Reply With Quote
He's a product of the 'Celtics machinery. Like the Kennedy clan type malarkey.
In a vacuum as the '60's were Russell was the goods. He's rated proper & righteous.
This thread is mainly for history2b and Daddyofalltrolls to go at it, but anyone else with an opinion is obviously encouraged to contribute.
He's a product of the 'Celtics machinery. Like the Kennedy clan type malarkey.
In a vacuum as the '60's were Russell was the goods. He's rated proper & righteous.
no more so than Timmy...Midget...no more so than Timmy... Midge my main man...
Hi, Koolaid_Man
Be back with an explanation soon.
Russell won and won and won - how can he be over-rated - the bigger the game the better he played.
I would say he is a bit ...but rings matter most. I never saw him play so I am far from an expert. But i have looked at some stats that makes me think he is bit overrated. But he is the ultimate winner ...and you can NEVER take that away from him. Yes i value ring but i would take MJ's or Kareem's 6 over his 8. But you have to get at least 5 to be over Bill ...maybe I would take duncan and his 4 too ...
I know i was kidding 3 of those against the Lakers I have wiped from memory banks ...
Last edited by Killakobe81; 10-31-2010 at 08:12 PM.
Russell has 11 championships, not 8.
see above ...there are 3 that Im puttingthe phil asterisk on ...LOL
understandable, most people put an asterisk on Kobe's 1st 3 too
LOL too funnyunderstandable, most people put an asterisk on Kobe's 1st 3 too
He's greatly overrated as a talent.
As a winner he cannot be overrated.
The first question to ask yourself is, did you see Bill Russell play? If you did, you have to be at least 50 years old to remember him, and older than that to have appreciated him because he retired in 1969. At age 60, I am one of the few people on this board that can speak about Bill from first hand experience.
The next question to banter about is who are the top 10 players of all time? Here at Spurs talk, I noticed a lot of top 10 lists in the Kobe sticky recently. What I saw was a mass duplication of players, with varying order. So, I made a thread calling for a top 20, I was curious how members rated players who were once top 10 but have fallen out.
Let's see your top 20 all time NBA players http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163282
The only credible list to rank players was made in 1996, the top 50 players at 50 years, and it doesn’t place them in any order. It desperately needs to be updated to add more players for the 15 seasons since, NBA 65 best players at 65 years.
http://www.nba.com/history/players/50greatest.html
The people who selected the top 50 saw, played against, or coached most every player on the list and all have fine reputations. See above link for who voted. I can’t quote each one directly what they thought of Russell, but I can give the general consensus of how every news media, including some on that list ranked a top 10 all time back around 1970. A list might look like this:
1) Chamberlain
2) Robertson
3) Baylor
4) West
5) Pettet
6) Cousy
7) Greer
8) Mikan
9) Russell
10) Bellamy
Why would Russell be so low back then? The primary reason is that offense was valued as most important and Russell didn’t score much and shot poorly. Why was offense so important? Scoring points brings fans, and the NBA struggled financially for years. The league used to have a territorial draft pick in force. This meant an NBA team could use its first round pick to select a local college star, thus helping ticket sales at the gate. Boston acquired Tommy Heinsohn from Holy Cross, and the Royals chose Oscar Robertson from Cincinatti this way. There are many other examples.
Philadelphia Chamberlain backed me up about Russell not being valued so high during his playing days in my top 20 thread. PC was around back then. Boston didn’t consider him their best player, they preferred Cousy or Havlicek, both white players. Russell has an unfortunate history of racial discrimination in Boston. See this link for more on that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Russell
Olive branches have been extended to Bill ever since, and among them has been a prevalence to rank him higher all time than he should be.
Now we all know the Boston Celtics and UCLA Bruins built dynasties based on defense, and it took awhile for their compe ors to figure this out and end dynasties in both venues, at least for awhile. As a direct result, Bill Russell’s stock as an all time great rose after he left the game. However, how high should he rise? I’ll discuss this.
