Why Bill Russell Has A Great Case Over Michael Jordan As The Greatest Of All Time

70 posts in this topic


Posted · Report post

Great job .I enjoyed reading it :crazydance::rockout:

:banana:

Thanks bro. This means a lot. :shakeshout: :shakeshout: :crazydance: :crazydance:

U Reeeeal Official With These Articles, Mane...

Hahah

Maybe i'll write an article on Kobe one day...about similar thing but not now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Nice performance and that about a man who truly deserves it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Thanks bro. This means a lot. :shakeshout: :shakeshout: :crazydance: :crazydance:

Hahah

Maybe i'll write an article on Kobe one day...about similar thing but not now.

Nah, I'd Rather See One About The Toughest aka Aggressive Like Barkley (On The Court.) Or Worst (Off The Court...Legal Troubles/Drug Addictions & Etc.) To Ever Play In The League...Haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Awesome article! :clap:

I have to go out now, but I'll provide more feedback and argue a few of your points tomorrow. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Damn well written article. Good work man! I enjoyed reading it!:show::6pack:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

He is not the G.O.A.T.

1.True

2.true

3. true

4. True

5. True

6. True

7. FALSE.

8. Because of his team.

9. True.

10. Whatever. I don't buy that crap.

Great Player.

Best defensive player.

Great rebounder.

BUT

The goat is complete and on the offensive end rusell is not the legendry.

HORRIBLE ON THE OFFENSIVE END.

44 percent Fg. Worse than kobe.

No way he should have that less of a fg.

15 points on 44 percent is not Goat.

Remember:

GREATEST OF ALL TIME.

There are guys that can rebound better than him.

Good defence.

But there offensive game is much better.

He is just not that good of a player.

His team did not have as great compition.

Bill sharman.

Bob cousy.

tom h.

Put him in the 90's he would have 1 ring if lucky.

Not as much of rebound either.

Forget player. He is not even the greatest center of all time.

1. Kareem

2. Hakeem

3. Shaquille

All great Rebounders.

2 are good on defence.

But there magnificent on the offensive end also and bill is not.

He is VERY overated.

Team Player likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Nice performance and that about a man who truly deserves it.

Thanks

Damn well written article. Good work man! I enjoyed reading it!:show::6pack:

Thanks, again. Glad you enjoyed reading it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Awesome article! :clap:

I have to go out now, but I'll provide more feedback and argue a few of your points tomorrow. :wink:

I know you'll go out for the offense... i know that. Thanks for the read and comment anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

He is not the G.O.A.T.

1.True

2.true

3. true

4. True

5. True

6. True

7. FALSE.

8. Because of his team.

9. True.

10. Whatever. I don't buy that crap.

Bill Russell was arguably the greatest one club man of all time. He meant more to his team and franchise than anyone ever did. He won eleven championships, made the likes of KC Jones, Sanders and all around him better despite not having the things needed to get in the HOF.Before hin they could win anything. After him they win eleven titles. He was the real leader.

Great Player.

Best defensive player.

Great rebounder.

BUT

The goat is complete and on the offensive end rusell is not the legendry.

HORRIBLE ON THE OFFENSIVE END.

44 percent Fg. Worse than kobe.

No way he should have that less of a fg.

15 points on 44 percent is not Goat.

Really? Horrible on the offensive end? Far from that. I understand that, but how about the fact that he was a prolific passing center? 4.4 assists, 4.7 and then incredible 5.8 assists in the Finals.

He found team mates consistently, led them to easy scoring chances. Since Cousy retired, he ranked top 10 in assists consistently and twice in the top 5. That's far from horrible.

Hondo said once in his book that they weren't missing Russell only on defense and rebounding, they missed his outlet passes, his passes of the high post since they didn't have a great one on one player. You overlook that.

Remember:

GREATEST OF ALL TIME.

There are guys that can rebound better than him.

Good defence.

But there offensive game is much better.

He is just not that good of a player.

His team did not have as great compition.

Bill sharman.

Bob cousy.

tom h.

Bob Cousy and Bill Sharman did nothing before Russell arrived. Not even with Red who's in the HOF too, they failed to reach the Finals, not to mention about winning or something.

