Bill Russell is the greatest player of all-time

[MasterDurant24]

[QUOTE=alexandreben]Pippen should be ranked above 20;


didn't Jordan played with Charles Oakley, the second best rebounder in the league? didn't Jordan played with the HOF George Gervin? Jordan fans should stop to pretend that Jordan played with scrubs teammates and single handly save the Bulls... Before Jordan, Bulls made 27 wins, with Jordan they won 38, next year with thout Jordan Bulls made 30 wins, that's to say that the "God" Jordan can only generate 8 wins for his team... compare with Bird, no contest...



if you look at Fitch's r

[MasterDurant24]

Pippen should be ranked above 20;

Who do you think he should be ahead of?

[Supermensch]

No, he is not the GOAT and yes, it is because of his not-so-great offensive game.

Offense is just far too important a part of the game to overlook when talking about the GOAT.

Russell is the Scottie Pippen of centers, and in no way am I saying that as a bad thing. His game was much better than his stats, obviously (like Pippen) but 15 points a game for an entire career on a low field goal % doesn't cut it.

[MakeHistory78]

The funniest thing of all is that two of Russell's teammates said that Jordan is the Greatest.But some haters continue the stupidities.LOL

"He's by far the best since Naismith hung up the basket. He touches every base. He could play three, maybe four positions and maybe even center, too. He has no discernible weakness. The keys to basketball, despite the emphasis on big men, is still speed and quickness. He has them in abundance. When I jumped as high as I could, I got to the bottom of the net. When he jumps as high as he can, he's over the backboard. He's the best, without question." -Bob Cousy


"I don't know if he knows how good he is. He's tremendous. I've never seen anything like him. He's only 6-6. That's amazing. You seldom see a person that size do those things. He's so creative and to be able to take over a game at that size, it's amazing. Oscar and West were the best, but there's no other version of Jordan, the hang time, how high he jumps, how quick he moves. The guy amazes me. ... He's the best I've ever seen." -Sam Jones


As I said imo Jordan is the GOAT.If anyone consider Wilt or KAJ the Greatest I haven't problem..But I find ridiculous if anyone consider Russell the GOAT because of the rings.
He wasn't better than Wilt as a player.Not even close.
Wilt 7

[jlauber]

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]The funniest thing of all is that two of Russell's teammates said that Jordan is the Greatest.But some haters continue the stupidities.LOL

"He's by far the best since Naismith hung up the basket. He touches every base. He could play three, maybe four positions and maybe even center, too. He has no discernible weakness. The keys to basketball, despite the emphasis on big men, is still speed and quickness. He has them in abundance. When I jumped as high as I could, I got to the bottom of the net. When he jumps as high as he can, he's over the backboard. He's the best, without question." -Bob Cousy


"I don't know if he knows how good he is. He's tremendous. I've never seen anything like him. He's only 6-6. That's amazing. You seldom see a person that size do those things. He's so creative and to be able to take over a game at that size, it's amazing. Oscar and West were the best, but there's no other version of Jordan, the hang time, how high he jumps, how quick he moves. The guy amazes me. ... He's the best I've ever seen." -Sam Jones


As I said imo Jordan is the GOAT.If anyone consider Wilt or KAJ the Greatest I haven't problem..But I find ridiculous if anyone consider Russell the GOAT because of the rings.
He wasn't better than Wilt as a player.Not even close.
Wilt 7

[jlauber]

The number of games was almost the same (exactly the same from 1968 and on, 81 games in 1967 and 80 from 1962 to 1966), the schedule was not longer (quite the contrary), there were still teams in both the Atlantic and Pacific coast and the means of transport were less advanced. So, the number of teams is not this important in this argument.



The same arguments for a random 60's team apply to their 60's opponents.




The 8 ppg margin is scewed by the fact that Wilt played double the playoff games in his non-high scoring seasons, and so are other things, such as his playoff PER or his playoff total points. There was only 1 season when Wilt's playoff ppg fell by 8 or more points, and even this was his 1962 outlier.
And there have been a lot of mentions about Wilt facing Russell or Thurmond in more than 40% of his playoff games or about Kareem, another strong GOAT candidate, also having significantly less efficient playoffs whenever he faced Wilt or Thurmond himself.