In the beginning, the GOAT was Mikan, 5 rings and most dominant player ever. Now he’s on no one’s top 10. Let’s look at the ring totals of players many consider top 10, (as noted also here at SpursTalk), sorted by ring order and by entrance into the league:
Russell 11 rings
Abdul Jabbar 6 rings
Jordan 6 rings
Magic 5 rings
Bryant 5 rings
Shaq 4 rings
Duncan 4 rings
Bird 3 rings
Chamberlain 2 rings
Hakeem 2 rings
The ring argument to rank greatness is a recent one, and I will prove this. Supporters and detractors of Kobe, Shaq, and Tim use it to boost or devalue all of them. What does history say about rings for greatness? In 1969 it was Russell 11, and Mikan 5. Cousy with 6 was rated higher than Russell and Mikan. Chamberlain had 1 ring at the time and he was considered the best player ever. By 1985 Kareem got his 4th ring, Magic his 3rd, and Larry Bird his 2nd. 3 years later the totals stopped at 6, 5, and 3 for those three. In the 1990’s Jordan matched Kareem and passed first Bird and then Magic. More on MJ soon. In the last decade we have seen Tim, Shaq and Kobe join the party, thus the comparisons to Kareem, Wilt, Magic, Bird, and even Jordan began. Clearly, this last decade has added to the rings for greatness debate that MJ fueled. Since Russell has 11 rings, he is what newer fans use as a barometer. They see those 11 rings and say wow!
Not to take away anything from Jordan, but players most consider he surpassed, he couldn’t beat except Magic, and that was in Earvin’s final real year. Jordan couldn’t ever get by Bird’s Celtics, or the Bad Boy Pistons at first. Dr. J. had already declined and was soon out after MJ came aboard. To some degree, Shaq, Tim, and Kobe were too young to face him when it counted most. Again, not to take away anything from MJ, but a lot of the reasons why people pick him as the GOAT is because that’s what the media was calling him. The media didn’t talk about a GOAT much back in the early days, that wasn’t in vogue, and as noted, the league was struggling financially. It may have gone broke if not for Larry Bird and Magic Johnson coming into the league and renewing the Celtics Lakers rivalry. Those two set the stage for the NBA we enjoy today. Is MJ the real GOAT? Myself, I value big men more and would tend to pick Wilt or Kareem ahead of him, but he is the consensus GOAT, and a kit of that has to do with what we are told to believe. Same situation with Bill Russell.
Allow me to do a couple of hypotheticals. Duncan is likely a top 10 player of all time. Let’s place him in the Russell era, how would he compare to Wilt and Russell? Let’s forget about rings. He would be just as great a rebounder, shot blocker, and big man defender as either of those two players. Tim wouldn’t score as much Wilt did, but he would score a lot more than Russell did, and be Wilt’s main rival. Other than Wilt’s fallaway bankshot, he never shot from mid range as Tim did, and Duncan’s bank shot is more pure of a shot, and deadlier. Clearly Duncan is a better player than Bill Russell from this comparison alone. It also solidifies Tim as a legit top 10 player. Is Tim top 5? It’s arguable versus Bird, but clearly Russell is not top 5. Most people have a top 5 of MJ, Wilt, Kareem, Magic, and Bird. If Russell is added, he usually takes Wilt’s place. Now, one more subs ution that was suggested by Jamstone. Ben Wallace for Bill Russell. Here you have a defensive oriented big man who can’t shoot. Essentially, you have the same player. Is Ben Wallace even top 50 all time? Clearly, as noted in my top 20 thread above, Russell doesn’t even belong in a top 20 list.
Ok, I can hear the critics now. “But Bill Russell, like Tim was the leader of his team and he won 11 rings!” Yes, this is true. How easy was it for Russell to win those rings? First, the league had 8 teams back then, and no free agency. If you got your hands on a player, he was yours. Boston was miles ahead of the league and drafted better players. Also, Boston usually won the east and had a bye until the Eastern finals. With home court advantage they won their first 8 les as overwhelming favorites. No team since has dominated the NBA by as much as a margin as Russell’s Celtics, and for as long. The single most impressive thing about Russell’s career was the last 3 rings he won. Boston didn’t have homecourt against Wilt’s Sixers but beat him 2 of 3 seasons, then cleaned up the finals with HCA. Bill’s last season in 1969, Boston won all 3 series as road underdogs, something the 2010 Celtics were trying to duplicate, maybe you remember the comparison. The reason Boston won those last 3 les was due to championship experience. That I the main reason you can’t yet write off the San Antonio Spurs.