During the '58 Finals, Russell went down with an injury. His team lost the crucial games despite having good supporting cast. After Bill retired, his former team missed the playoffs despite being with the likes of Hondo etc.

Btw. There was a loaded HOF talent in the league because there were 8-12 teams which meant there were at least 1 HOFers on each team. There weren't failure teams back then, not even high school and college players jumping in too quickly.

The NBA was a league for men, not boys like now. His team didn't have competition? Lakers with Baylor and West, Wilt and his teams, Oscar and Royals etc. They were all topped in close games and sometimes they weren't lucky but he beat them.

Put him in the 90's he would have 1 ring if lucky.

This is another what if. Put Jordan in the 60's and he'd been a terrific individual player with only 1 ring. Ifs don't have really much point in this argument.

Not as much of rebound either.

Forget player. He is not even the greatest center of all time.

1. Kareem

2. Hakeem

3. Shaquille

All great Rebounders.

2 are good on defence.

When you want to praise people, you don't put in bad things about them like you did with Shaq. Btw, this leads me that Russell's weakness was equal to Shaq's in the regular season. However on the biggest stages, they both didn't have weaknesses at al.

Russell averaged dozens of assists, led twice in the playoffs, scored 70.2% FG during the '65 Finals, averaged 23.6 PPG as a leader etc. He even took over offensively.

On the other hand, Shaq was the best rebounder in modern history during playoff time. He leads all in offensive, defensive rebounds, ranks third on the all time list and is top 5 in blocks. So far away from not being a rebounder and shot blocker.

See what i mean.

But there magnificent on the offensive end also and bill is not.

He is VERY overated.

A case can be made for everyone with decent arguments. Relax

There you go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Ok, I think Russell benefited from relatively weak competition especially before 1967. Allow me to explain...

There were only 2 teams that presented any challenge to Russell's Celtics during his 8 straight runs to the title, Wilt's Warriors/Sixers and West/Baylor Lakers.

Now, Wilt's supporting cast paled in comparison to Russell's. It is misleading to use all-star appearances which people often use in Wilt-Russell debates to prove that Wilt's team was just as good. With 4-5 teams in each conference, every team will have an average of 2-3 all-stars. Basically, every above average started would make the team. It is important to acknowledge the fact that Wilt before coming to LA really never played with anyone as good as Cousy, Havlicek, and Sam Jones. Russell played with all 3 at one point! Not to mention guys like KC Jones, Tom Heinshohn, Wayne Embry etc all of whom where very good players in their own rights.

West/Baylor's Lakers also weren't that much of a threat. After 1963, Baylor was never really quite the same because of his injury and LA was badly equipped at the C position (kind of like the Heat now) and were murdered by Russell on the boards and couldn't defend the post.

Also, in the Wilt-Russell matchups, I think Russell's intelligence and will to win are overstated because Wilt was extremely selfish and didn't know how to use his teammates till 1967 and then rarely ever did it again. In comparison to Wilt which is whom Bill was compared with, everyone would look like a great teammate! If Wilt wasn't a selfish player, Russell would be lucky to win more than 4 or 5 titles even with a better cast than Wilt's. Wilt was a far better player overall and that's why I don't think Russell can be GOAT. If player A > player B, can player B be the GOAT? :tongueout:

And that whole "Russell made his teammates HOFers...". I don't buy it! MJ won 6 titles in the 90's (just as difficult a feat as 11 in the 60's) but Kukoc, Kerr, Longley etc are not HOFers... Pippen and Rodman would have made it regardless. Magic won 5 and made 9 finals in the 80's... Byron Scott, Michael Cooper, Norm Nixon etc are not HOFers.

Russell also won 9 of his titles playing 2 rounds in the playoffs. It isn't the same playing 10-14 games in the playoffs vs 20+...

Also, Russell was never a good scorer. 16ppg on 43% shooting in the playoffs is pretty bad. He couldn't take a game over offensively (one or 2 instances don't prove anything) and I that's why I don't think he can be considered GOAT. His passing is nice but Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, Hakeem all averaged 4+ assists a game in their peak in the postseason along with scoring 30+ ppg on 50+% shooting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Ok, I think Russell benefited from relatively weak competition especially before 1967. Allow me to explain...