Uh, Wilt actually has a positive record in "do or die" games. You didn't include his 1960 and 1962 series against Syracuse. Neither the fact that he averaged almost 30 ppg and 26.5 rpg in these 11 games.



1970: Serious injury problem for Wilt, injury problems for Baylor-these playoffs were the last meaningful games of his career. The Knicks had a better team.

1971: The Bucks were better, especially since the Lakers played without Jerry West in the playoffs.

1973: Again, the Knicks were better and a bit healthier. The Lakers played practically the whole playoffs without Happy Hairston, their main PF.

You can't be using seriously the "top-50 teammates" argument, as long as you know that Wilt played in 3 teams and had no top-50 teammate play with him for even 5 years. Hey, for how many top-10 coaches did Wilt play compared to Russell?



And we saw what happened to his former teams. At least, the Warriors were lucky enough to already have a developing Thurmond and acquire Barry. No such luck for the Sixers.

[jlauber]

You made a claim about Wilt averaging 8 ppg in the playoffs (7.5 actually). 7.5 is a far cry from the 2+ that you mention. In his whole career, only in 2 postseasons did he average 7.5 ppg less in the playoffs than the regular season. As long as Wilt participated in more than 4-5 postseasons, this 7.5 margin is mainly explained by the distribution of games. If this distribution was equal, Wilt would average more than 25 ppg in his playoff career. If this distribution favored his high scoring years as much as it favored the '67-'73 period, he'd be close to 28 ppg.
Wilt played in less than 11 games in 3 postseasons, but all 3 were in his high scoring days and 2 of them comprised of only 3 and 5 games. He also missed the playoffs in 1963, so that's 4 of his 7 high scoring seasons giving him only 17 playoff games.




If this implies anything, in 1965 he was on pace to score more ppg than in 1964 until he got traded. In his new team, his scoring average fell immediately from 39 ppg to 30 ppg. Then in 1966, his scoring with the Sixers went up from 30 ppg to 33.5. Also, he averaged slightly more ppg in '68 than '67.




No, I mean "do or die" games on the part of both teams. You mentioned games 7. Well, Wilt took part in one full "best of 3" and one full "best of 5" series, as well, and won them both.




Then, the Finals shouldn't sound like a serious problem to you, either, since he averaged 23 pts and 24 rebs.
Fact is, Wilt returned 3 games before the start of the playoffs, after having missed 70 games. If Jordan was considered rusty in his '95 comeback, I don't see why Wilt shouldn't be. Apart from the need of some people to magnify his failures, that is.




No, they didn't have Baylor, either. I didn't mention him, because I had already said that by the end of the '70 Finals, Baylor's career was practically over. Keith Erickson, a double figure scorer, also missed 4 playoff games.




All games were close, so I won't call it really whooping, either. Second, notice how balanced the Knicks were in the Finals, with all their starting five averaging between 15.6 and 18.6 ppg. Third, I won't take Jim McMillian over Willis Reed in my top-6 performers.




You prove my point. Different teams, different teammates. He didn't have all these guys together. Russell played at least 5 season with each one of his top-50 teammates.




That's good, but in 1959, one season before his rookie season, 5 of the league's 8 teams had at least a top-50 player and among these 5, Arizin's Warriors were the worst. In 1965, when he was traded, only the Bullets did not have any top-50 players, and even they had Walt Bellamy, who wasn't much worse, either.





Wilt was a player who was difficult to deal with, but still conventional enough to change his role more times than once. He went from super scoring to high scoring and passing to super passing to Bill Russell roles. But, like for any other superstar, you had to convince him for this. In the beginning of his career, Wilt played for coaches who had literally as much NBA coaching experience as Wilt himself (and some didn't even coach after him). His team did well in '64 under Hannum. In Philadelphia, he was coached by Schayes, who, apart from not being experienced as a coach himself, had problems controlling his players, because his personality was deemed too nice. In 1970, he played for Joe Mullaney, another rookie coach. Now, imagine some of these guys asking the top individual force of the league to change his game.
Actually, most coaches and teammates of Wilt did not generally complain about his overall stance as a professional. There were bad moments for Wilt himself, but such moments were not exactly uncommon for a lot of high profiled players.