Perhaps the single most important reason Bill Russell is overrated is who his teammates were. Spurs fans should pay particular attention to this, and I’ll explain why soon. During his career in Boston, Bill played with 4 players on the NBA top 50 all time (Sam Jones, Bill Sharman, Bob Cousy, and John Havlicek). In addition, he had 4 other hall of famers on his teams! (Tommy Heinsohn, KC Jones, Frank Ramsey, and Bailey Howell). No superstar in the Russell era enjoyed stacked and deep teams as Russell had year in and year out. No team since can say this either! Spurs fans are quick to take Kobe down because he had Shaq, or Gasol. So to be consistent, Spurs fans should definitely knock Bill down several pegs. Clearly Bill drops below Hakeem and Shaq as well. The higher a Spurs fan ranks Russell, the higher he should place Kobe as a result of the ring argument.
Now, let’s examine a game played in Russell’s days. Your basic NBA lineups featured a 6’9” center, a forward at 6’4” and 6’5, and guards at 6’0” and 6”2”. If you had any player taller, it was a huge advantage. Example, in 1972 late, the Suns acquired Charlie Scott a 6’6” high scoring guard from the ABA who immediately enjoyed a tremendous height advantage and was difficult to match up with. Back to the old days. Boston used a pressing defense and shooters weren’t accurate then and Eussell easily got the rebounds and ignited the fast break, run by Cousy and Sharman. Quick scores, little of the 24 second clock used up and scores and stats were usually high. Russell did make players better, but that was as player coach, primarily. It was also something taught to everyone today as fundamentals, but they were still figuring them out back then. Boston picked up Lakers castoff Don Nelson, who had no idea how to rebound. Bill taught him how to box his man out so he (Russell) could get the rebound. Nelson didn’t have to get any rebounds, he would just give an uncredited assist to Bill! Boston was a team ahead of their time, and Bill learned a lot while playing there.
Looking forward to your comments.
Last edited by Daddy_Of_All_Trolls; 10-31-2010 at 09:38 PM.
Wow. Great stuff.
I'm a Russell supporter, I do believe he's top 5-10 all-time, but I can't really fashion a legitimate argument since I wasn't alive back then to see him play. I merely place him there out of reputation, what I've read about him, and his influence on the game.
Thanks. Not certain if history2b is going to post at all, but I am willing to discuss this with anyone.
First off you may not want to hear it but No white man should ever be in the ranks of the greatest players with all the black talent to hit the league. There was a ton of suppression going on back then... Mikan, Cousy, Havelick, etc were merely products of the great white hype era...I have no doubts that Bill more so than Wilt held back his game in the face of death threats etc.Daddy_Of_All_Trolls
In the beginning, the GOAT was Mikan, 5 rings and most dominant player ever. Now he’s on no one’s top 10. Let’s look at the ring totals of players many consider top 10, (as noted also here at SpursTalk), sorted by ring order and by entrance into the league:
Russell 11 rings
Abdul Jabbar 6 rings
Jordan 6 rings
Magic 5 rings
Bryant 5 rings
Shaq 4 rings
Duncan 4 rings
Bird 3 rings
Chamberlain 2 rings
Hakeem 2 rings
Bird was different he had some in him...( and so did Bill Laimbeer)
I think the crucial element you're missing in your hypothesis is the revolution factor. MJ is considered the consensus GOAT "now" because he revolutionized the game. No one in the history of the sport revolutionized it like MJ did. What do I mean by revolutionized? I mean created the blueprints for modern day fade-aways, sick dunks, win -at-all costs mentality and a global brand....no one had the same impact prior to MJ...No had the where-with-all or the financial opportunity to create a global brand like MJ did. MJ benefited from an ever expanding and growing world economy in conjucntion with globalization ( technology bringing us closer together) and the dot.com era of the 90's... the was literally in the right place at the right time. So while well intentioned there's a whole other stratosphere that you're missing.Not to take away anything from Jordan, but players most consider he surpassed, he couldn’t beat except Magic, and that was in Earvin’s final real year. Jordan couldn’t ever get by Bird’s Celtics, or the Bad Boy Pistons at first. Dr. J. had already declined and was soon out after MJ came aboard. To some degree, Shaq, Tim, and Kobe were too young to face him when it counted most. Again, not to take away anything from MJ, but a lot of the reasons why people pick him as the GOAT is because that’s what the media was calling him. The media didn’t talk about a GOAT much back in the early days, that wasn’t in vogue, and as noted, the league was struggling financially. It may have gone broke if not for Larry Bird and Magic Johnson coming into the league and renewing the Celtics Lakers rivalry. Those two set the stage for the NBA we enjoy today. Is MJ the real GOAT? Myself, I value big men more and would tend to pick Wilt or Kareem ahead of him, but he is the consensus GOAT, and a kit of that has to do with what we are told to believe. Same situation with Bill Russell.