There were only 2 teams that presented any challenge to Russell's Celtics during his 8 straight runs to the title, Wilt's Warriors/Sixers and West/Baylor Lakers.

Fair enough. However, don't forget the St.Lois Hawks who were a good team as well and the Royals led by Oscar were still decent threats. However,i see your point and i agree but it was far from being weak. Those teams did push the C's to 7 game series, which means that they were weak at all.

Now, Wilt's supporting cast paled in comparison to Russell's. It is misleading to use all-star appearances which people often use in Wilt-Russell debates to prove that Wilt's team was just as good. With 4-5 teams in each conference, every team will have an average of 2-3 all-stars. Basically, every above average started would make the team. It is important to acknowledge the fact that Wilt before coming to LA really never played with anyone as good as Cousy, Havlicek, and Sam Jones. Russell played with all 3 at one point! Not to mention guys like KC Jones, Tom Heinshohn, Wayne Embry etc all of whom where very good players in their own rights.

Interesting. Paul Arizin, Tom Gola and few others were All-Stars. Sure, not as good as but still solid. Those teams were built around Wilt. He'd either lead them to success with his sick stats, or sometimes enable his team mates to do something more in a game.

However, those C's team weren't as good as offensively as they should have been because they had good offensive players and they were barely average on offense. It was with defense how the C's win and Russell was the man behind those runs.

West/Baylor's Lakers also weren't that much of a threat. After 1963, Baylor was never really quite the same because of his injury and LA was badly equipped at the C position (kind of like the Heat now) and were murdered by Russell on the boards and couldn't defend the post.

Agreed. They lacked a center and Baylor had a knee injury that changed him for ever.

Also, in the Wilt-Russell matchups, I think Russell's intelligence and will to win are overstated because Wilt was extremely selfish and didn't know how to use his teammates till 1967 and then rarely ever did it again. In comparison to Wilt which is whom Bill was compared with, everyone would look like a great teammate! If Wilt wasn't a selfish player, Russell would be lucky to win more than 4 or 5 titles even with a better cast than Wilt's. Wilt was a far better player overall and that's why I don't think Russell can be GOAT. If player A > player B, can player B be the GOAT? :tongueout:

I don't like using what ifs in arguments (although i used one) but this doesn't hold much water. If Russell was averaging 25 points, Wilt wouldn't have even dreaming about a title...or if Baylor was healthy, he'd win at least one title in his prime. So this pretty much isn't a good argument.

Personally, Wilt was a beast of his own and so was Russell. That's only a matter of opinion which i won't even try to change.

And that whole "Russell made his teammates HOFers...". I don't buy it! MJ won 6 titles in the 90's (just as difficult a feat as 11 in the 60's) but Kukoc, Kerr, Longley etc are not HOFers... Pippen and Rodman would have made it regardless. Magic won 5 and made 9 finals in the 80's... Byron Scott, Michael Cooper, Norm Nixon etc are not HOFers.

Russell did make his team mates better, just like Jordan and Magic did. Stars are making others around him better and Russell made his team mates better. Most of those players formed their legacy thanks to BR and that dynasty.

Russell also won 9 of his titles playing 2 rounds in the playoffs. It isn't the same playing 10-14 games in the playoffs vs 20+...

Fair enough

Also, Russell was never a good scorer. 16ppg on 43% shooting in the playoffs is pretty bad. He couldn't take a game over offensively (one or 2 instances don't prove anything) and I that's why I don't think he can be considered GOAT. His passing is nice but Kareem, Wilt, Shaq, Hakeem all averaged 4+ assists a game in their peak in the postseason along with scoring 30+ ppg on 50+% shooting...

But Russell was a great offensive player. He ranked top 10 and few times top 5 in assists, he was a two time leader in the playoffs too. He took over twice as the leading scorer, so he could score but decided to play differently.

Fair enough Danko. It's a respectable case for Russell here and for others can be made one too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

5 assists is good.

But a center shooting 44% is not the greatest of all time.

15 on 44%

Greatest defensive center.

Great rebounder.

But greatest of all time. I don't think so!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Fair enough. However, don't forget the St.Lois Hawks who were a good team as well and the Royals led by Oscar were still decent threats. However,i see your point and i agree but it was far from being weak. Those teams did push the C's to 7 game series, which means that they were weak at all.

