Russell's 22 rpg. You can't discredit one because you found a reason to discredit the other.
2) I mentioned the NCAA example just to make fun of the "number of teams" argument. Then again, there is still more contention for the title at its highest levels than in the NBA, especially given the knockout nature of the tournament.
3) Russell very early acknowledged that lots of people during his own era wouldn't "pick him for their Dream Team" and decided he won't care. Which helped him become the GOAT winner. You may adjust for number of teams/contenders as much as you want, but in the end, Russell was feeling as much satisfaction and joy for every single title he won as a Kobe or a Jordan, not 1/3rd or 8/27ths of it.

As a sidenote, Russell had Finals of 23 ppg, 27 rpg, and on a .543 FG%; 18 ppg, 25 rpg, and on a .702 FG% (yes, .702); and then led his team in scoring one Finals with a 24 ppg, 24 rpg, .538 FG% series.

I wonder how many Finals that Ewing, Robinson, and Howard have had that would match those?

[Mrofir]

As a sidenote, Russell had Finals of 23 ppg, 27 rpg, and on a .543 FG%; 18 ppg, 25 rpg, and on a .702 FG% (yes, .702); and then led his team in scoring one Finals with a 24 ppg, 24 rpg, .538 FG% series.

I wonder how many Finals that Ewing, Robinson, and Howard have had that would match those?

Dude, there was no 3-pt shot. The best way to score was to take it to the hole -- this means a huge majority of the rebounds were collected inside the paint, which is just where these dudes camped out.

The game was COMPLETELY different.

Ewing Robinson and Howard, Barkley Rodman Hakeem and I can name many more would all easily average well over 20 rpg under these conditions. FG% goes up too on putbacks, as does blocks, as a result of this style of basketball.

Your previous posts brought up some good points, but C'mon.