You value big men...but by and large they have it easy...all they really have to do is park their ass in the paint and wait for the ball to be dumped to them...Most big men don't face presses / pressure..sure they can get doubled but they don't have to work to bring the ball up and setup their teammates...So while they're both important I value the back court more. Big men naturally have the FG% inflated because of the dunk...It takes much more creativity and skill to play wing or in the backcourt. In the last 20 yrs minus Shaq and Kobe (co-equals ) big man lead teams have won a total of 6 les ( 2 Houston and 4 Spurs) whereas guard / forward led teams have won a total of 11 ( Bulls 6, Pistons 1, Heat 1, Boston 1, Lakers 2)
I'm ok with devaluing Russell's rings...but to make the case that Russell is not top 10 and Duncan is or even top 5 is laughable...Allow me to do a couple of hypotheticals. Duncan is likely a top 10 player of all time. Let’s place him in the Russell era, how would he compare to Wilt and Russell? Let’s forget about rings. He would be just as great a rebounder, shot blocker, and big man defender as either of those two players. Tim wouldn’t score as much Wilt did, but he would score a lot more than Russell did, and be Wilt’s main rival. Other than Wilt’s fallaway bankshot, he never shot from mid range as Tim did, and Duncan’s bank shot is more pure of a shot, and deadlier. Clearly Duncan is a better player than Bill Russell from this comparison alone. It also solidifies Tim as a legit top 10 player. Is Tim top 5? It’s arguable versus Bird, but clearly Russell is not top 5. Most people have a top 5 of MJ, Wilt, Kareem, Magic, and Bird. If Russell is added, he usually takes Wilt’s place. Now, one more subs ution that was suggested by Jamstone. Ben Wallace for Bill Russell. Here you have a defensive oriented big man who can’t shoot. Essentially, you have the same player. Is Ben Wallace even top 50 all time? Clearly, as noted in my top 20 thread above, Russell doesn’t even belong in a top 20 list.Tim Duncan may be top 15 -20 nothing more nothing less...You do have to look at the complete package...including player impact from a global perspective...Despite his les Timmy has not added to the game's innovation and revolution. He's not added fans to the bottom line across the broader spectrum. He's liked by the media because he has a house z mentality he's a maid servant so to speak and they eat that up..He's not a global icon nor revolutionary...
But the question is who was their compe ion enroute to those les...let me extrapolate...Has the Spurs championship experience gotten them anywhere since 07. The Spurs may be experienced but guess what...you need to factor who's standing in front of them......is there a more experienced team in front of them... ing aye...The reason Boston won those last 3 les was due to championship experience. That I the main reason you can’t yet write off the San Antonio Spurs.
You carry some good knowledge of the game but I see elements of you trying to appease or appear fair and balanced to a wanting, hopeful, and prayerful Spur fanbase...
Midget Night is in ing love...but I wanna see you make that midget dance...I will pay prime $$$ to see dat ...
sup how you been? you alrite?
holla at the mistress for me, america eating my lunch, etc.
writing books tbh
Napoleon Syndrome...midget needs to be seen....
Let's review your latest effort.Napoleon Syndrome...midget needs to be seen....
....
ty smack.
Grade: F
You shouldn't let Kool get your panties all soaked...you a mad man 2nite midget...running from thread to thread...
Manu Ginobili > Tim Duncan because he has more global appeal!
Were you born this stupid, or did pops take a 2x4 to your head at some point when you were growing up?
That's cool. Did you play it on your date:
What's wrong with you Pakis letting a soldier rape your camel while you play the cuckold?You midgets gave good ol Laker Newman a ton of over that classic. What's wrong with you short people.
You midgets gave good ol Laker Newman a ton of over that classic. What's wrong with you short people.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