The fact that those teams made it to 7 games vs Boston is a testament to just how great Wilt and West were. As for Wilt's 25.7ppg playoff average vs Russell, I'm not sure about this number + Wilt was really really bad in 68 and 69. His playoff numbers from 60-67 are about 30ppg and 30 rpg against Russell. He outrebounded and outscored Russell every time they met and shot a much higher %. People talk about how Russell slowed Wilt but no one talks about how Russell couldn't shoot 40% against Wilt in a lot of games!

Interesting. Paul Arizin, Tom Gola and few others were All-Stars. Sure, not as good as but still solid. Those teams were built around Wilt. He'd either lead them to success with his sick stats, or sometimes enable his team mates to do something more in a game.

Arizin and Gola were above average starters. They were good players but nowhere near Hondo (best SF in the league), Cousy (#2 PG in the league behind Oscar) and Sam Jones (#2 SG in the league behind West).

However, those C's team weren't as good as offensively as they should have been because they had good offensive players and they were barely average on offense. It was with defense how the C's win and Russell was the man behind those runs.

It's true they won with their defense but Heinsohn and Hondo were great defenders as well. It wasn't all Russell + Hondo and Jones are the ones who pretty much took over as the main options offensively from 66 onwards. They are also among the most clutch players in history. Hondo and Jones made those huge plays in the closing moments of games...

I don't like using what ifs in arguments (although i used one) but this doesn't hold much water. If Russell was averaging 25 points, Wilt wouldn't have even dreaming about a title...or if Baylor was healthy, he'd win at least one title in his prime. So this pretty much isn't a good argument.

You really think if Wilt and Russell had the exact same teammates, Russell's team would win? Wilt would outscore him by 15ppg, shoot 10% better from the field, and outrebound him like he always does... Even Bill's instincts and those intangibles wouldn't be able to make up for that kind of difference! Wilt > Russell to me and that's why Russell cannot be GOAT! :tongueout:

Personally, Wilt was a beast of his own and so was Russell. That's only a matter of opinion which i won't even try to change. Russell did make his team mates better, just like Jordan and Magic did. Stars are making others around him better and Russell made his team mates better. Most of those players formed their legacy thanks to BR and that dynasty.

Yea but how come SO MANY of his teammates are in HOF but not Jordan's or Magic's? Maybe they were really good players on their own...

But Russell was a great offensive player. He ranked top 10 and few times top 5 in assists, he was a two time leader in the playoffs too. He took over twice as the leading scorer, so he could score but decided to play differently.

You can't say because he took over once or twice that he can always do it. With his low shooting %, it probably would hurt his team if he tried to take over... He wasn't a good let alone great scorer. As for passing, many C's have averaged Russell-type assists. Nothing special there imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The fact that those teams made it to 7 games vs Boston is a testament to just how great Wilt and West were. As for Wilt's 25.7ppg playoff average vs Russell, I'm not sure about this number + Wilt was really really bad in 68 and 69. His playoff numbers from 60-67 are about 30ppg and 30 rpg against Russell. He outrebounded and outscored Russell every time they met and shot a much higher %. People talk about how Russell slowed Wilt but no one talks about how Russell couldn't shoot 40% against Wilt in a lot of games!

That's in their playoff match ups. How about FG%? 30 points is nice but if it's less than 50, it's a good defensive effort. For example, Wilt scored 33 vs Russ in '62 EDF but he shot less than 45% in those games. Efficiency holds some weight here.

No one talks about Bill shooting 40% vs Wilt because nobody talks about him holding the all time highest FG% too. Btw, what are Russell's stats from 60-67 vs Wilt?

There were even newspaper articles on Google, which all point out that Russell did hold Wilt well and when the game was done, he let him to get his points and the idea for him to think that he won the individual battle.

Arizin and Gola were above average starters. They were good players but nowhere near Hondo (best SF in the league), Cousy (#2 PG in the league behind Oscar) and Sam Jones (#2 SG in the league behind West).

Ok. But Hondo wasn't the best SF until 69 (maybe '68) and Jones was the 2nd best SG in the league at that time.