If Russell can't match Wilt's standards, at least when facing each other, how Wilt fared against him is secondary to me. Games between the two, especially playoff ones, when Russell managed to play at Wilt's level, are celebrated. For example, some games of the 1962 playoffs. For me, that's evidence that Wilt > Russell. Not to the extent of their stats, but it's tough for me to change opinion, judging on what I see.

[Calabis]

[QUOTE=MakeHistory78]The funniest thing of all is that two of Russell's teammates said that Jordan is the Greatest.But some haters continue the stupidities.LOL

"He's by far the best since Naismith hung up the basket. He touches every base. He could play three, maybe four positions and maybe even center, too. He has no discernible weakness. The keys to basketball, despite the emphasis on big men, is still speed and quickness. He has them in abundance. When I jumped as high as I could, I got to the bottom of the net. When he jumps as high as he can, he's over the backboard. He's the best, without question." -Bob Cousy


"I don't know if he knows how good he is. He's tremendous. I've never seen anything like him. He's only 6-6. That's amazing. You seldom see a person that size do those things. He's so creative and to be able to take over a game at that size, it's amazing. Oscar and West were the best, but there's no other version of Jordan, the hang time, how high he jumps, how quick he moves. The guy amazes me. ... He's the best I've ever seen." -Sam Jones


As I said imo Jordan is the GOAT.If anyone consider Wilt or KAJ the Greatest I haven't problem..But I find ridiculous if anyone consider Russell the GOAT because of the rings.
He wasn't better than Wilt as a player.Not even close.
Wilt 7

[Calabis]

I'm a Wilt fan, and I have come to respect MJ's post-season play. But, as far as quoting other players or sources, that game can be played to a pointless end. I certainly won't take the time to look up all of the players who marvelled at Russell's play. The fact was, Russell was overwhelmingly voted the best player of his era, by his peers, and media alike. Personally, I didn't see it that way, but it is hard to argue with a consensus opinion of the times.

IMHO, Wilt was the greatest individual player ever. In fact, it is not even close. Aside from FT shooting and 3pt shooting, he had no weaknesses. And even in FT shooting he is among the career leaders in FTs made. MJ, Kareem, and perhaps even a prime Shaq can fight for second place. But in terms of total impact on the game, Russell's rings speak for themselves. He made his teammates better, and his opponents worse.

Regarding Russell's offense, I have posted the games and numbers before, and I don't have time to look them up now, but his offensive skills have become very under-rated by the "ESPN Generation." Just off the top of my head, he had one 30 point, 38 rebound game in a clinching game win in the Finals, and also had a 30 point, 40 rebound in game seven of the '62 Finals (a 125-123 win.) He shot .702 from the field in the '65 Finals (averaging 18 ppg in the process), and led Boston in scoring in the '66 Finals at 23.6 ppg.

His .441 career FG% is very deceptive, as well. It must be noted that he shot above the league average for much of his career. To put that in context, he would have been shooting somewhere around 50% in most seasons of the 80's.

I'm sure Regul8r can post many more examples of Russell's offensive skills, but in any case, there is footage on YouTube available which sheds a much better light on his overall offensive game. He was hardly a "brick-layer", and I contend that he was every bit as skilled as the vast majority of the centers of today's era.

And for those that argue that he was 6-9 (actually 6-10), and around 220 lbs...he was also a WORLD CLASS high-jumper. In fact, in 1956, he was ranked #7 in the WORLD. He had a high-jump of 6'-9" and was only a few inches from the world record at the time. He was also an outstanding 440 participant, as well. IMHO, he was probably capable of the same heights that Dwight Howard is reaching today.

And before anyone here belittles his rebounding, he was every bit as gifted as Dennis Rodman, who was the best rebounder of his era. For anyone to suggest that Russell would be ordinary in today's game is ridiculous.

Furthermore, he was a defensive GENIUS. Individually, he may have been the greatest defensive player ever. However, he was an even greater TEAM defender. Here again, there is amazing footage available on YouTube, which illustrates his TOTAL defensive IMPACT. And Regul8r has posted some statistical evidence which credits Russell's defensive impact being the equal of Jordan's offensive impact.

And Alexbrethran made an excellent point...for Russell to be ranked so low in PER and offensive numbers...well, it pretty much makes those stats pointless. West, Baylor, and Oscar were truly GREAT offensive players...yet those three won a COMBINED ONE MVP Award during the Russell era. Make no mistake about it...Russell was truly one of the greatest ever...if not THE greatest ever.