But then again, why did the C's miss the playoffs when Russell retired?

It's true they won with their defense but Heinsohn and Hondo were great defenders as well. It wasn't all Russell + Hondo and Jones are the ones who pretty much took over as the main options offensively from 66 onwards. They are also among the most clutch players in history. Hondo and Jones made those huge plays in the closing moments of games...

But you still overlook the fact that Bill Russell ranked top 10 in assists for years. He was also the most clutch performer ever too.

Jones and Hondo were great in the clutch, but they were the supporting case behind Russell, period.

You really think if Wilt and Russell had the exact same teammates, Russell's team would win? Wilt would outscore him by 15ppg, shoot 10% better from the field, and outrebound him like he always does... Even Bill's instincts and those intangibles wouldn't be able to make up for that kind of difference! Wilt > Russell to me and that's why Russell cannot be GOAT! :tongueout:

Wilt would ruin those teams. That's right. Even Wilt said himself that he wouldn't do as good if he switched with Russell... so this doesn't mean a lot to mean.

And that Wilt>Russell is individual opinion.

Yea but how come SO MANY of his teammates are in HOF but not Jordan's or Magic's? Maybe they were really good players on their own...

I'm saying that he as a great superstar made his team mates around and he was only second to Magic in that aspect.

You can't say because he took over once or twice that he can always do it. With his low shooting %, it probably would hurt his team if he tried to take over... He wasn't a good let alone great scorer. As for passing, many C's have averaged Russell-type assists. Nothing special there imo.

But Russell took over offensively for his teams in some Finals and he led them to win. He didn't hurt when he took over in Game 7 of the 1962 Finals.

But if many C's have averaged those numbers, why doesn't Russ get the credit? He was actually a very good offensive player who improved his weaknesses like Shaq did.

Not so perfect but still, amazing improvement when you take in consideration everything.

Nice to have a debate with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Bill Russel Averaged more than 5 assists on twice.

So did Kareem, while putting up points also.

1.

15 points on 44% is horrible. For a Center or Pf. 5 assists doesn't make it sound even a bit better.

2.

His Freethrow Percentage is horrible also. 56%.

3.

He was not good on the offensive end. Period. And If you have that kind of an offensive end YOU ARE NOT THE GRETEST OF ALL TIME.

4.

Compition. Look at some of his compition that makes rusell look good.

Dennis Awtrey: 6'11" - was drafted after Russell actually retired. (1970)

Tom Boerwinkle: 7'0" - drafted in Russell's last year. (1968)

Jim Eakins: 6'11" - Drafted in 1968 after spending most of his better days in the ABA.

Hank Finkel: 7'0" - may have combated Russell for his last three years before transferring himself to Boston and winning a championship there.

Swede Halbrook: 7'3" - drafted in the same year as Bill but lasted only two seasons.

Bob Lanier: 6'11" - never made the 60's he was in the 70's.

Jim McDaniels: 6'11" - boy he was drafted in 1971.

Otto Moore: 6'11" - drafted in 1968 Russell's last year. (1968-69 draft is done in the off season so his rookie year was Russell's last)

Dave Newmark: 7'0" - drafted in 1968 Russell's last year. (1968-69 draft is done in the off season so his rookie year was Russell's last)

Rich Niemann: 7'0" - drafted in 1968 Russell's last year. (1968-69 draft is done in the off season so his rookie year was Russell's last)

Billy Paultz: 6'11" - drafted in 1970

Craig Raymond: 6'11" - 1967

Elmore Smith: 7'0" - is drafted in 1971

Chuck Share: 6'11" - played from 1951-1960

Ronald Taylor: 7'1" - played when Russell was conveniently retired.

Nate Thurmond: 6'11" - Although Nate played in the Russell era he spent three years with Wilt, and only 3 more years to battle them both.

5.

But Russell was a great offensive player. He ranked top 10 and few times top 5 in assists, he was a two time leader in the playoffs too. He took over twice as the leading scorer, so he could score but decided to play differently.

BULLSHI!.

He could score but decided to play differently. He was a wreck on that end. 44%. He did not take that many shots because he would of made less of them.

6.

He shut down wilt chamberlain.

7.

Clutch.

Thats a nice list of clutch performances. Care to share his Fg? Ft%?

I'm relax enough lol.

But I do not see how someone with that type of a game can be considered the best player to even play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Bill Russel Averaged more than 5 assists on twice.

So did Kareem, while putting up points also.

1.

15 points on 44% is horrible. For a Center or Pf. 5 assists doesn't make it sound even a bit better.

2.

His Freethrow Percentage is horrible also. 56%.

3.

He was not good on the offensive end. Period. And If you have that kind of an offensive end YOU ARE NOT THE GRETEST OF ALL TIME.

4.

Compition. Look at some of his compition that makes rusell look good.

Dennis Awtrey: 6'11" - was drafted after Russell actually retired. (1970)

Tom Boerwinkle: 7'0" - drafted in Russell's last year. (1968)

Jim Eakins: 6'11" - Drafted in 1968 after spending most of his better days in the ABA.

Hank Finkel: 7'0" - may have combated Russell for his last three years before transferring himself to Boston and winning a championship there.

Swede Halbrook: 7'3" - drafted in the same year as Bill but lasted only two seasons.

Bob Lanier: 6'11" - never made the 60's he was in the 70's.

Jim McDaniels: 6'11" - boy he was drafted in 1971.

Otto Moore: 6'11" - drafted in 1968 Russell's last year. (1968-69 draft is done in the off season so his rookie year was Russell's last)

Dave Newmark: 7'0" - drafted in 1968 Russell's last year. (1968-69 draft is done in the off season so his rookie year was Russell's last)

Rich Niemann: 7'0" - drafted in 1968 Russell's last year. (1968-69 draft is done in the off season so his rookie year was Russell's last)

Billy Paultz: 6'11" - drafted in 1970

Craig Raymond: 6'11" - 1967

Elmore Smith: 7'0" - is drafted in 1971

Chuck Share: 6'11" - played from 1951-1960

Ronald Taylor: 7'1" - played when Russell was conveniently retired.

Nate Thurmond: 6'11" - Although Nate played in the Russell era he spent three years with Wilt, and only 3 more years to battle them both.

5.

But Russell was a great offensive player. He ranked top 10 and few times top 5 in assists, he was a two time leader in the playoffs too. He took over twice as the leading scorer, so he could score but decided to play differently.

BULLSHI!.

He could score but decided to play differently. He was a wreck on that end. 44%. He did not take that many shots because he would of made less of them.

6.

He shut down wilt chamberlain.

7.

Clutch.

Thats a nice list of clutch performances. Care to share his Fg? Ft%?

I'm relax enough lol.

But I do not see how someone with that type of a game can be considered the best player to even play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

5 assists is good.

But a center shooting 44% is not the greatest of all time.

15 on 44%

Greatest defensive center.

Great rebounder.

But greatest of all time. I don't think so!

But he had 23.6 points as the leading scorer of the '68 Finals. He shot 70.2% FG in one of them. He could score, but he focused on other things.... he was a very good offensive player not amazing but still far away from being bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Bill Russel Averaged more than 5 assists on twice.

So did Kareem, while putting up points also.

1.

15 points on 44% is horrible. For a Center or Pf. 5 assists doesn't make it sound even a bit better.

2.

His Freethrow Percentage is horrible also. 56%.

3.

He was not good on the offensive end. Period. And If you have that kind of an offensive end YOU ARE NOT THE GRETEST OF ALL TIME.

4.

Compition. Look at some of his compition that makes rusell look good.

Dennis Awtrey: 6'11" - was drafted after Russell actually retired. (1970)

Tom Boerwinkle: 7'0" - drafted in Russell's last year. (1968)

Jim Eakins: 6'11" - Drafted in 1968 after spending most of his better days in the ABA.

Hank Finkel: 7'0" - may have combated Russell for his last three years before transferring himself to Boston and winning a championship there.

Swede Halbrook: 7'3" - drafted in the same year as Bill but lasted only two seasons.

Bob Lanier: 6'11" - never made the 60's he was in the 70's.

Jim McDaniels: 6'11" - boy he was drafted in 1971.