Who gives a crap about Russell and Wilt getting 40 rebs, that shit wouldn't happen in the 80's-2000's. The 60's were very non athletic, yet once a good athlete was actually allowed in...ie Russell and Wilt, those are the results you got, ridiculous numbers. Put Jordan back in the 60's and he would avg 60ppg, take Wilt and Russell and put them in todays game, yeah they still would be great/all stars, but there numbers drop significantly and 30 pt/40 rebound games don't happen

[vert48]

He is the greatest winner, but Russell is not even close the greatest player of all time.

[Alhazred]

Pippen should be ranked above 20;

Whatever you say.

didn't Jordan played with Charles Oakley, the second best rebounder in the league? didn't Jordan played with the HOF George Gervin? Jordan fans should stop to pretend that Jordan played with scrubs teammates and single handly save the Bulls... Before Jordan, Bulls made 27 wins, with Jordan they won 38, next year with thout Jordan Bulls made 30 wins, that's to say that the "God" Jordan can only generate 8 wins for his team... compare with Bird, no contest...

Gervin? Are you kidding me? They only played together for Gervin's last season and MJ was injured for most of it. Also, Gervin played a grand total of 11 minutes against Boston in the 86 First Round.

As for Oakley, he was a good role player, but not exactly a star. The best record that a team has ever had with him as the team's second scoring option was the 1990 Knicks who won 45 games. I wouldn't really call him a great player, to be honest.

[quote]if you look at Fitch's r

[MakeHistory78]

I'm a Wilt fan, and I have come to respect MJ's post-season play.

MJ was and is by far the best player ever in the post-season.Many people consider Mike the greatest because he was the most exciting player to watch,the best competitor,the best closer,the best offensive and defensive player on the court and because of his accolades.He was the perfect player.No one come close to perfection like Mike did.
Even if you or anyone think that MJ was/is over-hyped he deserve that because of his greatness.

You are a Wilt fan and that's good.I respect him.He took the game to another level with his dominance.60's was all about him.
But again imo he wasn't such perfect as MJ.Just my opinion.
Jordan was a beast from his rookie season and at the post-season was always better than the regular season and this is the scariest with him.

If you want me to give credit to Russell that's ok if we talk about Top-10.He is a top-10 ever player.But Top-3 not even close imo.

[ThaRegul8r]

The funniest thing of all is that two of Russell's teammates said that Jordan is the Greatest.But some haters continue the stupidities.LOL

...


"I don't know if he knows how good he is. He's tremendous. I've never seen anything like him. He's only 6-6. That's amazing. You seldom see a person that size do those things. He's so creative and to be able to take over a game at that size, it's amazing. Oscar and West were the best, but there's no other version of Jordan, the hang time, how high he jumps, how quick he moves. The guy amazes me. ... He's the best I've ever seen." -Sam Jones

Odd. Sam Jones said this just a couple years ago when point-blank questioned:

John (Atlanta, GA)

Where would you rank Kobe among NBA all-time greats? top 5? top 10?

Sam Jones (2:40 PM)
For my all-time rankings, Bill is No. 1, Jordan is No. 2 and Kobe is No. 3.

But let's not let the facts get in the way of your agenda, though.

[jlauber]

Who gives a crap about Russell and Wilt getting 40 rebs, that shit wouldn't happen in the 80's-2000's. The 60's were very non athletic, yet once a good athlete was actually allowed in...ie Russell and Wilt, those are the results you got, ridiculous numbers. Put Jordan back in the 60's and he would avg 60ppg, take Wilt and Russell and put them in todays game, yeah they still would be great/all stars, but there numbers drop significantly and 30 pt/40 rebound games don't happen

I'm curious as to how you think Kareem, in his PRIME, in the 70's, would have fared against Hakeem in HIS prime? We do KNOW that Kareem, as the oldest player in the league, in the 85-86 season, averaged 41 ppg against a rising Hakeem over the course of three straight games. We also KNOW that Kareem, in HIS prime, shot very poorly against both Thurmond and Wilt in his H2H battles against each...and both Nate and Wilt were well past their peaks. Chamberlain also outrebounded Kareem on a regular basis. It just brings the players of the 60's, like Thurmond and Wilt into a better perspective. And that does not include Russell, who was probably the best defensive player of his era.