Otto Moore: 6'11" - drafted in 1968 Russell's last year. (1968-69 draft is done in the off season so his rookie year was Russell's last)

Dave Newmark: 7'0" - drafted in 1968 Russell's last year. (1968-69 draft is done in the off season so his rookie year was Russell's last)

Rich Niemann: 7'0" - drafted in 1968 Russell's last year. (1968-69 draft is done in the off season so his rookie year was Russell's last)

Billy Paultz: 6'11" - drafted in 1970

Craig Raymond: 6'11" - 1967

Elmore Smith: 7'0" - is drafted in 1971

Chuck Share: 6'11" - played from 1951-1960

Ronald Taylor: 7'1" - played when Russell was conveniently retired.

Nate Thurmond: 6'11" - Although Nate played in the Russell era he spent three years with Wilt, and only 3 more years to battle them both.

5.

But Russell was a great offensive player. He ranked top 10 and few times top 5 in assists, he was a two time leader in the playoffs too. He took over twice as the leading scorer, so he could score but decided to play differently.

BULLSHI!.

He could score but decided to play differently. He was a wreck on that end. 44%. He did not take that many shots because he would of made less of them.

6.

He shut down wilt chamberlain.

7.

Clutch.

Thats a nice list of clutch performances. Care to share his Fg? Ft%?

I'm relax enough lol.

But I do not see how someone with that type of a game can be considered the best player to even play.

John i will respond to your argument later, i have to watch one movie on Tv. Don't worry. The respond will come.

1.Ok, he wasn't efficient scorer. But so weren't guys like Kobe, Barry etc. But he wasn't asked to score. Never. Boston ran a offense for five players, not for one.

Russell showed flashes of a good scorer with his 18 points on 70.2% FG in the '65 Finals. He took over in '68 Finals as the leading scorer with 23.5 points. He even shot a 52.5% from field in one playoff season.

He struggled with efficiency and rarely scored, but when it was needed he showed for his team when they needed him. Plus, he'd dish at least four and often more assists in the process.

That's very good for a guy who wasn't 'good' at offense as he's claimed to be.

2.He improved in FT% in general during the post season. Still, far away from good. But he wasn't a good FT shooter. Neither were Shaq, Wilt, Moses and few others but they get a pass.

3.I showed enough in the previous posts that he was very good offensively but he gets overlooked because Wilt was putting 40+ points. He did all of the things that his team needed and provided offense when needed.

4.With that post, you just helped me to prove the fact that once and for all, Russell didn't play 6'6 centers. However.

Wilt Chamberlain 7'1*

Bob Pettit*

Walt Bellamy*

Willis Reed *

Jerry Lucas *

Wayne Embry*

Red Kerr

Wes Unseld *

Elvin Hayes*

Billy Cunningham*

Dave Debusschere*

That's mostly the competition Russell faced during his career. Some of these guys have come in his last year or few, but he has battled well through with all of them.

5.Read above

6.He never shut down Wilt. He said it himself and i trust him. But he did a great job on him, that's for sure. He never got into Wilt's game, the numbers game, but he did all of the things his team needed him to and at the end of the day his teams won because of him. That's why he's regarded as better.

7.I may dig something, but i'm guessing, they will be worse lol...as for the numbers in the clutch, i could find something but not from all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Yes!

I'm in an argument.

This is the first since proving some kid that kobe22>rose 22.

YES>

:shakeshout:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You really think if Wilt and Russell had the exact same teammates, Russell's team would win? Wilt would outscore him by 15ppg, shoot 10% better from the field, and outrebound him like he always does... Even Bill's instincts and those intangibles wouldn't be able to make up for that kind of difference! Wilt > Russell to me and that's why Russell cannot be GOAT! :tongueout:

Without making one blink, I just know that Bill Russell's team would win. Sure Wilt would score more points, probably shoot a better % from the field, maybe grab some more rebounds and even block more shots. But that doesn't matter because he just cares about his own stats while Russell does everything his team needs from him: rebound the ball, block shots, make an occassional basket and defend Wilt. If he finishes with a 10-20 or with a 20-30 does not matter, as long as his team wins. Russell always knew what Wilt was all about because they were friends off the court. Russell would just let Wilt score a bunch of points for 3 quarters and then destroy him defensively in the fourth. Wilt would get upset and Russell would be there...in his mind, like he always was and especially in big games. Wilt would probably pick up some fouls out of frustration and stop defending because he was obsessed with never fouling out of a game. This would clear space for other players to slash to the rim, space Wilt's teammates never enjoyed because Russell just kept playing defense regardless of his number of fauls. In addition, Russell would block shots but he would keep them inbound so he could start a fast-break while Wilt would swat them out of bounds just for the show of it. Result: another possession for Russell's team. Finally, Russell would be the vocal leader of his team. He would encourage his teammates, coach them to victory and be an inspiration during time-outs. Wilt meanwhile would check the scorer's table during every team-out, be bussy talking to himself about his stats and shout at teammates who weren't making their shots of passes from him (which means no assist) or who weren't giving him the ball as much as he wanted to. Russel would therefore make his teammates better while Wilt would take away his teammates confidence and therefore make them worse.

So in the end, Russell's team would win because of Russell and Wilt's team would lose because of Wilt. Wilt would get his stats but in the process would destroy his teammates confidence while Russell wouldn't care about his stats and do just what his team needed to win. And that is why Russell (almost) always beat Wilt and why Russell was a better player than Wilt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Wilt vs Russell playoff matchups below except 1960 which I can't find. Wilt shot 5-10% better from the field than Russell in every matchup!

1962 EDF

Wilt: 33.5 ppg and 26.9 rpg on ~46% shooting

Russell: 22.0 ppg and 25.9 rpg

1964 EDF

Wilt: 29.2 ppg 27.6 rpg

Russell: 11.2 ppg and 25.0 rpg

1965 EDF

Wilt: 30.2 ppg, 31.4 rpg (30 ppg and 32 rpg, 2 apg on 12/15 FG in Game 7)

Russell: 15.6 ppg, 25.3 rpg (15 ppg, 29 rpg, 8 apg in Game 7)

1966 EDF

Wilt: 28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg 3.0 apg on 51% shooting

Russell: 14.4 ppg, 26.0 rpg

1967 EDF

Wilt: 22.0 ppg, 32.0 ppg, 10.0 apg on 56% shooting

Russell: 11.4 ppg, 23.4 rpg, 6.0 apg on 36% shooting

Now Wilt just choked in 68 and 69. No excuse for that... :tongueout:

Without making one blink, I just know that Bill Russell's team would win. Sure Wilt would score more points, probably shoot a better % from the field, maybe grab some more rebounds and even block more shots. But that doesn't matter because he just cares about his own stats while Russell does everything his team needs from him: rebound the ball, block shots, make an occassional basket and defend Wilt. If he finishes with a 10-20 or with a 20-30 does not matter, as long as his team wins. Russell always knew what Wilt was all about because they were friends off the court. Russell would just let Wilt score a bunch of points for 3 quarters and then destroy him defensively in the fourth. Wilt would get upset and Russell would be there...in his mind, like he always was and especially in big games. Wilt would probably pick up some fouls out of frustration and stop defending because he was obsessed with never fouling out of a game. This would clear space for other players to slash to the rim, space Wilt's teammates never enjoyed because Russell just kept playing defense regardless of his number of fauls. In addition, Russell would block shots but he would keep them inbound so he could start a fast-break while Wilt would swat them out of bounds just for the show of it. Result: another possession for Russell's team. Finally, Russell would be the vocal leader of his team. He would encourage his teammates, coach them to victory and be an inspiration during time-outs. Wilt meanwhile would check the scorer's table during every team-out, be bussy talking to himself about his stats and shout at teammates who weren't making their shots of passes from him (which means no assist) or who weren't giving him the ball as much as he wanted to. Russel would therefore make his teammates better while Wilt would take away his teammates confidence and therefore make them worse.

So in the end, Russell's team would win because of Russell and Wilt's team would lose because of Wilt. Wilt would get his stats but in the process would destroy his teammates confidence while Russell wouldn't care about his stats and do just what his team needed to win. And that is why Russell (almost) always beat Wilt and why Russell was a better player than Wilt.

The reason Russell still won a lot of games where he was thoroughly outplayed was because of his teammates. How many times did Hondo or Jones make big shots in a close game? How many game-winners did Russell have? Give me one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.